[Screening Date: April 28 / Release Date: April 30]
Say what you will about scary movies, but the good ones always find a way to get under your skin and stay there. What I’ve enjoyed about the “Nightmare On Elm Street” franchise above most others is the primal level on which its terror takes place. The things that haunt our dreams are supposed to be fake and harmless -- especially once we’ve woken up -- but the “Nightmare” movies (the better installments, anyway) challenge that perception of safety.
In all honesty, this is one of those horror films that didn’t *need* to be remade… or rebooted or re-imagined or whatever they’re calling it these days. The original 1984 film completely holds up on its own merits without becoming dated by any of the endless sequels that have followed (though 1994’s “New Nightmare,” which took place in the real world and featured Freddy going after the cast and crew, was quite clever on a meta level). However, since it seems to be inevitable in creativity-starved Hollywood, at least this entry avoids all the mistakes made by last year’s atrocious attempt at reviving “Friday The 13th.”
This time around, the tone is well-set right off the bat. An evocative opening credits sequence superimposes a standard font over scrawled versions of the same words while fuzzy images related to the plot and themes fade in and out of focus. As if that weren’t enough, an effectively creepy instrumental score interpolates the original film’s theme music without directly ripping it off. From there, I’m pretty sure you have a good idea of what happens next!
Samuel Bayer, an accomplished director of commercials and music videos known for such iconic clips as Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and Blind Melon’s “No Rain,” makes his feature film debut. Interestingly enough, his background serves the look and style of the movie rather well. As the characters desperately try to stay awake, his placement of quick cuts (sometimes literally, haha) between dreams and reality make you experience the effects of sleep deprivation right along with them.
On a refreshing note, while special effects have come a long way since 1984, very little has changed in the way this story is told visually. None of the thankfully sparse computer-generated elements feel overdone, and the simple film trick that overlaps the dreams and the waking world is a nice touch that still facilitates the surreal nature of these scenes. Even the recent advents of technology, namely cell phones and laptops, offer minimal plot intrusion.
Now, on to why I’m sure you’re really reading: the fright factor! Though it’s hard to miss the basic A-to-B outline of the plot, there were some genuinely good scares achieved by lulling the audience into a false sense of security after a few close calls. In fact, the movie emerges nicely from early shadows and sound effects to its first full views of Freddy, which makes his presence that much more sinister. Speaking of sinister, the death scenes were shot relatively tactfully, with only as much blood as needed to get across the point… and certainly far less gory than many recent horror films.
Underneath all the bad dreams, the young actors having them are likable enough by day and convincingly terrified enough by night to miss once they’re gone (or close enough to it for a lucky few). Needless to say, the real star of course is Freddy, played in this version by Jackie Earle Haley. With all due respect to the Robert Englund incarnation in all his campy, bad-punning glory, this interpretation of the character is appropriately more menacing and all the better for it. The work put into Haley’s makeup and voice to be more authentic and indicative of a burn victim adds to the unnerving atmosphere, particularly in close-ups. Englund’s Freddy makes me roll my eyes and laugh; Haley’s Freddy makes me afraid that he WILL come after me in my dreams!
My only major complaint with the film is that no serious liberties are taken; it’s almost *too* faithful of a remake. The governing idea behind remakes (other than ideal financial gain for those involved) is artistic: to bring something new to the material or flesh out what was already there while retaining the spirit of its source. This particular “Nightmare On Elm Street” manages to do both and neither at the same time. Some scenes exactly replicate what happened in the original film; some scenes are noticeably absent. Other scenes contribute unique, fleeting visual or performance flourishes; other scenes read further between the lines than one may deem absolutely necessary, especially with regard to Freddy’s past. The one lesson that most horror movies will never learn is that sometimes, NOT knowing is scarier than anything a script could tell us.
In the end, we’re left with the possibility of yet another sequel, as someone at the scene of the final battle mentions in passing that “there’s no sign of [Freddy’s] body.” The collective gasp and giggle that swept through the audience proves that there’s room for more, even after Freddy pops up one last time. Overall, fans of the original film and subsequent franchise won’t find any real shocks or surprises, but newer audiences meeting Freddy and friends for the first time just might. Which begs the question: are you better off just watching the original? Since both movies offer the same innovative (at one time) concept, it all depends on your mood as a viewer. How do you like your Freddy? I’ll take the one that actually makes “Nightmare” a scary movie. {B-}
No comments:
Post a Comment