Maybe sometime down the road. More than likely after watching it I will still feel that it didn't need to be remade (Like the Halloween movies, Fuck you Rob Zombie )

kpowers said:

i second that !!

insatiable3 said:

why! The Halloween started to suck after part 2. H20 and Ressurection werent great at all. Whats wrong with Rob Zombies version? I mean if u can disregard the cursing then theres nothing wrong with it. The killing scenes were awesome... too many F BOMBS though.

insatiable3 said:

why! The Halloween started to suck after part 2. H20 and Ressurection werent great at all. Whats wrong with Rob Zombies version? I mean if u can disregard the cursing then theres nothing wrong with it. The killing scenes were awesome... too many F BOMBS though.

Well supposedly they want to make Freddy more scary and less funny, but I liked funny/scary Freddy with his one-liners and shit. Why mess with what worked. I think Robert Englund pwned the character and they should have left it alone.

I stand by what I said... I thought Michael Keaton was cool as Batman. They may not be the best Batman movies but I still think he's the best Batman 2 date.

Yeah, I'll see this movie right after watching sex and the city while getting a brazilian wax job. In other words it aint happening.
But have fun at your fright fest. (I'll send you with a Jedi. He will protect you.)
[Edited 4/13/10 22:48pm]

This is a waste of my time. It's a waste of yours, too. Feel free to skip it like you're already (hopefully) planning to skip this movie.

The only review that matters to the makers of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET '10 will arrive Saturday morning with the Friday box office estimates; then, and only then, will they know whether they've succeeded at rallying the target demographic to attend their cash grab of a remake. And if you think "cash grab" is harsh consider this: a) Platinum Dunes' FRIDAY THE 13TH redo accumulated sixty-two percent of its total domestic gross in its opening weekend, and b) IRON MAN 2 opens May 7th. A long time ago, Warner Bros. and the Dunes crew took a look at A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET '10, realized it was a piece of garbage, and set up shop on a release date that has historically been a dumping ground for non-starter event films like VOLCANO or xXx: STATE OF THE UNION, knowing full well that they'd be completely out of business the next weekend (but, most likely, on the way to profit).

I hate to cite a movie's release strategy as evidence of its dubious artistic intent, but any discussion of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET '10 that takes into account actual filmmaking technique, storytelling facility, or thematic depth is going to be a short one. So let's dispense with these formalities one at a time...

Technique: The film is dimly lit with a queasy-making greenish hue that occasionally calls to mind a film school washout's approximation of David Fincher's fluorescent FIGHT CLUB aesthetic. At other times, it just recalls like a film school washout's approximation of the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" video - which Samuel Bayer directed, and which wouldn't be remembered had it not been powered by the most culturally significant Billboard #1 hit in my lifetime.

The face makeup on Jackie Earle Haley's Freddy Krueger is actually pretty good, but no more impressive than what you saw in Richard Kelly's THE BOX (a flawed-but-fascinating movie you should stay in and watch this weekend rather than bother with this garbage). Unfortunately, it's apparent they focused all of their visual f/x ingenuity on Krueger's visage because every single standout set-piece - e.g. Freddy distending the wallpaper*, claws bursting through an unlucky teen's midsection, Nancy tripping up under a hallway undertow of blood and viscera - looks at least a decade behind the CG times.

The editing of the film is also choppy. There's a lot of boilerplate suspense business setting you up for a cheap jump scare (and, thanks to the introduction of "micronaps", Freddy can spring out of nowhere at any time), but these sequences are doubly ineffective because there is no rhyme or reason as to why the characters stumble into their bad dreams. They just arrive at these set pieces because it's essential to the by-committee construction of the film, not because there's psychological provocation for them to be killed in the throes of their nightmares. Remember how Freddy covered his tracks in the original by framing Rod for Tina's murder, and then hanged Rod in his jail cell? In this film, Freddy just randomly works his way through a list of previously decided-upon victims, and you're supposed to cheer this because it doesn't unfold quite in the same manner as the original. Since we've veered in that direction...

Story: I could be a purist and decry A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET '10 for not being Nancy's movie, but I won't do that because, in the early going, I was kind of hoping they were going to execute a big perception shift and turn it into Tina's film. This made perfect sense to me in that, a) the Platinum Dunes gang aren't exactly feminists, b) I liked how they unceremoniously disposed of "final girl" Danielle Panabaker in FRIDAY THE 13TH much earlier than expected, and c) they had no fucking interest in Nancy for the entire first act of their film!

Turns out they're just lousy storytellers. The narrative hook of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET '10 is one of delving into origin: they think you're more interested in finding out why newfangled Freddy Krueger is newfangled Freddy Krueger than how these kids are going to survive being punished for the unasked-for "sins" of their parents. Yes, there's a chance Freddy was wrongly accused of being a child molester; no, the people who brought you THE HITCHER remake are not going there. Perhaps if they'd set up the adults as paragons of parenting virtue rather than "Clancy Brown!" and "Connie Britton!" the third act would've been something of a sucker punch. But the parents don't matter, the kids don't register, and the atmosphere, again, is borrowed. This film is just a collection of pilfered (and unimaginatively tweaked) set pieces from a classic horror movie.

Thematic Depth: I wrote the very first review of Platinum Dunes' debut release**, but even then I knew they had zero interest in engaging your intellect. Fair enough when you're making something as viscerally terrifying as TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSCRE or as preposterously stupid as FRIDAY THE 13TH. But A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET is, despite its slasher film trappings, on a higher conceptual level. And while it may its low-budget seams may show, it's endured because Wes Craven tapped into something profound about the disconnect between parents and teenagers that speaks to that specific era. A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET '10 speaks to no era because it looks like it was shot in 1994, and plays like it was written and directed by Hollywood operators chasing paychecks in a narrowing marketplace - which it was.

No one involved in the making of this movie expects you to like it; they expect you to pay to see it this weekend - or maybe impulse purchase it in the next revenue window - and discard it as you go on with the rest of your evening. Filmmaking doesn't get much more cynical than this. Don't waste your time. Never see this movie.