Freddy Krueger part-time homeless man, full-time non-corporeal terror of the children on Elm Street haunts a handful of teens. He pushes them, teases them and sometimes tortures the audience with his films. Jackie Earle Haley plays the part of the titular villain. Haley is very good.
As the non-ethereal Krueger, Haley performs with a hint of frailty. He is pitiful, mildly sympathetic until a semi-dramatic plot twist ruptures this image completely. As evil Freddy Krueger bent on dealing terror throughout Elm Street, Haley does the best he can with the dialogue given.
He says all of lines like he means them, but half way through realizes his lines are just filler. He seems to be wondering why he is talking at all. Why do villains explain any of their actions? It makes the villains seem reasonable and even negotiable. Don't do it.
The film makers also decided that Haley's Krueger voice needed a boost in bass. Audience members will clearly know Krueger is in town when the theater's seats start to rumble. Haley's augmented voice is not subtle. It's irritating, his voice is too loud. If a person dies only to come back as a ghost and for some inane reason posses a deeper voice, people will start asking questions. People with brains.
The first clue that Freddy Krueger is back isn't the nightmares, it's his ridiculous voice.
The plot differs from the original 1984 film. The setting is different, helping to represent the new state of the world. Audience's will know that this is an entirely new take on the Nightmare series because the male characters of the film wear just as much make up as the female characters. Expect heavy use of both computer imagery and mascara on the male actors.
Why do the male characters of the picture wear mascara? Are they trying to protect themselves from Freddy Krueger or are they dressing up for him? No one knows and I don't care.
Yes, there are parts of “Nightmare on Elm Street” that can be liked. The visual effects are wonderful. Freddy Krueger's face is a mixture of make-up and computer imagery. Film makers have gone ahead and made Krueger appear ghastly through the details of visible muscle and tendons. He looks more like a zombie than a demon from hell.
Rooney Mara plays Nancy Holbrook, the protagonist for the picture, Mara is a very believable actress. When she expresses fear or concern, audience's will forget that those expressions are for the film's script. I genuinely found Mara to be charismatic and cheered her on in her fight against Freddy Krueger. Her victory over Freddy can only be meaningful if she is a likable character. But even as the main protagonist of the film, Mara's Holbrook cannot escape the script. Virtually the only thing audiences find out about Mara's Holbrook is that her character is artistic.
There's some blood colored syrup throughout the picture. It wouldn't be a slasher or horror film without it. Most of the scenes involving Krueger aren't particularly gory. But, a few scenes will haunt the memories of film goers, the first and last scene of the picture are the most disturbing. Cover your eyes.
The horror industry has found many new friends from “Saw” to “The Fourth Kind.” “Nightmare on Elm Street” responds to these films with a whimper. It's a picture displaced by time and unapologetic affection for the original source material.
There isn't a point in recalling the greatness of the original “Nightmare on Elm Street” films or revisiting the Freddy Krueger character. Simply walk down to the local video store and rent the original pictures, that way multiple films can be watched at the same cost as a ticket to the theater.
The “Nightmare on Elm Street” reboot is akin to rewriting Jane Austen's classic “Pride and Prejudice” but set in a contemporary time period with the same characters, motivations and releasing that atrocity to the public. If you're saying that would be pointless and cruel, you're right.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment