They tried to make Freddy the victim for awhile,until it was revealed he was molesting the kids.But where does the glove figure into the equation?
Towards the end, Quentin and Nancy find some blades in his room, they also showed Nancy as a little girl with 4 scars on her back. He just made a weapon thats all.
Not sure what everyone was expecting. No point bringing back Robert Englund. This is a reboot of a movie.
It was just nice to see Freddy back on the cinema screen. Whatever you all think, this movie is doing well, and the DVD will too...because it's Elm Street and it sells!
They took ideas and stuff from the movies, and made it their own. I agree, no CGI should be used as I hate it, but then again these days, if a foam board for $10 was used like in the original, people would slate how unrealistic it was!
Towards the end, Quentin and Nancy find some blades in his room, they also showed Nancy as a little girl with 4 scars on her back. He just made a weapon thats all.
Not sure what everyone was expecting. No point bringing back Robert Englund. This is a reboot of a movie.
It was just nice to see Freddy back on the cinema screen. Whatever you all think, this movie is doing well, and the DVD will too...because it's Elm Street and it sells!
They took ideas and stuff from the movies, and made it their own. I agree, no CGI should be used as I hate it, but then again these days, if a foam board for $10 was used like in the original, people would slate how unrealistic it was!
That's fair enought,but
it was barely even alluded to Freddy being a sadistic,only a molester.So why should he need a glove,it felt like it was tacked on to the story IMO.
I don't mind another actor playing Freddy,but they are big shoes to fill so it needs to be done well.This version of the character looked like a cross between an alien and Robert Duvall,and the dialogue they gave him was often cringeworthy.
The 35 million dollar budget could have created better SFX than that; CGI doesn't need to look so cheap.Makeup,prosthetics etc have moved on so much from 1984,so those certain scenes in this remake could have looked way better,with some heart put into the project.
The story was more a total ripoff than a homeage - how hard is it to write an original story?
Even the "pull him out of the dream to kill him" twist was used again
.I don't usually bother this much about movies I disliked,but I feel that a re-imagination could have been excellent.There was so much scope to create a new take on Craven's concept...
People won't talk about this made on the cheap for die hard Freddy fan in 6 months,nevermind 26 years.
its ok saw it yesterday, i mean i suppose if you havent seen the orginal then it would have passed a good horror but from watching all 7 of the films, and this being based on the 1st a remake it was kinda poor i thought Nancy was really weak tbh i though the girl Chris would of been better playing her she had more energy.
BUT
the back story was good i understood it more, i thought Freddy was creepy and they did do a good job in re-creating him.
overall i give 7/10
it is worth watching as it is watchable it isnt rubbish.
but I feel that a re-imagination could have been excellent.There was so much scope to create a new take on Craven's concept...
People won't talk about this made on the cheap for die hard Freddy fan in 6 months,nevermind 26 years.
Totally agree with this.
I was reading a review on CHUD and I think this quote about sums up the situation.
It is not so much that it's a bad movie - that sin is forgivable - it's that on no level did anyone try to do anything with this property but make money. Sure, it may have seemed like a **** was given when Jackie Earle Haley was cast, but that's about it. Remakes in general are bad enough, not because of the sense of recycling, but the reason why films are remade now is not because someone thought it was a good idea, or because they had a new spin, but because of the cultural cache of a title. Like McWeeny, I see this as a dead end, because when you get a film as miserable as the Elm Street remake, you're poisoning the well. This film is definitely empty of purpose other than to have an opening weekend. And there's nothing wrong with making a **** movie, if you're doing something like Friday the 13th, but to make a film that may be worse than The Dream Child is unforgivable.
In the remake there was something included from every Freddy film....
Elm St. 1 - The whole movie!
Elm St. 2 - There was a main character called Jesse
Elm St. 3 - Freddy drags various characters through mirrors, and this also happens at the end of the remake.
Elm St. 4 - Freddy says to a victim "Hows this for a wet dream?!" which he also says to Nancy in the remake.
Elm St. 5 - Freddy tells a character something like 'your mouth says no no but your something says yes yes' - can't really remember but it was similar.
Freddys Dead - The part in the remake where they are driving and Freddy appears on the road, felt very similar to a scene in Fredds Dead when Freddy drove the bus into John.
New Nightmare - Funeral scene in the remake very similar, Freddy comes out of the grave much like in New Nightmare.
Freddy Vs Jason - At the end before she slices Freddys head off she says 'welcome to my world bitch' which is also what Nancy says when she slits Freddys throat in the remake.
Anyone else notice stuff like this?
I did
The scene where Freddy was standing in the road was very similar to the part in Elm Street 4, when Alice tried to run Freddy down.
I watched the remake on Friday and the original again tonight.
Firstly, let's be honest about the original - the acting is beyond terrible. Even Mr Depp was off and I bet nobody saw his long career happening off the back of this 'introduction'. However, the premise and story is excellent. A brilliant concept. The pace is good, the atmosphere works and it doesn't rely on cheap, easy, 'jumps' to get the scares.
There are, as to be expected, some cheesy 80's horror OTT gruesome moments - Freddy cutting himself for no reason other then to make the most of florescent green goo, maggots and anything else off coloured to spurt around. However, the deaths stand out very well - especially the first girl being dragged up the walls (surely a classic scene)
Now to the remake. What exactly was the point is almost copying the original so closely? Nancy was so diluted that I didn't care about her. In fact, they made us connect with the blonde girl at the start so much that I was sad she wasn't Nancy and it wasn't 'her story' we followed.
Was there any real need to have Freddy as a kiddy fiddler? Did that add anything? Also why the doubts over his innocence? The back story was a good addition but fairly weakly handled. Not mentioning the all important glove was a mistake.
Freddie pushing through the wall was in no way better done then in the original and that's got to be a worry. 26 years on and that same scene for 84 looks better!! Where did the money go as it wasn't used on CGI.
The only characters I liked were killed off first. I liked the guy in the coffee place at the start, that was a nice opening actually but a bit too long. I liked the blonde girl and her ex bf was decent enough. Acting was generally better then the 84.
Freddie - rubbish. Stupid voice, not scary, just meh. I'm sure they could have done much better.
The bath scene is another identical copy scene but they missed the best part of her being dragged under the bath.
Who would allow that guys death blog to be posted too?
Final point, the ending. I did prefer that to the odd one in the original.
Basically, I can't work out why they wasted the time in doing this without taking advantage of it being 2009. The technology, make up, skills we have now could have thrown this into a new league and become not a copy remake but a new franchise, a second chronicle perhaps. Instead, it's nothing more then a poor karaoke version of a well loved classic.
Now to the remake. What exactly was the point is almost copying the original so closely? Nancy was so diluted that I didn't care about her. In fact, they made us connect with the blonde girl at the start so much that I was sad she wasn't Nancy and it wasn't 'her story' we followed.
I thought Nancy came across very badly in the film. I'm not sure if it's more to do with the fact that when the original came out the genre was relatively new and thus fresh. Now we have had so many of these types of films that all these girls come across the same and so our perception of them is they are just "pretty girl screaming, running crying" through a film.
Let's say Halloween was never made then they made it today with the same cast being the age they were then. Would we be saying the "unknown" Jamie Lee Curtis was great in this film or would be seeing her as just another girl, running screaming, crying like the last 200+ girls?
Was there any real need to have Freddy as a kiddy fiddler? Did that add anything? Also why the doubts over his innocence? The back story was a good addition but fairly weakly handled. Not mentioning the all important glove was a mistake.
It wasn't needed but I think it was always going to happen. It's common now that people seem to want everything explained or given to them on a plate. This being the case it has to be explained why Freddy was harming children and why he was burned. I'm sure 90% of the people would have assumed that he was a kiddy fiddler but for that remaining 10% it needs to be confirmed.
Freddie pushing through the wall was in no way better done then in the original and that's got to be a worry. 26 years on and that same scene for 84 looks better!! Where did the money go as it wasn't used on CGI.
I agree the original does look so much better. The modern one looks like CGI. However I think it would always look like CGI n matter how much they spent on that scene. Again it's down to a different time. Back in the 80's we weren't so savy about special effects and would say I wonder how did they do that? Now we are programmed to go that's CGI. Even if it isn't we will automaically assume it is and write it off as being such.
I know that I am annoyingly good at spotting CGI effects even when they are getting mixed or used in conjunction with masks and animatronics. Flames are usually really easy to spot for example. I can spot which were done on set and which were added by CGI to make it look bigger than it was.
The only characters I liked were killed off first. I liked the guy in the coffee place at the start, that was a nice opening actually but a bit too long. I liked the blonde girl and her ex bf was decent enough. Acting was generally better then the 84.
I disagree. I don't think there were any characters that I liked and could form a connection or liking for. I agree that the opening was very nice but too long.
Freddie - rubbish. Stupid voice, not scary, just meh. I'm sure they could have done much better.
He was ok but nothing special. I think whomever took it was onto a loser. Not only because they will get compared to Englund but also because as said before there have been so many of these kind of movoes it's pretty much all been done now.
The bath scene is another identical copy scene but they missed the best part of her being dragged under the bath.
The identical scenes were deliberate to pay homage to the classic scenes in the original. I think they switched her getting dragged under because people were expecting it and it's now a cliche.
Final point, the ending. I did prefer that to the odd one in the original.
I agree taht was much better even though I could see it coming.
Basically, I can't work out why they wasted the time in doing this without taking advantage of it being 2009. The technology, make up, skills we have now could have thrown this into a new league and become not a copy remake but a new franchise, a second chronicle perhaps. Instead, it's nothing more then a poor karaoke version of a well loved classic.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they needed to make it anyway but don't feel it would be any better using modern day technology, make up and skills. IMO they would have been wasted as there are so many of these kinds of films people will see past them and just want to review it based on one question. Did it scare me and make me jump or not?
You could spend millions on a gory special effect and you will sit there not scared or frightened by it. The next day i walk up behind you and shout BOO! and you will jump with fright. Cost...nothing! That officially means I frightened and made you jump for less money.
Never have i seen such a debacle on the screen. I thought Jackie E-H would've at least done a good job, but no. A shameful insult to the original.
Ok, they 'fleshed' out his back story. He was a peado. We all know that. How the hell does a burnt to death peado go about killing people in their dreams? Why the glove? Perhaps answering some of these questions would've redeemed it a little. All in all a perfect example of a reason not to remake a classic. I was seriously tempted to ask for my money back.
Get knotted Platinum Dunes. Try doing something original.
Watched it today and didn't think much of it. I remember going to the cinema to watch the originals 20 years ago and being scared, this one was not really that scary.
I agree with what someone else said on here about Nancy, she shouldn't have been the lead character as she was the weakest one of the lot acting wise. I would have liked to have seen the guy in the diner at the start play more of a role.
Overall an enjoyable film but I reckon they could have made it a bit longer as just over 1½ hours made the film seem rushed
Well i did see this on opening day (friday) and i went in with an open mind and oooh boy it was like watching a poorly acted reconstruction of the 7 other elm street films all rolled into 1 not to mention the fact that the new Freddy looked about as scary as an afternoon spent in the night garden with Iggle piggle and upsy daisy. I thought the whole "dream" scenes where very predictable the thing i liked about the original elm street was you never knew straight away weather it was the dream or not with this one you did and it all looked way to CGI which i hate with a passion in horror films. As for the whole Freddy back story i was nearly screaming ffs kill Michael Bay now!! did these people even watch or understood Wes Cravens original concept for Freddy?? Now we get to Freddy's make up :sleep: I might be wrong but didn't the producer say it was going to be more realistic to a burn victim? because it just looked like someone had poured some candle wax on his face. Robert Englunds make up in the original was far more scary looking than the new film. Not to mention Freddy had about 4 lines in the original
"this is god"
"Tina watch this"
"im ur boyfriend now nancy"
"im going to kill you slow"
In the new one he has about 20 all stolen from the other and original elm street films in short he was a lot scarier when you A didn't see him untill the end B because he didnt say much
really hope MB and PD burn in hell for what they have done A reboot !!! more like a F**KUP
One thing that hurt this movie was JEH's inability to express any emotion,due to the makeup.His eyes could barely be seen.
Robert Englund acted a lot with his eyes in the original - the totally crazed,maniacal and evil expressions he conveyed were badly missed here.
I bet The Candyman will be up on Platinum Dune's remake agenda.You just know what Bay and Fuller are thinking - use loads more bees and CGI shots of the hook through some skulls.Forget the hidden themes,narrative etc.
Don't these producers realise that if they took the time to find an orignial script for a change,instead of using old rope,they could find another Saw or Final Destination.They would make millions more in the long run...
Watched this tonight. After reading reviews I didn't expect to much tbh. It was actually better than I thought (though of course, I way prefer the original, wish I was old enough to see that when it was out).
At first you can't get used to Freddy's voice and I don't think his face is scarier than the original. I found Robert Englund Nightmare 1 a lot scarier but I was younger and he introduced a complete new character back then to the world of horror.
I liked the fact that the film was not entirely obvious to what was coming next, even though you keep expecting it to be. The killings in this remake seem to happen a lot faster than in the original where that gave you a more insight into the characters.
It was ok and I'd recommend people go to see it, as long as they don't go in there expecting to compare scene to scene this with the original. It was great to see Freddy back and obviously by the box office hit it has been in America, we wanted Freddy back.
Englund is still Freddy to me and I guess thats how it will always be.
I liked part 2 aswell,jesse's bedroom dance scene is priceless!i used to have the dream warriors poster in my bedroom when it 1st came out,the poster was really creepy with freddy coming out of the mist,i agree part 5 was brutal,i liked dream master lots though,the elm street legacy dvd is out now,i might buy it.
LOL I had the Dream Warriers poster also. I had loads of Freddy posters covering my bedroom walls. Strange really as most young teenagers had pop bands or film hunks but not me lol. I was trying to collect them all. Even swiped one of a bus stop.
In fact the girl who lived opposite me, said she used to have to draw her curtains early at night, as she used to go to bed, put on her light and see Freddy as she walked in her room:D She didn't like horror films.
Ok its not dirt, but its not particulary good either! Robert Englund was a believably creepy and sadistic killer where the new actor looked and acted like a pedophile. I thought the kills and nightmare sequences would be better, but greenscreens and special effects cannot compete with hands on. I didn't like that they gave us Freddies back story as if to justify what he became, in the original it was implied what Freddie did to the kids so it gave us a chance to decided wheter to like or dislike him where in this its very much obvious. Also the character Kris being dragged across the ceiling was more vicious and sadistic in the original also she the 'Tina' character or 'Kris' in this film seems to take on most of Nancy's research early on in the film suggesting she was the lead.
Comments
Not sure what everyone was expecting. No point bringing back Robert Englund. This is a reboot of a movie.
It was just nice to see Freddy back on the cinema screen. Whatever you all think, this movie is doing well, and the DVD will too...because it's Elm Street and it sells!
They took ideas and stuff from the movies, and made it their own. I agree, no CGI should be used as I hate it, but then again these days, if a foam board for $10 was used like in the original, people would slate how unrealistic it was!
Couldn't agree more!
I came away thinking they may as well have digitally remastered the original and re-released it.
6/10 and that's mostly for the very final scene :rolleyes:
That's fair enought,but
I don't mind another actor playing Freddy,but they are big shoes to fill so it needs to be done well.This version of the character looked like a cross between an alien and Robert Duvall,and the dialogue they gave him was often cringeworthy.
The 35 million dollar budget could have created better SFX than that; CGI doesn't need to look so cheap.Makeup,prosthetics etc have moved on so much from 1984,so those certain scenes in this remake could have looked way better,with some heart put into the project.
The story was more a total ripoff than a homeage - how hard is it to write an original story?
People won't talk about this made on the cheap for die hard Freddy fan in 6 months,nevermind 26 years.
After about 40 minutes,I was wishing for the cinema staff to start showing any from the original series!
They have digitally remastered the 1st one, in a 2 disc box set.
Does anyone know if they will ever digitally remaster all the other movies?
BUT
the back story was good i understood it more, i thought Freddy was creepy and they did do a good job in re-creating him.
overall i give 7/10
it is worth watching as it is watchable it isnt rubbish.
Totally agree with this.
I was reading a review on CHUD and I think this quote about sums up the situation.
I did
Firstly, let's be honest about the original - the acting is beyond terrible. Even Mr Depp was off and I bet nobody saw his long career happening off the back of this 'introduction'. However, the premise and story is excellent. A brilliant concept. The pace is good, the atmosphere works and it doesn't rely on cheap, easy, 'jumps' to get the scares.
There are, as to be expected, some cheesy 80's horror OTT gruesome moments - Freddy cutting himself for no reason other then to make the most of florescent green goo, maggots and anything else off coloured to spurt around. However, the deaths stand out very well - especially the first girl being dragged up the walls (surely a classic scene)
Now to the remake. What exactly was the point is almost copying the original so closely? Nancy was so diluted that I didn't care about her. In fact, they made us connect with the blonde girl at the start so much that I was sad she wasn't Nancy and it wasn't 'her story' we followed.
Was there any real need to have Freddy as a kiddy fiddler? Did that add anything? Also why the doubts over his innocence? The back story was a good addition but fairly weakly handled. Not mentioning the all important glove was a mistake.
Freddie pushing through the wall was in no way better done then in the original and that's got to be a worry. 26 years on and that same scene for 84 looks better!! Where did the money go as it wasn't used on CGI.
The only characters I liked were killed off first. I liked the guy in the coffee place at the start, that was a nice opening actually but a bit too long. I liked the blonde girl and her ex bf was decent enough. Acting was generally better then the 84.
Freddie - rubbish. Stupid voice, not scary, just meh. I'm sure they could have done much better.
The bath scene is another identical copy scene but they missed the best part of her being dragged under the bath.
Who would allow that guys death blog to be posted too?
Final point, the ending. I did prefer that to the odd one in the original.
Basically, I can't work out why they wasted the time in doing this without taking advantage of it being 2009. The technology, make up, skills we have now could have thrown this into a new league and become not a copy remake but a new franchise, a second chronicle perhaps. Instead, it's nothing more then a poor karaoke version of a well loved classic.
I thought Nancy came across very badly in the film. I'm not sure if it's more to do with the fact that when the original came out the genre was relatively new and thus fresh. Now we have had so many of these types of films that all these girls come across the same and so our perception of them is they are just "pretty girl screaming, running crying" through a film.
Let's say Halloween was never made then they made it today with the same cast being the age they were then. Would we be saying the "unknown" Jamie Lee Curtis was great in this film or would be seeing her as just another girl, running screaming, crying like the last 200+ girls?
It wasn't needed but I think it was always going to happen. It's common now that people seem to want everything explained or given to them on a plate. This being the case it has to be explained why Freddy was harming children and why he was burned. I'm sure 90% of the people would have assumed that he was a kiddy fiddler but for that remaining 10% it needs to be confirmed.
I agree the original does look so much better. The modern one looks like CGI. However I think it would always look like CGI n matter how much they spent on that scene. Again it's down to a different time. Back in the 80's we weren't so savy about special effects and would say I wonder how did they do that? Now we are programmed to go that's CGI. Even if it isn't we will automaically assume it is and write it off as being such.
I know that I am annoyingly good at spotting CGI effects even when they are getting mixed or used in conjunction with masks and animatronics. Flames are usually really easy to spot for example. I can spot which were done on set and which were added by CGI to make it look bigger than it was.
I disagree. I don't think there were any characters that I liked and could form a connection or liking for. I agree that the opening was very nice but too long.
He was ok but nothing special. I think whomever took it was onto a loser. Not only because they will get compared to Englund but also because as said before there have been so many of these kind of movoes it's pretty much all been done now.
The identical scenes were deliberate to pay homage to the classic scenes in the original. I think they switched her getting dragged under because people were expecting it and it's now a cliche.
I agree taht was much better even though I could see it coming.
Basically, I can't work out why they wasted the time in doing this without taking advantage of it being 2009. The technology, make up, skills we have now could have thrown this into a new league and become not a copy remake but a new franchise, a second chronicle perhaps. Instead, it's nothing more then a poor karaoke version of a well loved classic.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they needed to make it anyway but don't feel it would be any better using modern day technology, make up and skills. IMO they would have been wasted as there are so many of these kinds of films people will see past them and just want to review it based on one question. Did it scare me and make me jump or not?
You could spend millions on a gory special effect and you will sit there not scared or frightened by it. The next day i walk up behind you and shout BOO! and you will jump with fright. Cost...nothing! That officially means I frightened and made you jump for less money.
yep. just seen it. and couldnt believe i have just wasted my life.
as a huge fan of the original - it was a simple terrible kareoke version of the original
Never have i seen such a debacle on the screen. I thought Jackie E-H would've at least done a good job, but no. A shameful insult to the original.
Ok, they 'fleshed' out his back story. He was a peado. We all know that. How the hell does a burnt to death peado go about killing people in their dreams? Why the glove? Perhaps answering some of these questions would've redeemed it a little. All in all a perfect example of a reason not to remake a classic. I was seriously tempted to ask for my money back.
Get knotted Platinum Dunes. Try doing something original.
I agree with what someone else said on here about Nancy, she shouldn't have been the lead character as she was the weakest one of the lot acting wise. I would have liked to have seen the guy in the diner at the start play more of a role.
Overall an enjoyable film but I reckon they could have made it a bit longer as just over 1½ hours made the film seem rushed
"this is god"
"Tina watch this"
"im ur boyfriend now nancy"
"im going to kill you slow"
In the new one he has about 20 all stolen from the other and original elm street films in short he was a lot scarier when you A didn't see him untill the end B because he didnt say much
really hope MB and PD burn in hell for what they have done A reboot !!! more like a F**KUP
Robert Englund acted a lot with his eyes in the original - the totally crazed,maniacal and evil expressions he conveyed were badly missed here.
I bet The Candyman will be up on Platinum Dune's remake agenda.You just know what Bay and Fuller are thinking - use loads more bees and CGI shots of the hook through some skulls.Forget the hidden themes,narrative etc.
Don't these producers realise that if they took the time to find an orignial script for a change,instead of using old rope,they could find another Saw or Final Destination.They would make millions more in the long run...
Dunno but he is probably glad his hung up the hat and glove for good now. He deffo was and can be the only one to pull off freddy
At first you can't get used to Freddy's voice and I don't think his face is scarier than the original. I found Robert Englund Nightmare 1 a lot scarier but I was younger and he introduced a complete new character back then to the world of horror.
I liked the fact that the film was not entirely obvious to what was coming next, even though you keep expecting it to be. The killings in this remake seem to happen a lot faster than in the original where that gave you a more insight into the characters.
It was ok and I'd recommend people go to see it, as long as they don't go in there expecting to compare scene to scene this with the original. It was great to see Freddy back and obviously by the box office hit it has been in America, we wanted Freddy back.
Englund is still Freddy to me and I guess thats how it will always be.
LOL I had the Dream Warriers poster also. I had loads of Freddy posters covering my bedroom walls. Strange really as most young teenagers had pop bands or film hunks but not me lol. I was trying to collect them all. Even swiped one of a bus stop.
In fact the girl who lived opposite me, said she used to have to draw her curtains early at night, as she used to go to bed, put on her light and see Freddy as she walked in her room:D She didn't like horror films.
The female characters (including Nancy) don't stand out much and there's an over-reliance on jumpy moments but overall it's a decent film.
Ok its not dirt, but its not particulary good either! Robert Englund was a believably creepy and sadistic killer where the new actor looked and acted like a pedophile. I thought the kills and nightmare sequences would be better, but greenscreens and special effects cannot compete with hands on. I didn't like that they gave us Freddies back story as if to justify what he became, in the original it was implied what Freddie did to the kids so it gave us a chance to decided wheter to like or dislike him where in this its very much obvious. Also the character Kris being dragged across the ceiling was more vicious and sadistic in the original also she the 'Tina' character or 'Kris' in this film seems to take on most of Nancy's research early on in the film suggesting she was the lead.