Hey guys, here is me and Roth’s review of the 2010 reboot version of A Nightmare On Elm St starring Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger. Let us know what you think!
- Dennis
Share and Enjoy:
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
88794 Responseshttp://www.thinkhero.com/2010/04/29/a-nightmare-on-elm-st-2010-version-video-review/%27A+Nightmare+On+Elm+St%27+2010+Version+%28VIDEO+REVIEW%292010-04-29+18%3A59%3A53Dennis to “‘A Nightmare On Elm St’ 2010 Version (VIDEO REVIEW)”
This was basic and flat. The movie not the review. In the original Freddy was more spooky with shadows and effects. In here he was just him. They should have pushed the envelope more in the nightmares. Wasn't scary surroundings, nor imaginative. *sighs*
Yeah it wasn't very scary, more about pop out scares which isn't as scary as something with suspense and creepiness. From what people tell me, a lot of the shots were pretty much taken from the original, like the hand out of the bathtub.
Nit picky stuff aside (the ever whitening tshirt syndrome being one and the bad makeup effects another) this was actually not as horible as I feared it would be.
But I think I know exactly what you mean Roth when you imply something is missing in regards to the campy-ness. The funny quips are there, especially more towards the end of the movie, but it doesn't land like it did in the original series. I think it is because of how they developed Freddy. He used to be this guy who killed teens in their dreams , possibly supernatural, almost demonic, he was a predator and it was possible to cheer him on. Now that they've added a different motivation to his character, Freddy is no longer just a predator, he is now a Human predator and one that is exponentially, if not impossible, to cheer on.
Since they went that route, they should have just went all the way and made it evil and horrifying and not tried to straddle both sides of the fence.
All in all though, not a bad film, I'd recommend at least renting it, even seeing it in the theater because the digital effects are great.
It did have one further one effect on me I must note, it made me want to see 'Scream' again.
This was basic and flat. The movie not the review.
In the original Freddy was more spooky with shadows and effects. In here he was just him. They should have pushed the envelope more in the nightmares. Wasn't scary surroundings, nor imaginative. *sighs*
Yeah it wasn't very scary, more about pop out scares which isn't as scary as something with suspense and creepiness. From what people tell me, a lot of the shots were pretty much taken from the original, like the hand out of the bathtub.
Dennis
Nit picky stuff aside (the ever whitening tshirt syndrome being one and the bad makeup effects another) this was actually not as horible as I feared it would be.
But I think I know exactly what you mean Roth when you imply something is missing in regards to the campy-ness. The funny quips are there, especially more towards the end of the movie, but it doesn't land like it did in the original series. I think it is because of how they developed Freddy. He used to be this guy who killed teens in their dreams , possibly supernatural, almost demonic, he was a predator and it was possible to cheer him on. Now that they've added a different motivation to his character, Freddy is no longer just a predator, he is now a Human predator and one that is exponentially, if not impossible, to cheer on.
Since they went that route, they should have just went all the way and made it evil and horrifying and not tried to straddle both sides of the fence.
All in all though, not a bad film, I'd recommend at least renting it, even seeing it in the theater because the digital effects are great.
It did have one further one effect on me I must note, it made me want to see 'Scream' again.
I'm not a big horror fan but I do like the Scream franchise and hope the upcoming sequels can live up to the previous ones.
Dennis