The new Nightmare On Elm Street

[High Priest Mikhal]

When it comes to remakes people only seem to remember the crap. A remake can be pure gold.

The 1990 remake of Night Of The Living Dead

Amen to that!

That being said, I was never that much of a fan of the franchise. In fact I found Freddy Versus Jason the most enjoyable of all. Love that flick.

Heresy!

LOL! I get that a lot.

Part 1: Innovative. Genuinely scary. With grade A practical effects.

Part 2: Overlooked and a brave and bold move. The unusual and dangerous choice to play up the homoeroticism of Freddy and play up a possible homosexual attraction between Freddy and the lead character was brilliant. Give this film another look.

Parts 3-6: Freddy becomes a Batman villain.

New Nightmare: ... how much weed did Wes smoke when he wrote this?

Remake: Not terrible, but they missed an opportunity. 5/10

1 and 3-6 I enjoyed, even if Freddy started to lose that primal terror in favor of pop-culture references, bad jokes, and one-liners. Part 2 was just weird and didn't feel like a "Nightmare" to me; it's good, but it doesn't truly feel like a proper ANOES movie with Freddy acting in real life and not the nightmare world. New Nightmare is less a traditional ANOES movie and more "what would happen if Freddy was real and started to impose his reality on known reality?" In fact in the Gothic Journals, New Nightmare is Wes Craven's last ditch attempt to tell the world that a Freddy-like being is very, very real--a bogeyman fey. Few realize what he's trying to say, but enough do that the protags begin to hunt him--it--down when the creature escapes its bonds of the story and begins wreaking real havoc. But that's not for a while yet.

Since I haven't seen the remake I can't say anything about it.

[Zettaijin]

I'm of the opinion that the first NoES has aged badly, but one cannot deny its profound impact on popular culture. Dreamscape came out a few months before the original movie (not to mention that the novella that inspired Dreamscape) yet failed to capture the imagination of moviegoers.

Probably because of the slick (and often quite inspired) sexual imagery of ANoES and the sheer iconic value of Freddy.

The sequel's rather overt tale of repressed homosexuality and the potential repressed homosexual urges in certain male bullies was an interesting departure from horror movies of the day, although again the movie often failed to really accomplish more than collect cool sequences and scenes.

Craven's return with the Final Nightmare also marked the director's final step into hip post-modern self-awareness and ironic humour Hell. I find it to be a prelude to Scream and its slew of knock offs, with Craven testing the waters for his yet to come blockbuster.

Final Nightmare is certainly more tolerable than Scream, yet I always felt a certain amount of annoyance at Craven's constant winking to the audience.

[Manofevil]

I found Freddy v Jason an interesting departure from both franchises. I've only seen a few of the Friday movies but I don't remember Jason ever killing more than 4 or 5 at a time. The most Krueger ever killed in one rampage was 6. F v J was a full blown bloodbath! The final body count was 18 in one setting- a record for both killers. What made it different was that it included the horror of the battlefield in addition to that brought by both franchises. No more of that lurking in the shadows stuff, this was full blown hack and slash butchery the likes of which haven't been seen in America since the Gangs of New York settled things in the streets with bricks, bats, axes, and knives. It's something we just don't see anymore due to the proliferation of firearms. I thought it was very wise of the filmmakers to bring this particular kind of combat back for this movie. Frankly, I fail to see the problem with it.

[High Priest Mikhal]

F. vs. J. was an idea that had been around since the very first ANOES movie came out. Both bad guys targeted teenagers (well, mostly teens in the case of Jason) and from that simple link the idea was born. Not unlike Alien vs. Predator, though I haven't seen or heard of any sort of fiction about Freddy and Jason duking it out prior to the actual movie. At least no official fiction, but a lot of fanfics.

I disagree Zettaijin, the first ANOES is still a classic because it draws on something all humans can relate to: the inescapable fears in nightmares. It isn't the movie(s) that have aged badly, it's the culture. One that gave up on things like an engaging story and simple terror tactics in favor of flashy special effects and stereotypical characters that rehashed the same story over and over in a dozen different incarnations. Writers and directors got lazy and stopped trying. Sadly, so did the viewing public. If it's not filled to overflowing with fancy SFX and predictable roles, people don't want it. Even if it is, too few bother to pay actual attention to the story or its underlying moral, if any.

[Zettaijin]

As a pre-teen, I was exposed early on to movies such as Halloween, ANoES, Friday the 13th and a host of other North American "classics." I even revisited Universal's monster pictures for reference, along with a few Hammer pics (not that I really knew anything about Hammer at the time).

As a teenager, I cut my teeth on late night showings of various Euro trash flicks as my fanatical devotion to the horror rags of the day grew. Although chopped up by censors or merely cropped for TV time slot purposes, De Ossorio's Blind Dead, Bianchi's The Night of Terror, and Fulci's The Beyond all had a profond impact on my cinematic tastes at that point in time. My first viewing of Argento's Suspiria was akin to a spiritual experience of the highest magnitude.

As a young adult, I experimented with Japanese horror cinema. Ringu left me a little old, but I was determined to see what was out there. Eventually, I discovered weird stories of phallic monsters and gangsters, of vampires and dentists, and teenage girls visiting mysterious, reclusive aunts living in haunted houses.

Today, my journey into horror cinema has taken me in interesting directions. I've seen bizarre and moralistic Nigerian Christian sect financed flicks held up as prime examples of great filmmaking by natives and low budget pap by foreigners. Various South East Asian ghost stories translated to the screen with rudimentary special effects and curious directorial decisions. I've laughed, as many have, at the more pathetic attempts at Indian horror, with each pot bellied dime store fang sporting vampire illiciting equal measure massive guffaws and endless fascination. I've even started watching the horror meets martial arts productions of the Shaw Brothers and their thinly veiled jingoistic views of South East Asia as a world of dark, mysterious magic and primitive people.

And my heart has a special place for all those who toiled away with non-existent budgets and inexperienced actors in the American indy scene of the late 70's and early 80's. All those artisans who looked up to the likes of Doris Wishman and H.G. Lewis.

In short, I am most certainly not a neophyte or one of those supposedly vapid contemporary fans whose steady diet of Scream and Saw sequels left them as empty as those unfortunate victims of Larry Cohen's alien dessert in The Stuff.

Despite, or perhaps because of all this baggage, I now find ANoES to be uneven, overhyped and possibly the object of idealized, selective memories. It is after all a striking movie at times, filled with vivid, imaginative, and rather evocative sexual imagery. At a time when the slasher genre seemed poised to alienate movie goers with its frankly boring, pedestrian usage of nudity and sexual content (both could have been used in better and more interesting ways than what most slasher directors could drum up), ANoES did seem like a breath of fresh air.

A bulge in the sheets, Freddy's tongue coming out of the telephone, that sinister gloved hand gliding straight into virginial Nancy's nether regions: someone was hard at work dreaming up (no pun intended) sinister shots heavy with sexual connotations. And really, what people remember, besides iconic villain Kruger's razor tipped gloves, is those nightmarish scenes where sex and potential violence meet. Craven's talent for perversion is what we remember best.

If rid of these inventive money shots, ANoES doesn't really have much more than a rough outline of potential social issues, a cool premise, an instantly recognizable villain, and a surprisingly likeable and personable protagonist. Its story is thin and hints at possibly intriguing ideas which are never fully explored at the risk of slowing the pace or distracting us from the cooler scenes (which are all SFX heavy, by the way). Parental indequacy is often on display with Nancy's (stereotypically) overprotective conservative dad and boozy mom (a great if slightly over the top performance by Ronee Blakley, actually) providing us with examples of parents behaving badly. Teenagers are horny and rebellious or virginial and apt to be perverted, as per slasher conventions, which I guess fits the bill for a psychoanalytical nightmare, but the inexperienced cast end up unable to go beyond the limited script.

Craven could have explored the idea of vigilante justice in smalltown USA and the sins of the past coming back to haunt future generations, but he seemed too busy infusing every deadly dream with creepy libidinous images.

In the end though, ANoES isn't a bad movie per se - it certainly stands head and shoulders above the cookie cutter slashers of the era - but it doesn't live up to the hype. At its best, it ressembles an American version of Fulci's The Beyond: a collection of nightmarish set pieces held together by something ressembling a rudimentary story. Only, Fulci's set pieces were better and his story thinner, whereas Craven's classic didn't have the same mind warping quality and featured a more solid, albeit still flimsy story to back it up. Still, it's style over substance, which isn't a bad thing really if done well enough.

[High Priest Mikhal]

Craven could have explored the idea of vigilante justice in smalltown USA and the sins of the past coming back to haunt future generations, but he seemed too busy infusing every deadly dream with creepy libidinous images.

Was that Craven's doing? Or Hollywood's? New Line Cinema made some changes to the script that would make me as a writer cry, most notably the ending. In the original script, Nancy was to have beaten Krueger by no longer believing in him, stripping him of his power--an element that was only partially preserved in the final film and later used heavily in Freddy vs. Jason. Craven actually quit the series when NLC decided to make it a franchise. The only "sequel" Craven actually directed was New Nightmare, which was much closer to his original idea of a sinister, truly evil Freddy that lacked glamor and was all menace. Even his description of how "pure evil can be temporarily defeated if its essence is effectively captured in a work of art that is able to allow evil to express itself" was both an homage to his original idea and a jab at New Line for changing it around so much.

In the end though, ANoES isn't a bad movie per se - it certainly stands head and shoulders above the cookie cutter slashers of the era - but it doesn't live up to the hype. At its best, it ressembles an American version of Fulci's The Beyond: a collection of nightmarish set pieces held together by something ressembling a rudimentary story. Only, Fulci's set pieces were better and his story thinner, whereas Craven's classic didn't have the same mind warping quality and featured a more solid, albeit still flimsy story to back it up. Still, it's style over substance, which isn't a bad thing really if done well enough.

On that I agree completely. ANOES and its sequels do have something of a semi-solid story, especially compared to others that came out at the time. I admit I'm biased about ANOES; that was one of the gateway movies that got me into horror in general. There are others with less SFX but better stories, even if I can't remember the names of half of them, but for me the first Nightmare will always hold a special place in my heart. So forgive or forget my ranting. Horror is one of the few things I feel passionate about.

The so-called "Euro trash flicks" are some of my favorite horror movies as well--even if, as I said, I can't remember the names. Some like "Zombi" I've looked all over for and had no luck in finding again. Another one is something like "Demon 3," where the world was attacked by demons that could come out of the TV and possess mortals who could then bring more demons into the world; the plot I remember is one where the initial invasion had been stopped with many areas still in ruins, and that a young woman is celebrating her birthday and then leaves the party for a moment, looking into a TV only to be possessed and unleash the horror all over again. Can anyone tell me if that's "Demon 3" and/or who directed it? And what the prequels were? It seems like the prequels were either named differently or never released in America.

[Zettaijin]

Actually, that's Demons 2 by Lamberto Bava, son of legendary Italian director Mario Bava (but having only a small fraction of his famous dad's talent). It really doesn't differ from the original in any significant way, with the setting for the demon invasion (which is in many ways a zombie invasion in disguise) being changed from that of a theatre to an appartment complex.

The demon out of the TV set scene is one of the better moments of Demons 2, and the girl being attacked is none other than Dario Argento's daughter, Asia. Daddy's little girl before daddy dearest started having her appear in the buff in his movies and taking sexually ambiguous pictures with her...

Anyhow, stick with the original as the sequel merely apes the first (which isn't exactly great or anything, although it does have its share of gross out moments and a serious amount of B-movie night appeal).

Demon and its sequel were both widely available on VHS during the 80's. Later, both mvoies were released on DVD as a double feature. Again, they were all but rare and elusive as I've found both many times in larger music stores here in Montreal. You should be able to get them for a song on Ebay.

Zombie/Zombi 2 is a sort-of would be sequel to Dawn of the Dead by Lucio Fulci. Sort of in that tying it to the Romero zombie flick was little more than an attempt at cashing in on the former's incredible popularity in Europe. In fact, Zombi is the Italian title for Dawn of the Dead, hence the title Zombi 2. Re-released under the title Zombie Flesh Eaters and Zombie only served to further confusion among less knowledgeable horror fans.

Mentions of Jean Rollin Among the Living Dead's alternate title of Zombie 4 didn't help matters.

Zombi 2 will be forever remembered for pitting a shark against a zombie and Tisa Farrow's (Mia's less famous sister) perpetual deer in the headlight look. Oh and the eye gouging scene, of course.

Again, Zombie/Zombi 2 was never hard to find. VHS copies circulated freely in the US and Canada, and Fulci's classic gore fest enjoyed numerous DVD releases by three different companies, no less.

Again, you should be able to find copies on the cheap on Ebay, or, just watch it for free on YouTube.

For the sake of reference, the series officially ends with Zombi 3/Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 - the one with the zombie head flying out of the friidge (which a then quite ill Fulci proudly claimed was his own idea). All other Zombi flicks starting with Zombi 4: After Death are unrelated movies renamed (and sometimes re-released as well) to cash in on the Zombi name. Among the fake sequels you'll find stuff like Claudio Fragasso's Killing Birds (renamed Zombi 5 but predates Zombi 3!!!) and Joe D'Amato's Anthropophagous 2. Bruno Mattei saw his Zombi rip-off Virus inexplicably renamed Zombie 5 in some areas.

[High Priest Mikhal]

Ah, much thanks, Zetta. Now that I know the names I actually found them on Netflix. I'll be busy rotting my brain (no pun intended) on Italian horror and zombie flicks for a while now.

[Zettaijin]

Quick note about Zombi 2 - if you watch/listen closely, the opening sequence in the harbour is meant to tie the movie to events taking place in Romero's cinematic zombieverse.

[Manofevil]

Okay this is generally hilareous but there IS a NOES knockoff halfway down the list.
http://www.urlesque.com/2010/06/01/26-h ... ?icid=main

[alhoon]

As many here, and especially the Original poster... I wasn't thrilled but I wasn't disappointed either. Haven't seen the original for many years I didn't quite remember what would happen, but some scenes I remembered from the original were in... and better made.

All in all, if you haven't seen the original, see that one. If someone watches the original now for the first time, it will seem "poor" compared to this.

As a note, I didn't like the new Freddy. I prefered the old one. Better voice IMO.

[Manofevil]

I, too, preferred the old to the new. But I developed a healthy respect for the new. I felt the same way when I saw Heath Ledger's Joker. I still prefer Nicholsen's. The Dark Knight taught me a lesson in Hollywood practices- It doesn't matter how well the original material was done, unless the movie is a sequel, the character can't be done the same way again. If it's a remake, it has to be a whole new twist on the character. It has to stay within certain parameters, but it has to be something fresh and new. It's something I don't particularly LIKE about Hollywood. No I don't like it at all.

[Jester of the FoS]

I disagree Zettaijin, the first ANOES is still a classic because it draws on something all humans can relate to: the inescapable fears in nightmares. It isn't the movie(s) that have aged badly, it's the culture. One that gave up on things like an engaging story and simple terror tactics in favor of flashy special effects and stereotypical characters that rehashed the same story over and over in a dozen different incarnations. Writers and directors got lazy and stopped trying. Sadly, so did the viewing public. If it's not filled to overflowing with fancy SFX and predictable roles, people don't want it. Even if it is, too few bother to pay actual attention to the story or its underlying moral, if any.

Yes and no. The movie has aged badly. Watching it for the first time after having seen 3-4 other Freddy movies, I found it boring at times, silly at others, and not particularly scary.
Saying that "the culture" has given-up on engaging stories and characters in favour of simple scares and SFX is over simplifying the issue. There have always been bad horror movies, from the drive-in days and exploitation films to the modern gore/ torture porn movies. The original NoES wasn't exactly trying to avoid using special effects and most of the characters were pretty shallow.

The first movie is better than most of its sequels (which can be enjoyable by themselves) but it just doesn't do it's job (scaring people) as well as modern films, because the genre has been refined. A really good modern horror is so much scarier than the original NoES because the technique and film making immersion is so much better.
It doesn't apply as well to other genres. There are many really good comedies that hold-up because people have been practising comedic timing for centuries. Ditto drama. Ditto romance.
But you can't have a horror play. Not with the same level of tension and immersion and perfect timing and dead-on musical cues.

People are just plain harder to scare. The original Dracula (with Bela Lugosi) reportedly had people fainting at screenings. I watched it at age 10 and wasn't really bothered.

But, my memories of the original NoES always suffer with the penultimate confrontation. Where Nancy is kicking Freddy's ass Home Alone style all around the house, the entire time screaming to her daddy for help. I laughed so hard at that whole play-by-play scene, unintentional comedy at its best.

I, too, preferred the old to the new. But I developed a healthy respect for the new. I felt the same way when I saw Heath Ledger's Joker. I still prefer Nicholsen's. The Dark Knight taught me a lesson in Hollywood practices- It doesn't matter how well the original material was done, unless the movie is a sequel, the character can't be done the same way again. If it's a remake, it has to be a whole new twist on the character. It has to stay within certain parameters, but it has to be something fresh and new. It's something I don't particularly LIKE about Hollywood. No I don't like it at all.

I think the Joker is a bad example. Firstly, because both are adaptations of source material and because they're not really remakes. And secondly, because Nicholson was the second live-action Joker, after Cesar Romero. And there have been dozens of people to voice animated Jokers in cartoons and video games.
(I'm personally fond of Mark Hamill's excellent performance in the Batman/Justice League cartoons)
That aside, the two Batman series are very different approaches to the same character. It's like comparing the Robert Downey jr. Sherlock Holmes with Jeremy Brett's.

[Jester of the FoS]

Craven actually quit the series when NLC decided to make it a franchise. The only "sequel" Craven actually directed was New Nightmare, which was much closer to his original idea of a sinister, truly evil Freddy that lacked glamor and was all menace. Even his description of how "pure evil can be temporarily defeated if its essence is effectively captured in a work of art that is able to allow evil to express itself" was both an homage to his original idea and a jab at New Line for changing it around so much.

I still enjoy New Nightmare. It's not perfect at times but I adore the meta in that film.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

But, my memories of the original NoES always suffer with the penultimate confrontation. Where Nancy is kicking Freddy's ass Home Alone style all around the house, the entire time screaming to her daddy for help. I laughed so hard at that whole play-by-play scene, unintentional comedy at its best.

FWIW, that scene works better if you don't think of her yelling because she wants her father to come rescue her, so much as to show him that Freddy exists. It's not that she needs help, it's that she wants to shove the killer's seared corpse under her doubting father's nose, and sing twenty verses of "I Told You So" to parents who'd been treating her like a nutcase or freaked-out little kid.