I know this is a fan-poster. I just think all of the official ones are crap.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) currently holds a 15% on RottenTomatoes. 25 out of 145 critics gave it a positive review, mainly stating they only gave it a positive review for Jackie as Freddy alone. But is there more to like than just the performance of our lead? Are people really hating this movie because it's a remake and tries to do it's own thing? Well, we just have to find out.
The main reason people seem to hate this movie is Freddy. Not Jackie's performance, but his character story. They hate the molestation sub-plot and they say it doesn't fit for a slasher movie about a burned man with knives for fingers. Now, everyone knows Freddy was originally going to be a child molester but Wes Craven went against the idea because that was in the news when he was making the original film. So what better way to bring back Wes's idea and put it in a modernized remake for a new audience? Well, there's good and bad ideas about that statement. The average horror audience today are teenagers and college kids who cram the aisles to see the latest Paranormal Activity film or some found footage flick. Saw was also a hit with them but the general audience doesn't use their brain when watching movies like that - they just go for the gore and leave the theater. So how do I think the average teenage audience felt after watching A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)? They loved the scares, gore, and the guys from Twilight, not even thinking about how great the molestation and abuse plot was. Which is fine since I'm glad some people like this movie. A Nightmare on Elm Street was also seen by lot of fans who grew up with the original franchise, hoping the new Freddy would bring some sort of nostalgia back to them. And how do you think the average Freddy fan dressed in red and green felt? Disturbed. Absolutely. Disturbed. The trailers, TV Spots, stills, etc. made the new Freddy look more meaner and sadistic but when everyone thinks of Freddy they think of Robert making some pun in one of the later sequels. This Freddy here is a mean, horrifying, and cold killing machine who touches children and brings horrible memories back to them when they grow older, messing with their psychological state and crushing their soul when they see evidence photos of them being abused. I feel bad for the Freddy fans who felt disappointed and disturbed when they saw this new portrayal of Freddy that was not so funny, but only because they bash the film just because their favorite horror icon had a different personality and motive to him. That's not really fair.
The other reason people hate this movie is because of Rooney Mara, the girl who plays Nancy. I don't have any respect for her since she publicly said she had no intention of trying to give a good performance since she hated the experience of working on the film. That screams unprofessional, but do I hate her performance? Not at all. The Nancy in this Nightmare universe is an introvert who focuses more on art than hanging out with people. The art she draws is a very special element she brings to this character. In a flashback sequence, Nancy is shown painting and drawing pictures next to Freddy. Freddy says "I have really bad drawings so maybe you can help me with my bad drawings?" The main thing Freddy and Nancy bonded with is art, which Nancy still carries to her teen years but draws and paints more disturbing and weird pictures. Even if she doesn't remember who Freddy was early in the film, her being abused and molested carried on with her art so she expressed her depressed, disgusted, and shy feelings onto canvases.
Nancy's "lifeless" performance in this film works for her character. She was hurt, abused, lied to, and isolated. Even if Rooney didn't give a shit about the film, her portrayal of a girl who was born an outsider and turned into a depressed loner works for her character in every way. People complain about Rooney being "boring" and "stale" and "monotonous". If you were in Nancy's shoes as a molested and abused girl, I wouldn't act like a girl-next-door Heather Langenkamp either.
One thing I can appreciate about this film is it's use of dreams and micro naps, or the correct word "micro-sleep". This film lacks any creativity the original franchise had in the use of atmosphere and dreams since the dream world was mainly in a boiler room, in a pre-school, or a bedroom full of snow. However, the use of micro-naps was very cool in this film. It didn't overdo it and the first scene of micro-naps happened 50 minutes into the film, not making dreaming the whole point of the movie. The idea of dying when you are awake or falling asleep is very terrifying. When you are asleep, Freddy will get you. When you aren't asleep, you have a micro-nap and Freddy still has the chance to get you.
Finally, this is not something I'm defending, but something that makes this movie one of the scariest IF not the scariest entry in the franchise. Near the end of the movie one of the characters, Quentin, gets attacked and slashed by Freddy in a dream. After he cuts him, he chases Nancy and suggestively taunts her before Quentin wakes Nancy up and then Freddy gets killed in the real world. I don't believe anything after the two words "taunts her" in the sentence I just wrote. Why? Because when Nancy goes back into the real world you can see Quentin without the wounds he got in his scene with Freddy. He only gets those wounds when Freddy beats him up and stabs him which happens again in the real world. A character in the beginning of the movie got slashed in a dream and when he woke up he saw the slash mark on his hand, so why didn't the wounds appear on Quentin? It's because Quentin died in that dream. Not only is this a fan theory (which I stole from IMDB boards) but it makes logical sense. Quentin appears in the real world fight with Freddy and he has different wounds that he did not receive in his nightmare. In Quentin's Nightmare, we can assume after he got slashed he failed to wake Nancy up and died from blood loss so Nancy went into the coma that happens from micro-naps (which Quentin said earlier in a scene with Nancy) and will never be woken up. That means she will be raped, slashed, and brutalized with Freddy for god knows how long and if you don't think that's horrifying, then I don't know what to say.
In conclusion, the hate for A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) is pretty damn unfair. There are things that weaken the film like the dozens of jump-scares (which the studios or someone behind the movie wanted to add because all horror films use them nowadays), the homages to the original franchise (the homages weaken this movie from feeling like a different movie from the original 100%), and some of the bad dialogue and lack of creativity in the dream sequences. However, I will defend this movie for as long as I can since I can appreciate the work that was put into it and other things I enjoyed. A lot of cool dream stuff was cut out like Freddy morphing into people, different openings, a different ending (which is on YouTube and it's excellent), etc. I hope some of that footage will be released some day but I doubt it because everyone that worked on this film seems to hate it. Oh well.
And for anyone who wants to see the alternate ending, here it is. I think it's great and Rooney did amazing in the ending, giving a Langenkamp performance but doing it in her own way. I also loved that Freddy showed his true face, making him much more terrifying.
A Nightmare on Elm Street - My Rating: 8.5/10 (85%)
No comments:
Post a Comment