data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6b963/6b9634452616202cc196835e7280f05b0dde3c03" alt="Todd Haynes"
Todd Haynes
Book
Todd Haynes's films are intricate and purposeful, combining the intellectual impact of art cinema...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/42c9a/42c9aa8b28d45be2fe238bb531152e97c550d46c" alt="40x40"
Nicholas Cage recommended East of Eden (1955) in Movies (curated)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e43e/6e43e30d474a66e7307e65a5c21e2c6d95061541" alt="40x40"
Pat Healy recommended Videodrome (1983) in Movies (curated)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d6083/d6083fa9182ec3db75fbee11746c4bd098e62137" alt="40x40"
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) in Movies
May 10, 2020
The world is made up of people who prefer the Steve McQueen version and those who like this one (and I suppose there are conceivably a few folk who've seen neither): I am in the Brosnan camp, although this film does kind of miss the point that Crown only steals for the fun of it in the original (Brosnan's character clearly appreciates art). Much more of a romantic drama than an actual thriller, but well played and engaging, and the set pieces, when they eventually come, are clever and well-staged. As a chance for Brosnan (then at the apogee of his Bond success) to show his range, it's a qualified success (Crown is another suave, high-living thrill seeker with possible commitment issues), but as a piece of entertainment it does the job.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7288e/7288e2e549c8327ce4c1653483716c799e5e274a" alt="Remember Who You Are"
Remember Who You Are
Book
Being miserable at Walt Disney World is simply not allowed! Poppy Darling has always loved...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6578/c6578f7497f896a4de1709ef149cd814a3ae3772" alt="The Game Theorists"
The Game Theorists
YouTube Channel
Hello Internet! I'm Matpat and welcome to GAME THEORY! Do you ever wonder what secrets could be...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/30c70/30c70a058e8125029f85b41f1039daedc646b834" alt="Staring Back"
Staring Back
Chris Marker, Bill Horrigan and Molly Nesbit
Book
Any new film and any new book by French filmmaker Chris Marker is an event. Marker gave film lovers...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5ba83/5ba83dc9577030ddffa77135af3ace1c191b5154" alt="Harmony Korine: Interviews"
Harmony Korine: Interviews
Book
Harmony Korine: Interviews tracks filmmaker Korine's stunning rise, fall, and rise again through his...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85ec5/85ec56762843090a8aac1ade05fc140407b3d320" alt="40x40"
Jeremy Workman recommended Blast of Silence (1961) in Movies (curated)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/289a1/289a1a65610ab3b2c9bb4b0f2dbc0a138d69715b" alt="40x40"
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.