Over the past several years, director/producer Michael Bay’s production company, Platinum Dunes, has attempted to breathe new life into old, stale horror franchises. After tackling Leatherface (“The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”), the horrors in Amityville (“The Amityville Horror”), and Jason Voorhees (“Friday the 13th”); it was only a matter of time before Freddy Krueger was given his re-imagined due.
“A Nightmare on Elm Street” follows a group of teenagers whose dreams are being invaded by a mysterious, disfigured man named Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley). One by one the teens are killed within their dreams, while simultaneously dying in the real world. As time is running out, those still alive soon discover that they all share a common dark secret from their past that not only links them to each other, but Freddy as well.
Like virtually every other horror franchise launched in the eighties, Wes Craven’s original installment, “A Nightmare on Elm Street”, was easily the best the series ever had to offer. And as was the case with all of those other franchises, with each subsequent entry any quality this series may have once held was fast becoming nothing more than a distant memory.
To be honest, I was never all that impressed by this particular horror franchise to begin with. So, the fact that the sequels became worse as the years went by didn’t really bother me one bit. However, it was quite obvious that by the series’ final entry, 1994’s “New Nightmare”, Freddy had lost his menace, and had devolved into a shadow of what he had once been.
Despite my lack of interest or enjoyment in the original franchise, like his fellow slashers before him (Jason, Leatherface, and Michael), the only way he could feasibly continue his grisly misdeeds (aside from Direct-to-DVD), would be to reboot/re-imagine the character and his story for a new generation of horror fans. This is exactly what director Samuel Bayer (best known for music videos) and screenwriters Wesley Strick (“Cape Fear”) and Eric Heisserer set out to do.
With this updated look at the venerable horror icon, the writers did away with or changed numerous franchise staples in order to take the series back to its darker roots. No longer does Freddy let loose with one-liners from his apparently extensive repertoire of gallows humor. Nor does he really toy with his victims in their dreams; instead, he knows that at a moments notice they could awaken and spoil his plans. Thus, Freddy now dispenses with his prey in as expedient and savage a manner as possible.
Plus, Freddy’s disfigured appearance is no longer as grotesquely stylized, so to speak, but is much more realistic and menacing than ever before. Granted this is more to do with the make-up artist than the writers; however, the make-up would have to take its cue from somewhere.
As for the story, unlike 2009’s re-imagining of “Friday the 13th” which essentially distilled all of the high points from the original series into one movie, this one seeks to basically remake the original Wes Craven film. The main plot points are generally the same as before, but the writing is somewhat improved upon and the characters don’t seem nearly as annoying in nature. Plus, the circumstances surrounding Freddy’s appearance and his link to the teenagers are much more chilling than in his original background story.
Even though the story is an improvement over what has come before, the movie still seems to stumble about and feel repetitive in some places. Part of this is the result of the story taking too long to establish exactly what is driving Freddy to kill and why he has targeted these particular teens. And even though this is a remake, I wonder why the writers chose to recreate many of the scares and kills we had already seen in the original film?
I understand showcasing one or two of the memorable scenes, but not almost every single one of them. Because of this repetition from the original, the whole thing started to feel far too predictable after awhile. Just like with Rob Zombie’s first “Halloween” remake, once the movie got past the original backstory element that Zombie had created, the movie became a replay of everything we’ve seen before. However, unlike that film, this remake actually packed much more intensity and terror into the reused scares and death sequences from the original. So, even though it was rehashing what we’d seen before, at least it was more effective this time around. But, even so, that still wasn’t enough.
Anyway, moving along… Now, let’s look at the fodder thrown Freddy’s way over the course of the movie. The cast of actors and actresses chosen to portray the various teenagers being hunted by Freddy were average at best. A few of them did show some potential such as Kyle Gallner (TV’s “Smallville”) and Rooney Mara (“The Social Network”). These young actors had a fairly solid chemistry together, and out of the entire group of teens they seemed the most genuine and invested in their roles. That being said, they still came across as flat throughout many scenes.
Then there’s Thomas Dekker, who tries his level best to play the bad boy of the group, but he instead comes off as distant, clichéd, and above all bored with the role. Personally, I never thought Thomas was all that good of an actor on TV’s “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles”, but I thought maybe he would have improved in the time since its cancellation. Apparently not, mediocrity must just be his strong suit. But, I digress.
Let us be honest though, with this type of movie most viewers don’t really give too much of a care towards the prey, they’re always more interested in the predator hunting them. This statement proves to be even more applicable when it comes to the legends of the genre.
So, how does Jackie Earle Haley handle filling in Robert Englund’s striped sweater and razor-fingered glove? To put it simply, he is terrifyingly perfect for the role. Jackie breaks out his surprisingly gruff, guttural voice, reminiscent of what he used as Rorschach in “Watchmen”, to chilling effect. From each anger-filled word he utters, movement he makes, and deadly action he takes, every second of his portrayal is teeming with evil and malice. Forget Robert Englund, there’s a new Freddy in town (I’m sure that statement will draw some ire from the more hardcore fans, but oh well).
After 26 years and seven movies (eight if you count “Freddy Vs Jason”), finally we have a Freddy Krueger that I believe can truly instill fear into his audience. While this movie has its fair share of problems plaguing it along the way, there is some potential to be found here. Perhaps a sequel, not tied directly to the original series, will allow this rebooted franchise to really cut loose.
“A Nightmare on Elm Street” is rated R for grisly violence, disturbing images, and language.