I've been contemplating writing this manifesto-like piece for a while now, and while I felt it might have been inappropriate for a blog which attempts to express an unbiased views on most films, I've come to the conclusion that, if written properly, this speculation may be able to give a complete, factual representation of what we might expect from
A Nightmare on Elm Street.
I've been a big fan of the original film (which will be abbreviated as
NOES from here on) for as long as I can remember. The sequels too, though I waver in how much I appreciate the more ridiculous ones. The plot grabbed me from the very beginning, because dreams are very strange phenomena to scientists even now, and we don't know specifically how they work. Setting a film in a dream world allows for a multitude of different thematic elements; in fact, the sky's the limit when it comes to horror in dreams, as dreams can be manipulated to incorporate all kinds of unrealistic ideas. As represented in
NOES 3: Dream Warriors, both the protagonists and Freddy have the ability to change dreams into their own creations, allowing for strange and fantastic details that would be limiting to other horror films.
The original
NOES had done that, utilizing a fairly generic plot model from other slashers and enlarging it to something much greater because of the dream world. It helps, too, that Freddy's voice, visage, and claw were images that stuck in the brain. It's bad enough that Freddy can get you in your dreams; it's made ten times worse when you realize you've got two strikes against you because of his giant claw-hand.
NOES had a somewhat mousy protagonist in Nancy, who urges the
viewer to root for her against the odds. And Robert Englund, the actor who made Freddy the icon that he is today... well, it seems a travesty to replace or redo him, doesn't it?
But that's exactly what the upcoming remake attempts to do, and, on the one hand, I can see why tackling a horror classic would be an achievement. To overcome the original, to create something memorable out of what others already love - it's a risky move, one that I can stand behind as a plus for slasher remakes. The trend of remaking slashers is not a new one, and honestly,
NOES is one of the last great slashers to receive this honor (or curse). In the past few years, we've seen
Prom Night, Halloween, Friday the 13th, and
My Bloody Valentine (along with the DTV release of
April Fool's Day) redone, each with their own distinct receptions.
Halloween was a mixed bag, with some really loving it and others regretting the affair.
Prom Night, I felt, was a huge waste of money, time, and energy, for both crew and audience members alike, and the same feeling held true for
My Bloody Valentine, which at least tried to utilize 3D to its advantage. I've yet to see
Friday the 13th, but I've heard mixed reviews as well.
Are remakes doomed to fail? I don't think so, at least not if the makers have the right ideas in mind. If the main goal in remaking the film is to make money off of a dying franchise (here's to you,
Saw, even though I see the new one every Halloween), then yes, the film will almost surely fail. If the remake is at least partially in reverence to films of yore, and made with the right amount of faithfulness to the original, it's possible to make a good remake. We haven't seen much of that in recent years, surely, and part of that does have to deal with money. But enough about the bucks.
Viewing the trailer for
NOES leaves me in a state of confusion. I have to admit, the trailer is pretty slick. Starting off with a faithful yet updated telling of Krueger's killing, which makes Freddy look almost innocent because of his dialogue, is enough to leave me feeling giddy. It's never a bad idea to give the monster a bit of pity.
The soundtrack is also pulsing and creepy, a good thing that drives the viewer along. The glimpses of scenes we get are intense, well put-together, and highlight some of the horror one might see along the way. We get snatches of memorable, homage-like shots, like the hand in Nancy's bath. And we get new, more abstract images of the town in ash.
But what we must remember is that good shots don't necessarily make the movie. For all we know, these could be the best scenes of the movie and the rest surrounded by useless acting and filler. Who knows? We've seen trailer techniques before that make the film look amazing and yet the film itself fails to live up to the 2 minutes of footage that looked so great.
There are things that the new
NOES has going for it right off the bat. Having a strong Freddy is one; so far, I have not been unhappy with a Jackie Earle Haley performance, so I have faith in the fact that Haley can carry the weight of Englund's role. We also have an experienced cast member in Katie Cassidy, who starred in the CBS series
Harper's Island and who looks to have a big role in the film.
The use of scenes from the original
NOES has me worried, though. These could either be pulled off very well, giving credit where credit is due and then expanding on them for the new audience, or they could totally undercut what
NOES originally did, bringing to mind how great the original is. It's a toss-up.
Otherwise, though, it's difficult to tell how good
NOES will be until it's here. When compared with the other remakes that have come before it, I don't have much faith in what a contemporary film studio can do with a slasher films. But I also have to weigh the pros and cons of everything that we have seen coming out of the film. Reshoots? Yep, which tells me the filmmakers really do care about what their audience likes and dislikes.
So what's the conclusion here? I know that this speculation must sound pretty jumbled, and it hasn't really made much headway in solving my qualms with the remake. But in writing this, I think that I have come to the conclusion that:
From what I've seen, A Nightmare on Elm Street looks to be a pretty. solid. flick.
The April 30th release can't come soon enough.