Manofevil wrote:Having something of a fascination with this series, I went to see the remake tonight. When the credits rolled, my reaction was 'meh'. I didn't HATE it, but I didn't LIKE it. I'm not gonna say it didn't work. There are no glaring flaws. Jackie Earle Haley does a very convincing and very distinctive Freddy Krueger. His performance is easily on the same level as Robert Englund's but there was nothing in particular that made it shine. This entire movie seemed to be nothing more than an exercise in adequacy. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I can't see it making money. I don't really mind the remakes of the 70's and 80's slasher movies, I mean, look how many remakes there have been of Dracula and Frankenstein, but they really should be better than the original in some way like the successful Dracula and Frankenstein remakes were. This movie has its twists, moreso than the original series, which is really what carries it, though it's really not enough to really make the movie exceptional. Looking at this movie, I am forced wonder why they didn't just do another chapter to the original series which would have added another layer to the character instead of.. THIS. It seems it would have been money better spent.
Emphasis mine.
Its always easier to rehash previous works than to expend the energy and creativity to generate something new and good.
You can't have S-L-A-U-G-H-T-E-R without L-A-U-G-H-T-E-R.
Ancalagon wrote:
Emphasis mine.
Its always easier to rehash previous works than to expend the energy and creativity to generate something new and good.
Perhaps, but I prefer the original Freddy's motivation for killing over the new one's.
VIEW CONTENT:
The old Freddy wanted revenge on the whole town and knew that the satisfying way to do it was to destroy it one family at a time- and the best way to do THAT was to kill one of their children. The family almost never survives. One need only pick up a newspaper today to see that. The new Freddy was child molester who was hunting down his former victims for, he believes, ratting him out. Doesn't leave a lot of room for sequels.
Do us a favor Luv, Stick yer 'ead in a bucket a kick it!
So, gentlemen, that's how it is. Until Grissome.... resurfaces, I'm the acting president, and I say starting with this... anniversary festival, we run this city into the ground! :D
I'm not gonna say it didn't work. There are no glaring flaws. Jackie Earle Haley does a very convincing and very distinctive Freddy Krueger. His performance is easily on the same level as Robert Englund's but there was nothing in particular that made it shine. This entire movie seemed to be nothing more than an exercise in adequacy. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I can't see it making money. I don't really mind the remakes of the 70's and 80's slasher movies, I mean, look how many remakes there have been of Dracula and Frankenstein, but they really should be better than the original in some way like the successful Dracula and Frankenstein remakes were. This movie has its twists, moreso than the original series, which is really what carries it, though it's really not enough to really make the movie exceptional. Looking at this movie, I am forced wonder why they didn't just do another chapter to the original series which would have added another layer to the character instead of.. THIS. It seems it would have been money better spent.
