Movie title: Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Release Date: 2010
Type of movie: Horror Movie
MPAA Rating: R
Our rating: 1/10
Re-watchability:0/10
Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) is a more of a re-imagining of the original Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). As such, I didn’t go into this movie with very high expectations. In fact, I had pretty low expectations of this movie. What this movie provided felt like a bigger budget version of the original, but where they focused more on topping the gore, blood and guts factor that the original lacked. However, that was why the original worked so well. One doesn’t need lots more blood and gore to scare you.
One of the biggest issues that I had with this remake was the fact that the actor who had embodied the main villain (Freddy Kruger), since it’s inception, was not playing the villain in this remake. I would have been fine with switching the actor portraying the main villain, if I felt that the new pick for playing the villain had the mannerisms and voice that made the original Freddy so evil. I understand that 30 years have passed since the original, and I also realize changing actors is inevitable in a genre like this. But, I felt that there had to be better choices for the role of Freddy than the person they chose to play him.
I also felt that some of the scenes shot in this movie were mainly to pay homage to the original Nightmare, which this movie borrowed and used liberally for its source material. But I also felt that the scenes that they used to pay homage to the original weren’t very well done. This movie was just not on the same level as the original Nightmare on Elm Street. It wasn’t because this version of Nightmare on Elm Street has been updated to include cell phones and internet that didn’t exist in the original. Those updates hardly make the movie any more watchable. Frankly, the whole movie was highly skippable. I didn’t even bother to see it in the theater. I waited for it to be offered on Amazon Prime before even watching it.
There was so much missing from this movie, I hardly know where to start to explain how they could fix it. One obvious issue was the fact that while watching this movie you are likely to fall asleep. That is hardly a stinging endorsement for a good horror movie which should make you so scared you can’t sleep. The original Nightmare on Elm Street honestly did make me afraid to fall asleep for fear of being killed in my dreams. This version was tame by comparison. The scenes that they tried to use to blend reality and the dream world were obviously CGI created, a problem that did not exist with the original. Sometimes, just because you can use CGI doesn’t mean you should, and if you do at least make it less obvious to the viewer. I would also have changed the way the internet was used in this movie. The director made it feel like Freddy wasn’t targeting just the kids in a certain neighborhood anymore or on a specific street. The title of the film is Nightmare on Elm Street. So it is somewhat disconcerting if Freddy is not just targeting kids/young adults on Elm Street instead of other places in the world.
I would have taken out the majority of the blood, guts and gore in this film. That isn’t really what makes a great horror film. Horror is created by the element of surprise, tension and the fear of not understanding why events are happening. Horror isn’t defined by how much gore, blood and guts are seen. If that is what you are looking for, watch a Rambo movie. Even the more formula driven horror films which exploit a simple basis for deaths: you have sex/you die; you do drugs/you die; would have made more sense than this film. The film should also have provided less of the back story of Freddy to explain why he kills early into the movie. This wasn’t revealed until much later in the original Nightmare on Elm Street. I felt introducing Freddy’s back story at the beginning hurt the fear factor by making Freddy less scary. Fear is driven by “not understanding” the reason or logic for something happening, or in this case, why Freddy behaves as he does. When you do understand Freddy, you are not nearly as fearful of him. That was part of why the original movie was so scary. Freddy was showing up in these kids dreams and killing them in their sleep. But, it wasn’t clear from the start why, and that was what made Freddy even scarier, and made us afraid to fall asleep after seeing the original.
I had to watch this movie several times before I could even finish it. Not because it was scary, but because it was so poorly done. I must have started and stopped it 5 or 6 times because that is how unwatchable I found it. I was glad I didn’t go to the theater to watch this movie. I would have either wasted my money by falling asleep in the theater, or wasted my time critiquing what I thought the movie was doing wrong instead of enjoying the show.
In closing, I do not recommend this movie. I felt it left much to be desired, kind of like other horror movies I have seen. However, this one in particular is severely lacking in fear or horror. Instead of making me afraid to sleep, it makes me want to when I watch it. I think I did fall asleep while watching this movie the first 3 times. That is why I had to watch it 5 or 6 times. I kept falling asleep during the film, which is hardly a stunning endorsement of this film. The fact I love good horror films, and that I couldn’t stay awake watching this one, says a lot about this film. For you insomniacs, perhaps this is just the film you are looking for, something to lull you can watching it.
Thank you for reading
Jason
