Skip to main content

A Nightmare on Elm Street (remake)

I'm always skeptical of Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes' remakes/reboots of horror movies which seems to be all they live on. Frankly, they have produced a lot of crap, but they did make ones where for the most part I enjoyed (Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake would be one, Friday the 13th would be another). I understand from a business standpoint why movie studios would make these, but from the perspective of a fanboy, it makes no sense. Why play with history? Why recreate the wheel?

Now, I enjoyed the original Nightmare on Elm Street but I can't say that I was the hugest fan of the series. I was exposed to the series later on in life (during my teen years) whereas I was introduced to Friday the 13th at a more young and impressionable age. For that reason, Jason Voorhees was always a more lasting (and life scarring) figure than Freddy Krueger.

The movie follows a bunch of teens as they unravel a mystery surrounding the grisly deaths of a group of teenagers in town. The deaths are peculiar as they all occurred while the victims were asleep. On their search, they unravel a mystery surrounding the town and their childhood past all leading to a man thought to be dead named Freddy Krueger. But their journey is made tougher as they need to stay awake or risk falling asleep and entering the dream world where Krueger dominates.

This movie was crap. The script that they had to work with was terrible and the direction of the movie left lots to be desired. NOES is supposed to be a slasher style horror movie — a genre that prides on high body counts and creative deaths. If I recall correctly, *SPOILER* the movie had a grand total of two deaths. Maybe three, but that's it. At least in the Friday the 13th reboot, even though there weren't many creative deaths, there were still at least a considerable amount of deaths. That's the fun of slashers. They essentially took away the fun. No Johnny-Depp style waterbed death a la the original NOES. And it's not like they made the rest of the movie compelling. Frankly, it was quite boring and sleep inducing. Is it ironic that I fell asleep for parts of a Nightmare on Elm Street? I don't know.

I think the only positive thing I can think of was the casting of Jackie Earle Haley in the role of Freddy Krueger. He had big shoes to fill after Robert Englund perfected the role in the earlier series. Haley worked for me. While Englund's Krueger was more of a wacky, creepy, psychotic killer, Haley was more dark, serious and to the point. Englund's was always fun for the one-liners while Haley's was more for terror.

So folks, this one is a skip. But hey, we're in the middle of the summer blockbuster movie season, so I'm sure you'll find plenty else to go and watch (I take that back, really, there's not anything really good out). Later geeks!

Comments

Mike said…
I would definitely agree with you on this, what a disappointment. Jackie Earle Haley was decent but the movie overall was so boring i couldn't wait to get out of there. No kills, Bad story, bad actors. Bleh, what a waste.

Popular posts from this blog

Dreamers, Achievers, Believers

It was quite a week last week. It started off on a more heavy note last Sunday, but as the week wore on, things became better and more clear. So let's do a little recap. This is going to be kind of long, so if you find this kind of stuff boring I've inserted pictures of funny cats for your entertainment. So... 1.5 Weeks Ago About 1.5 weeks ago, my friend Jon from Living Room gave me the contact info for his uncle. His uncle is an engineer and apparently was looking for new grads and new hands to hire. That week, I gave him a few calls but he wasn't there when I called him and when he returned my calls, I wasn't here either. We were playing phone tag that week *insert schoolgirl giggle*. Sunday Morning So last Sunday morning, his uncle gave me a call at 9 am (The morning! My weakness! HISS!) and we talked about stuff. I was telling him a bit about school as well as elaborating my work/coop experience as he didn't have my resume yet. So he goes on to tell

The Science of God

Not too long ago, two of my friends had posted their thoughts on evolution and creationism. Both friends shared similar sentiments on the topic (you can view Skylar's here and Keith's here ). Coincidence or not, shortly before they made their postings, I purchased a book called The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, which was based on the same topic. Unfortunately, at the time of my friend's postings, I had not finished the book, but now I have. In The Science of God , Schroeder attempts to debunk the dichotomy that exists between science/evolution and creationism. He tries to show that there can exist a duality between the two and that discoveries in science actually prove the story of creation in the bible. The book can be roughly divided into three categories that being the concepts of time, the second with the biology of evolution, and lastly the concept of free will. In describing time, he focuses on the 6 days that are explained in the beginning of Genes

MAX PAYNE was oh so PAYNEFUL!!!

What a failure this was. An EPIC FAILURE~! And I'll tell you why. This movie had everything going for it which was why it made the failure seem so huge. It had star power. It had a very competent director. The visual style was there. It had a simple storyline... a storyline that was basically fuck-proof because it's so basic. The effects (when there were any) were also pretty great. So where did they go wrong? Pacing. If the first two-thirds of the film was like the last third, I think it would have been a fine film. Not great by any means, but fine. I mean, there was hardly any action in the first hour. It was all talk and build up. Every 5 minutes I was saying to myself, "okay, something cool is gonna happen now". But it never came. I think had they added 2 or 3 big action sequences during that hour, that it would have helped the film breathe and flow better. I mean, didn't they realize that the source material was an action game? Max Payne is