A Nightmare on Elm Street
It refers to both the literal, fatal nightmares experienced by the characters in the film, and the figurative nightmare of having to sit through this embarrassingly boring work of rubbish.

You may not have been aware that the title of the 2010 remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street is now a double entendre. It refers to both the literal, fatal nightmares experienced by the characters in the film, and the figurative nightmare of having to sit through this embarrassingly boring work of rubbish.

Fan-chat prior to the release of the movie took the quality of the plot and back-story for given. Fans’ fears were focused around the casting of horror new-comer Jackie Earl Hayley (Shutter Island, Watchmen, Maniac Cop 3: Badge of Silence) as one of the ripper genre’s most famous faces; Freddy Krueger. Would Haley be able to bring suitable manic creepiness to the undead slasher made famous over a string of films by Robert Englund? Would he manage the delivery of Krueger’s bizarre, mocking dialogue? And would he still have that ugly sweater?

Now, to a non-fan such as me this seems like arguing whether Wilt ‘The Stilt’ Chamberlain would have been able to replace Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca. It ignores the reality of both characters being fairly flimsy caricatures; Krueger of that mad child-killer we’ve all met at one time or another and Chewbacca of…. Scooby Doo? It turns out that Hayley’s new Krueger is no more or less believable than the original, has neither the physical presence nor the camp humour that made Englund’s old Krueger watchable. And if Freddy’s bad, the other characters are awful. Nothing about the bratty teenagers (all played by actors who look in their mid-thirties) makes you care about their survival; you’re tempted to cheer when they finally get cut apart.

If this criticism seems a little tongue in cheek, then let me turn to something more serious; the direction. One of the strengths of the original Nightmare was the (at times) subtle shifts between reality and nightmare, and resulting ability to confuse the audience as to which was which. Samuel Bayer, here making his directorial debut, has completely failed to grasp the nuance of this, and his shifts between sleep and wake are as subtle as a pantomime signs encouraging the audience to cheer a hero or boo a villain.

An embarrassing villain, poor acting from a mediocre cast, weak unimaginative direction and a plot we all already know. If I had to find something to recommend this movie, it would be that there is less killing than original. Making it more suitable viewing for say, Quakers. Samuel Beyer can at least give himself a pat on the back for that.

Share Tweet Email