Café de Nuit

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.

Funny you should mention the remake, as I introduced the roommates to the original a few weeks back, marking this as my first viewing of the movie in almost 20 years.

I was surprised at how badly it has aged and how simplistic it gets at times. Not quite a slasher proper, it does tend to straddle many of the genre's tropes from that time period all the while adding some interesting albeit under developped concepts.

It seems seeing it when I was 10 back in the 80's and seeing it now as an adult and with years of horror movie watching behind me has somehow dampened its impact. Then again, I recall watching Dreamscape after my introduction to Freddy and finding that ANoES lost a little something once its novelty factor wears off. Perhaps knowing that others (say the Coffin Joe movies) had worked in similar territory previously somehow blemishes the movie's charm.

Maybe its the bad acting, maybe its the datedness of the whole thing, but it just doesn't generate the fascination it once did. Oh sure, there's the whole psychoanalytical subtext with Freddy as the metaphorical fear of the father and childhood trauma that accompany his return, but what else is there beyond those cute nudges and winks to Freud and Lacan (some of which possibly unintentional)?

I just saw it with my wife and we found it enterntaining and fun. Although I was quite aware that there would be scary scenes, I was quite impressed about the change of pacing and sudden appereances of Haley... er Freddy. I must admit I jumped a few times during the movie.

However it is true that very few pictures nowadays manage to impress the audiences. I guess we all have lost the ability to be impressed, and we need visual orgies like Avatar to feel that the movie was really worth it.

Don Fernando wrote:I just saw it with my wife and we found it enterntaining and fun. Although I was quite aware that there would be scary scenes, I was quite impressed about the change of pacing and sudden appereances of Haley... er Freddy. I must admit I jumped a few times during the movie.

However it is true that very few pictures nowadays manage to impress the audiences. I guess we all have lost the ability to be impressed, and we need visual orgies like Avatar to feel that the movie was really worth it.

I don't think visuals are *needed* to impress, so much as we know the tropes and style and cliches of the genre. We know how often an action sequence or scare has to come (rather like the Well-made Play chart) and how tension gets built then released.
25-years of Nightmare on Elm Street means the audience knows when something is likely a dream sequence, how Freddy works, and when the scares are coming. The old movies just don't scare as well as they used to because we just know how it works and have seen it all done before - only bigger and better.

Impressive movies now tend to go above and beyond, doing something unseen. This can be the big, sweeping visual but even CGI is old hat now. When I see some crazy, impossible action sequence or unnatural monstrosity I just know it was 110% CGI.
You can't just have a single photo-realistic alien world any more, you need an entire ecosystem and ecology with multiple noteworthy creatures.

Zettaijin's post made me realize what it was that I felt was missing from this movie. Beginning with 'Dream Warriors', We began seeing the kids in the movies besieged by more than just the killer.

*** Spoiler Alert for those who haven't seen the movies ***

(I really wonder if there's point to that. I mean if you haven't worked up the guts to see them by now- and I admit that I didn't until last year- then nothing I say here is going to change that. anyway...)

In 'Dream Warriors', the kids are also at the mercy of a stone-headed doctor who is bound and determined to prove that their problems are a direct result of sex, drugs, and rock'n roll. She is as much a danger to the kids as Krueger. Almost like Krueger was manipulating her. In 'Dream Child', the girl who manages to become a barrier to him in 'Dream Master' gets pregnant and because fetuses begin to dream in the first trimester, Krueger uses the childs dreams to bypass the girl and get his claws into her friends again, then when his first victim is the baby's father, the boys parents try to bully the girl into surrendering her baby to them. What was cool about this was that these were very current issues at the time. Teen drug culture and teen prenancy were new issues at the time. Including them in these movies was very daring in that it brought these issues face to face with the very people who were at the center of them. The movie makers were risking alienating their core audience - a very bold move. I guess I was hoping to see something just as daring in this movie. And I was disappointed when I didn't get it. I'm still kind of disappointed.

I was a unnerved by the 2 little girls in dresses like in the movie who where skipping up the isle next to my seat. That was kinda of freaky.

Glad I don't have to waste my time seeing this one. The originals are always better!

Well, I didn't say it was unwatchable. Just wait for it to hit the dollar theatre and you've got a saturday afternoon to waste.

If Robert Englund isn't Freddy, it's not a Nightmare movie. And like MOE, I have a fascination with the series (more like obsession personally). Robert MADE Freddy. Hell, he even played Freddy in the Freddy's Nightmares TV series. Take him out of the equation and Freddy isn't Freddy, he's a poseur. Sadly I think Freddy vs. Jason was the last time we'll see Mr. Englund as Freddy Krueger. But that's just me.

And thank you, MOE, for this review. I put off seeing it when I heard that Freddy was being played by someone other than Englund. Now I see it's not worth it to (diehard, ultra-pro-Robert Englund-Freddy) fans like me. It may not be a bad movie, but it sounds like this is where ANOES and I part ways from now on.

Also, Jester, in Dream Child the reason the father's parents want her to give up the baby is because she began ranting and raving during the ultrasound, when she saw what Freddy was doing to her unborn child in a bizarre vision. But yeah, that was a very relevant and real problem that American society wasn't facing as it should have--and still isn't IMO. The same can be said about Dream Master when Alice (the girl who's the protag in Master and Child) uses daydreams to escape the emotional abuses of her alcoholic father; people knew about physical abuse, but they hadn't quite accepted that emotional abuse can and does leave deeper scars, which I know all too well. Today I realize I'd sooner have had my father beat me than say half the things he did when I was a child. Physical scars heal, but emotional ones don't.

LadySoth wrote:Glad I don't have to waste my time seeing this one. The originals are always better!

I find John Caroenter's The Thing to be vastly superior to the original, although seriously flawed and too often reliant on its superb SFX.

Also, the 70's Invasion of the Body Snatchers is in the same boat.

When it comes to remakes people only seem to remember the crap. A remake can be pure gold.

The Thing
The Fly
The 1990 remake of Night Of The Living Dead

That being said, I was never that much of a fan of the franchise. In fact I found Freddy Versus Jason the most enjoyable of all. Love that flick.

Lovecraftforever wrote:When it comes to remakes people only seem to remember the crap. A remake can be pure gold.

The 1990 remake of Night Of The Living Dead

Amen to that!

Lovecraftforever wrote:That being said, I was never that much of a fan of the franchise. In fact I found Freddy Versus Jason the most enjoyable of all. Love that flick.

Heresy!

High Priest Mikhal wrote:

Lovecraftforever wrote:When it comes to remakes people only seem to remember the crap. A remake can be pure gold.

The 1990 remake of Night Of The Living Dead

Amen to that!

Lovecraftforever wrote:That being said, I was never that much of a fan of the franchise. In fact I found Freddy Versus Jason the most enjoyable of all. Love that flick.

Heresy!

LOL! I get that a lot.

Part 1: Innovative. Genuinely scary. With grade A practical effects.

Part 2: Overlooked and a brave and bold move. The unusual and dangerous choice to play up the homoeroticism of Freddy and play up a possible homosexual attraction between Freddy and the lead character was brilliant. Give this film another look.

Parts 3-6: Freddy becomes a Batman villain.

New Nightmare: ... how much weed did Wes smoke when he wrote this?

Remake: Not terrible, but they missed an opportunity. 5/10

Lovecraftforever wrote: Parts 3-6: Freddy becomes a Batman villain.

You're closer than you think. I've often said on comic boards that movie killers like Freddy are (for lack of better terms) The super-villains without the existence of the super-heroes. Without these 'counter characters' if you will, these killers just launch into a long strings of murders until something or someone stops them. Sort of like the DarkLords. You won't find Freddy or Jason's literary ancestors in film. At least not dated earlier than you can find them in the comics. Just as Freddy is clearly a descendant of The Joker, Jason is rather clearly a descendant of DCs Solomon Grundy. The movie makers may not even have realized they were doing it. Comics were once, and have become again, as much a source of horror as movies or books. For a GREAT example of classic comic book horror made into a movie, see the movie MAN-THING. It should be in any Video store.

Manofevil wrote:

Lovecraftforever wrote: Parts 3-6: Freddy becomes a Batman villain.

You're closer than you think. I've often said on comic boards that movie killers like Freddy are (for lack of better terms) The super-villains without the existence of the super-heroes. Without these 'counter characters' if you will, these killers just launch into a long strings of murders until something or someone stops them. Sort of like the DarkLords. You won't find Freddy or Jason's literary ancestors in film. At least not dated earlier than you can find them in the comics. Just as Freddy is clearly a descendant of The Joker, Jason is rather clearly a descendant of DCs Solomon Grundy. The movie makers may not even have realized they were doing it. Comics were once, and have become again, as much a source of horror as movies or books. For a GREAT example of classic comic book horror made into a movie, see the movie MAN-THING. It should be in any Video store.

Comedic one liners. Check.
Mugging for the camera. Check.
Nefarious and overly complex plans. Check.
Origin story gets more and more complex and confusing. Check.
Plots get foiled at last possible moment by hero. Check.
Explaining his plan to the hero for no apparent reason. Check.