There’s always talk about how the best ELM STREET is the 1984 original, and while I won’t argue against that opinion, it seems like Wes Craven’s second directorial effort in the series gets the chopping block along with the rest of the lesser films that turned the franchise into a stale, sadistic comedy. Even in SCREAM, Drew Barrymore’s character states how all of the films suck in the series other than the first one. I hope that screenwriter Kevin Williamson was poking fun at his new collaborator at the time, because WES CRAVEN’S NEW NIGHTMARE certainly doesn’t suck.
I watched NEW NIGHTMARE for the first time in a good while (I finally caved in and picked up the ELM STREET box set...I already own the FRIDAY THE 13TH set, so it was only a matter of time...and my oh my, was I reminded just how bad and cheesy most of these films are...being a horror fan, taste isn't a factor the majority of the time, so whatever), and it holds up pretty damn well. The story itself, which in essence is a movie within a movie, is another example of Craven’s ingenious play on what’s real and what isn’t. Like the original film, surrealism and realism are blurred to the point of indistinguishability. Craven takes it a step further and adds an existential being (a blood-and-guts, living, breathing Freddy) who is aware of his place in the very films he was created for. It’s a grand vision, one that is rarely tried in the horror genre.
I’ll say that Craven’s execution, for the most part, is pretty middle-of-the-road and I wouldn’t have minded more elaboration on why this Freddy creature is suddenly clamoring to find a home in our dimension. Freddy actually attacking Craven himself would’ve been a fanboy’s wet dream, too, I’ll admit. And the kid actor…ugh. Annoying as a piece of hair in your 12-inch Subway Chicken Breast sandwich. I hope he stays away from future horror films. His role in PET SEMATARY wanted to make me smack him upside the noggin’. But the way Craven uses footage of the first ELM STREET, the original’s cast, and the connections to the real-world in relation to the franchise’s phenomenon and controversy (the director doesn’t shy away from questioning his own work’s effects on young children) is nothing short of inspiring and just a treat to watch unfold.
Oh, and some of the SFX is piss-poor. For a 1994 film, some of the miniatures and pyrotechnics are not up to snuff. Then again, I don’t know if Craven was purposely going for a B-movie look with some of the sets. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
I watched NEW NIGHTMARE for the first time in a good while (I finally caved in and picked up the ELM STREET box set...I already own the FRIDAY THE 13TH set, so it was only a matter of time...and my oh my, was I reminded just how bad and cheesy most of these films are...being a horror fan, taste isn't a factor the majority of the time, so whatever), and it holds up pretty damn well. The story itself, which in essence is a movie within a movie, is another example of Craven’s ingenious play on what’s real and what isn’t. Like the original film, surrealism and realism are blurred to the point of indistinguishability. Craven takes it a step further and adds an existential being (a blood-and-guts, living, breathing Freddy) who is aware of his place in the very films he was created for. It’s a grand vision, one that is rarely tried in the horror genre.
I’ll say that Craven’s execution, for the most part, is pretty middle-of-the-road and I wouldn’t have minded more elaboration on why this Freddy creature is suddenly clamoring to find a home in our dimension. Freddy actually attacking Craven himself would’ve been a fanboy’s wet dream, too, I’ll admit. And the kid actor…ugh. Annoying as a piece of hair in your 12-inch Subway Chicken Breast sandwich. I hope he stays away from future horror films. His role in PET SEMATARY wanted to make me smack him upside the noggin’. But the way Craven uses footage of the first ELM STREET, the original’s cast, and the connections to the real-world in relation to the franchise’s phenomenon and controversy (the director doesn’t shy away from questioning his own work’s effects on young children) is nothing short of inspiring and just a treat to watch unfold.
Oh, and some of the SFX is piss-poor. For a 1994 film, some of the miniatures and pyrotechnics are not up to snuff. Then again, I don’t know if Craven was purposely going for a B-movie look with some of the sets. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
