There is a lot of potential in a film like A Nightmare on Elm Street. Think about it! Where else are we more vulnerable than in our sleep? The usual rules don’t apply and often as we strive to make sense of it all, we fail to remain in control of our dreams. Dreams can take us anywhere from golden paradises to hellish infernos. Keeping that in mind, a film could deliver an experience that is elaborate as it is psychological.
Samuel Bayer’s retelling of Wes Craven’s slasher classic is the complete opposite. There is next to no psychology used in the film, and the dreamworlds are far from elaborate. Dreams can often reflect a one’s personality. For example, the new Nancy is a creative loner, who spends a great deal of the film painting. Her nightmares should reflect that. More so, nightmares should force upon us our deepest and darkest fears. If a character has a profound fear of spiders, what is better to frighten him to death with than tarantulas?
If Freddy was really this powerful force in control of these kids’ dreams, couldn’t he conjure up something a bit more interesting and scary than a library? The nightmares in this film rarely take us anywhere other than the very room where the characters have fallen asleep. Yes, the filmmakers are trying to trick us into missing the nightmarish transition by blurring the lines a bit. We get it! The audience is smarter than New Line seems to think. They’ve only been using the same gimmick since 1984! From the moment that character yawns, we know they are in the process of falling asleep. So why not take us somewhere far more nightmarish?
Story-wise, the remake doesn’t follow the same narrative of the original Nightmare, but often pays tribute, while expanding upon the Krueger lore. While Bayer drags out the ambiguity as long as he can, ultimately Jackie Earl Haley’s Freddy Krueger is practically same character he’s been for 26 years. His original crime and subsequent revenge are still the same, but his motives are slightly different. No longer is Krueger directing his vengeance towards the parents that killed him by slaying the children of Springwood, but is instead getting revenge on the very kids that ratted him out . Personally, I found the original concept a bit more poetic on Krueger’s part.
The teenagers he’s after are another issue all together. It’s a crime how much personality is lacking in our heroes. Rarely do they have any real conversations about anything other than exposition, and they come to the realization that a man is killing them in their dreams a bit too quickly. Wouldn’t a real person go through a lengthy denial stage before reaching that conclusion? I suspect that stage, along with any kind of character development, was sacrificed for the film’s short running time.
While the general target audience of a film of this nature isn’t concerned about story or characters, even as a horror film, it isn’t particularly scary or suspenseful. Ultimately, the staging is sluggish and daft. Despite having a powerful device (dreams) at their disposal, the filmmakers opt to continue their reliance on the standard slasher routines, right down to the “vulnerable girl in dark hallway” scenarios. Even then, they find ways to botch these tiring cliches. A boy walks into a kitchen. Five seconds later, there’s Freddy! Krueger’s entrances were clearly an afterthought. Technically, with his power, Freddy could use the entire room to gulp up his victims. Instead, he pops up directly behind the characters like all the full-blooded slasher icons do. In this particular instance, the only thing that separates Freddy Krueger from Jason Voorhees (other than the ability to speak) is that Jason doesn’t chase us in our dreams. Then again, they never quite feel like dreams.
So are there any redeeming qualities from this experience? Well, the cinematography isn’t bad and the orchestrated version of Charles Bernstein’s infamous Freddy melody is top notch. But on the other hand, the slightly off cinematography of the original Nightmare added to the otherworldly experience of that film, and there is little life and emotion to the rest of Steve Jablonsky’s score. So, in other words, not really! Boyer’s Nightmare is a 95 minute long borefest, and until a truly psychological Nightmare film is made (my guess is never), I suggest that you just stick with Wes Craven’s two Freddy films for the time being.
Tags: Freddy Krueger, Nightmare on Elm Street 2010, Review
If you enjoyed this article, be sure and subscribe to the full RSS feed so you never miss another.
You can also have new posts sent straight to your email by subscribing to the email feed.