A Nightmare On Elm Street - Page 2

But can you really call the reverence towards the character justified? As a horror icon, he fails on every level. Most people remember Freddy as a wisecracking goon with knives for fingers, rather than being a character that instilled any semblance of fear into the film itself. And one could argue that his impact on the horror genre thereafter was quite a negative one.

Like any of the staple horror franchises, the character gets watered down over time. Freddy, like Meyers and Jason, got off to a great start and then just fell flat. The movies are wildly inconsistent on who Freddy is and what his powers are and that sucks. Plus, when they got to the third one, they made him a comedian - which worked in the third one but not beyond it. I still think the first is a good flick. It's fairly brutal and unsettling and Freddy is this cold, humorless monster that is next to impossible to stop - well, until the light bulb trick. I think Craven did a good job of rescuing the character with New Nightmare - which contains some thoughtful commentary on movie violence from Craven. Englund was always good in the movies. He could play scary and the cut-up. The third one works because it strikes a nice balance between the two - but, aside from Englund's performance, it's sort of a chore to sit through. I'll take the weirdness of the first and the effort of the last (New Nightmare) over the third - which I like, don't get me wrong. The rest are shit, pretty much. Second is weird and has its moments, but the rest...Freddy's Dead being the fucking worst ever. I sprung for the box set after I got overly nostalgic for the movies. Oops.

The original totally delivered on a frightening concept. Kruger was the demon within dreams, a wholly malevolent sadist. Pulling him out of dreams into the waking world was a perfect conclusion, not to mention fantastic subtext. Unfortunately the sequel friendly, tacked-on conclusion sabotages the resolution.

It's been awhile since I've seen the third film, but I remember Dream Warriors fondly. Other than the opening sequence, though, I don't recall the movie going so much for horror as fantasy. So while entertaining, I personally wouldn't rank Dream Warriors above the original.

I think he was still menacing in the second one, which is indeed REALLY weird. Lot of homo-erotic subtext.

But I really love the scene where he goes nuts on the party, it's just the kind of release that really worked well in that movie.

One of the thing nearly all the movies get right (my memory of 4-Freddy's Dead is spotty) is being gruesome over being gory, which is something else I always appreciated about the series. Friday the 13th may have knives through the throat and blood squirting, but Nightmare had a girl eating the contents of her own stomach (which, unfortunately, is edited down in a really confusing way that makes it hard to tell that's what's going on. I think that's in Dream Child, but I'm not sure.)

Thank you!

Edit: Patrick: 4 is The Dream Master, 6 is Freddy's Dead. And yes, "bon appétit, bitch!" is from 5 (The Dream Child). Dream Master has a similar sequence, but the line is "If the food don't kill ya, the service will!"

New Nightmare almost redemed the character for me until the end.Freddy become a pretty scary figure again until he was defeated by a kid and his mother. I know there was no real other way to end it but that still killed the movie for me. All that greatness leading up to such a crappy ending.

New Nightmare felt like a mere re-tread with a meta twist. They did improve Freddy by both making his makeup more gruesome and by having him not talk (or did he talk? Regardless, he didn't say a lot.) But, like Charlie mentioned before, it still felt like a slasher kind of a thing. If they would have REALLY pushed it, somewhere in the second act, that made the audience downright disturbed, then it would have been an effective commentary on violence in the media, in a "you're not laughing now, are you?" kind of a way.

As it is, it's merely an OK flick.

I think some of you are forgetting that Freddy isn't in New Nightmare. The demon in that movie is not Freddy Kreuger, child killer. The demon in that movie is Heather Langenkamp's piss poor performance. Ten years after the original, and playing herself to boot, and we still get the one damn expression?

Eerie, Indiana flashbacks! The gray-haired kid! Tupperware monsters! AAARGH!

The character isn't the same, but for all intents and purposes, it's Freddy. Just like how technically Jason isn't in Friday the 13th: New Beginnings

I think for your average moviegoer, the early scene in part one is so terrifying, so viceral, that it would have been really difficult to sit through again. That one scene is enough for us to understand exactly what this monster can do and it sits in the back of your mind the whole movie. That's why it's so important to have it right away - it keeps the audience on egg shells about what's going to happen next. Doing another scene like it would have been too much for most people in the audience to take (though the Depp scene is still brutal). Now, that may be something that the avid horror fan would have loved, but it wouldn't have made the movie better.

Besides, if he would have tried to top that scene, he probably would have gone too far over the top and become silly, which is what killed a lot of the sequels - trying too hard to find cool ways to kill people, instead of just being a terrifying menace.

He certainly did not reinvent the genre, but he did breath life into it again. I'll agree that Scream isn't particularly scary, but I know the first time I saw it it was a rush. It moves fast and hits pretty hard. It's become cliche, but that's what happens when any movie is that successful.

I like Scream fine, it's only real crime is that it's way too smug.

I thought all of the slasher sequences were great. Rather than some slow moving monster, you had this character that moved quickly and when the attacks happened, there was a real sense of violence. When he stabbed someone in the chest, you could feel how hard it was. While the movie itself was shot smooth, the violence was very viceral (which is something usually only found in movies that are shot that way the whole time). There was weight to the blows.

The concept really is just an extention of New Nightmare, but I think it's just made better.

True that.

I stopped paying attention when somebody brought up Eerie, Indiana. I'm still pissed that they cancelled that show. Somebody get Dante on a movie of that.

This thread made me watch it for the first real time as I’ve always only caught bits of it on T.V.

I agree with Charlie’s initial post about the idea of Freddy being the most interesting bit about the film, it has the already mentioned death of Tina, and it’s got some great visuals like the boiler room, Freddy pressing in the wall while Nancy sleeps and the School hall scene but the film’s bogged down by Freddy procrastinating when he can kill in some cases [He just loves reminding people he has those gloves.], the parents being of no help at all [“You know what, I’m gonna tangle up our phone line!”} a general case of “the 80’s”™

I think a remake would actually be interesting thing to see made, just to see if they made Freddy a more seriously sinister character and not so hammy. Englund would probably be up for it; all it seems for that guy to play Freddy is a ham sandwich and some pogs.

and Eerie, Indiana kicked ass.

The parents being clueless is part of what the movie's about. Parents not paying any attention while the children are out losing their innocence, well, in this case getting murdered.

Also, in a nightmare, nobody is of much help. At least mine. I'll curse you, Hamburgler, until the day I die!

I think it was the fact that Craven himself did it to his own creation and put himself in it, playing himself and being rather bemused. New Nightmare I therefore find pretty interesting.

[QUOTE=Charlie Brigden]For me, it was almost the same as NIGHTMARE. The Drew Barrymore opening was great, and had real tension, [QUOTE]
Yeah, the opening kill was Tina all over again. Surprisingly brutal. Like Guttenburg said about Freddy, it established the killer as a force to be reckoned with. This was especially important in a flick like Scream that is so heavy with humor.

I think that Scream would be a bit more well-received if there were no sequels. The whole "self-aware horror flick" bit was already sort of tired by the end of the film, and its death rattle occurred the moment that someone said: "Hot damn, let's make a sequel!"

Back on topic: I re-watched Nightmare on Elm Street last week, and it still manages to creep me out in a few instances. I definitely remember the part where Freddy presses through the bedroom wall from when I was younger, and that scene still gives me chills. Don't know why that happens to freak me out more than the kills, but it does.

There's something about the whole Freddy mythos (probably what Brigden and burtyoung pointed out about him being able to kill you in your sleep and torment you in your dreams, when you're most vulnerable) that makes him genuinely frightening. Plus you can tell that Englund loved playing this character, which lends that much more authentic creepiness to his performance.

Like several previous posts said, it's still somewhat disconcerting that a horror character that molested and killed children became so popular. Maybe it's just that people got so used to him being just a scary disfigured character that Englund played to the hilt, that they totally discounted the origin.

The origin just vapourised once the series got going, I think. Freddy ceased being a child killer and became Michael Myers mit quips, just another teen-stalking slasher figure. It's a real shame, and a disappointment that you can tell is shared by Englund.

I have to agree with Charlie on the original. There's a cracking horror film just waiting to be made from NOES's pitch but really, that pitch is the only thing that's carried its reputation all thse years. The notion of a mythical murderer stalking you through your dreams is a terrifying one, but it's not done justice by Craven's refusal to expand upon the surface coolness of the concept. Instead of exploiting and stretching the conceit he's content to simply park it front and centre and exhort people to gawk at it for a coupla hours. Plus, the guy just doesn't have the visual eye to capitalise on the surreal nature of the horror on offer. He does his best, but removed from nostalgia its begins to look like a missed opportunity.

I fully agree with that. As a one-off, Scream was actually a pretty clever idea, and having the killer turn out to be two people working together was a nice twist on the whodunnit. But the concept was self-contained, and the first film said all there was to say on the subject. The sequels just drove it into the ground.

I do wish they'd kept the original title, which was Scary Movie. Then we might have been spared the Wayans' "hilarity".

Very surprised that so many people think the original Nightmare doesn't stand the test of time. To me, it's a genuine classic, and while it's fair to say that later movies in the series (and specifically Part 3) were more creative with the dream sequences, I don't think that makes them better. To me, the 'melting staircase' sequence of the original captures the primal terror of a nightmare just as effectively (if not more so) than any of Freddy's effects-heavy latter day set pieces.

A lot of the bits that people apparently now find laughable -notably the 'extended arms' bit- I still find suitably sinister. I'm not sure whether people also find this part chuckle-inducing, but I must say that the scene where Nancy's mother (by now back on the bottle) takes her down to the basement and gives her the whole Kreuger back-story still creeps me out to this day - It's probably the part I find scariest, actually.

The theme music still frightens me, too, and for my money has never been more unsettling than during its inaugural usage in the boiler room-set opening sequence. Hell, even the titles creep me out.

Boo!

I remember a few years ago there was talk about doing a NOES prequal/ It was to have shown how sick he realy was

That would be extremely unwelcome. The backstory says all there is to say.

SCREAM 2 is actually one of my fave sequels ever. Craven & Co. managed to keep the premise fresh and the edge of suspense from the first film. It's edited in super-tight fashion, and the colorful cast move things along with a buoyancy and unpretentious self-awareness. I like it more than the original.

Now the third film shouldn't have seen the light of day. The energy and drive of the first two were noticeably absent, and it's cleverness was left out to the gallows.

I have always felt the killer in scream3 should have been Sidney Prescott. Makes sence.tired of living with the fact hermom is a whore and her bfs always die she goes on a killing spree to earase her past

I'm with the people who preferred New Nightmare. The ending was a bit of a let down, but it was going fine up till then.
The original would impress me more if it wasn't ripping off Phantasm.

I just wish that Mama Wayans had decided on an abortion when those two were conceived (see "White Chicks" and the upcoming classic-for-the-retarded "Little Man"). Damon just barely gets a pass because of "The Last Boy Scout".

And I totally agree with Ricardo on the extended-arms bit being sinister. Just something about those disproportionate arms on an otherwise normal-looking silhouette bugs me out. I have no qualms admitting that if I saw something like that out on the street at night, I'd start screaming like a girl and run the hell away.

They covered that already with the television show.

Anything involving Nancy's mother is chuckle-inducing. How could you not laugh knowing that she will ultimately meet her demise on what appears to be the set of a terrible 80's music video? The fog machine, the strobe light... ugh.

I think Dream Warriors is my favorite too. The characters in that one are the best in the series I'd say. Heather Langenkamp's performance in the original is just too un-even for me. The concept of the series really has the potential for more than just movies about kids getting knocked off one by one. That's a lot of my problem with the series as it went on. There were characters in the later films (The Dream Master for an example) that could've been pretty interesting if they hadn't just been there to add to the body count.

Part 4 is a shit sandwich on shitbread with shitsauce and a side of shitslaw.

But is the shitslaw cold?

On a serious note, Part 4 is indeed fucking horrible. Although I still love Part 3 and will watch that one more than any of them.

Part 4 is pretty bad, but nothing takes the cake for utter awfulness like FREDDY'S DEAD.

I didn't think 4, 5 and 6 were that much inferior to 3, to be honest. Slightly less imaginative, but all 4 are a little silly.
6 had a good idea (town with no children), but really could have used it better.

Do we sound like we're kidding? Everything after Part 3 was horrible. In fact, Part 2 was horrible as well. Let's just boil it down and say that 1 and 3 are the only good ones, and New Nightmare, if it counts as part of the series. I really don't see how we can enlighten you. You have your opinion, bizarre though it may be. And Freddy's Dead isn't better than anything, including colon surgery.

Nigel, I would dare say it's better than colon surgery, but worse than a prison gang rape. The only worthwhile Freddies are the first three and Freddy vs. Jason.

I think that pretty much sums it up.
However, I do think Freddy's Dead is better than Nightmare on Elm Street 2. On the other hand, the only horror I've seen that I can straight off say to be worse than Nightmare on Elm Street 2 was Children of the Corn 2, in all its mediocrity.

1 is still a damn good movie, though not as scary as it used to be.

2 had interesting subtext, that great pool scene, and shit else.

3 is still my favorite.

4 is annoying in that it marks the total death of Freddy the monster and the beginnings of Freddy the comedian. Still, Freddy the comedian is amusing, there's at least entertainment and some fun, inventive stuff (the roach motel and the soul pizza especially) to be found in it.

5 sucks.

6 is fucking AWFUL.

New Nightmare brought back Freddy the monster, had a great premise, and its more watchable than the last two, but still isn't all that great.

Freddy vs Jason: The fights were worth it. The rest of the movie isn't.

Come to think of it, the only true constant in these films is that Englund loved this character, and had fun keeping his material interesting even when the movies weren't.

I think 5 is actually a really interesting, well-made movie -- everytime Freddy Krueger doesn't come on-screen to clown it up.

7 actually paid attention to story, tension, suspense, and the potential of Freddy as a character as a tried and true monster, along with the attempts at metafiction (which, if you don't know, references fiction that is inherently aware of itself and the cliches that come with it, i.e. Scream)

None of the Nightmare flicks between 3 and 7 made that effort, instead preferring to let Freddy be an R-rated cartoon, when the potential of the character's backstory and concept as an object of terror rather than humor is far greater (although small kudos to 5 for at least trying to do something with the whole "Son of 100 maniacs" thing). Hence, 7 is a better film.

Very much seconded.
For that matter, until the (lacklustre) ending, 7 was better at actually being frightening than most of the series.


Oddly enough, Nightmare 4 made far more money than any of the others.

...based on the strength of 3.

That it made more money, and that's about all. The Phantom Menace made more money than The Empire Strikes Back. Is The Phantom Menace a better movie than The Empire Strikes Back? What makes more money than what almost never has anything to do with their relative quality.

I think if someone can see nothing wrong with Elm Street 4, yet singularly fails to explain just what makes it a perfectly flawless piece of cinema, then any hope of a balanced discussion on its relative merits is pretty much futile.

I've always been baffled by the venom directed at People Under The Stairs though. It ain't great, but I've always found it be a ghoulishly entertaining and endearingly odd flick. I certainly don't see how it deserves to be written off as utter shit.