A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4, as Reviewed by a 13-Year-Old B-Sol

Once a writer, always a writer, I suppose. That's the conclusion I've come to after having gone through piles and piles of stuff that had been previously cluttering my basement for years, and coming across a mother lode of scribblings from my youth. Not only was it proof positive that the writing bug had bitten me very early in my existence, but I also found further proof that my fixation on horror is certainly nothing new.

Case in point: Printed out in dot matrix fashion from my Commodore 64, I found a homemade "movie magazine" entitled "CINEMAG"--created by yours truly in the summer of 1988, at the tender age of 13. Even then, I was driven to share my opinions on motion pictures in printed form--go figure. To scan through the pages of CINEMAG (there was only one issue ever made) is to peer into the adolescent mind of a developing cinephile, with articles on Tucker: A Man and His Dream, A Fish Called Wanda, Young Guns and Clean and Sober.

But what caught my attention in particular was my review of A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4: The Dream Master. NOES 4 was the first R-rated flick I had ever seen in a movie theater, and one of my earliest experiences with modern horror. I can remember having very well-defined opinions on it, and it was quite something to find those opinions preserved in this way. It inspired me to share those opinions with you--and so, without further ado, I bring you the transcript of that very article, taken from the stapled pages of CINEMAG...

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 - Are You Ready for Freddy?

He has been the most commonly known movie monster since Dracula. A classic cult figure since he first appeared on the screen almost a half decade ago. He is the villain of three high-budget horror films, the fourth of the series just released. The character is Freddy Krueger. The movie series--A Nightmare on Elm Street.

When one thinks of a slasher film, one thinks of a low-budget, blood and guts, no-plot, piece of garbage film, as the Friday the 13th series has proven [Ed. note: Even then, I hated Friday the 13th!]. But one notices a definite difference in these films. First of all, these films are considered by most to be genuinely scary, and not just bloodfests. They even border on the realm of science fiction, for the special effects are highly acclaimed. Overall the past three (the original, Freddy's Revenge, and Dream Warriors) got pretty satisfactory reviews from major critics. And the public obviously likes them, for they have a combined gross of close to $200 million.

But most horror film series have a tendency to become repetitious after a while. Can this happen even with such a successful series as Elm Street, especially upon the current release of the latest episode, A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Master? One redeeming factor is the fact that the special effects become more common and more spectacular in each film, since Freddy becomes more powerful with the more children he kills. I mean, in the beginning, the extent of his powers would be to pull someone into a bed, where now he actually turns a kid into a roach (upon trapping her in a roach motel, he sneers, "You can check in, but you can't check out!") The acing, as usual, is far from top-notch, so we may see Freddy as a movie critic back from the grave for revenge. Most critics share my view that the series is becoming tiresome, and the suspense and fear element is almost completely gone in this film, giving way to pure gore.

This movie, though, is presently the number-one movie in America, but this is almost certainly because of the popularity of the last three films, and so it may not be top for very long.

Personally, though, having seen the film, I see it simply as a rush job made to tie up any loose ends presented in the last sequel. But you don't have to take mine or anybody's word for it--go to the theater, buy some popcorn, cuddle up to your girlfriend, and get ready for Freddy...

Tweet

Meeting of the Minds: The Nightmare on Elm Street Remake

If I haven't already just come out and said it by now, I guess now is as good a time as any: Yes, I liked the Nightmare on Elm Street remake. And yes, I realize I seem to be in the minority on this (that's happening a lot lately, I must be getting soft in my old age.) Apparently most horror fans--or at least most over the age of 16--seem to have nothing but bile and vitriol for the latest Platinum Dunes product. One of the most bilious and vitriolic happens to be none other than VoH contributor Marilyn Merlot. So, as with our horror vs. thriller debate, I figured what better way to hash out the issue than another one-on-one discussion...

B-Sol: OK so, obviously you didn't care for it at all.

Marilyn Merlot: No, I didn't. It's ironic that the kids in the movie are trying not to fall asleep, because I think the audience was also trying to not fall asleep.

BS: Well, I have to say that your opinion seems to be the one most people have. I went in thinking I'd feel the same way, but I actually kind of liked it. I surprised myself! I mean, I wouldn't say I loved it or went nuts for it, but I thought it was fun, and not the disaster I was expecting.

MM: You thought it was fun... I'm perplexed to hear you say that.

BS: I thought it worked on its own merits. It's still a very cool concept, and even though it didn't pull it off as well as the original, I still thought it was an effective horror movie. The original is still much scarier, but I thought this one brought some interesting things to the table.

MM: I just don't see it. The plot and the characters all fell flat for me. Take nancy for example, someone who in the original carried the film and was a leading part. This new Nancy was not a strong character, and pale and way too skinny, with no power in her. I did not like the fact that they changed some characters. Like Katie Cassidy should have been Tina, not Kris. Don't get me going on the famous bed scene with her going up the wall and to the ceiling, and the major blood bath--that didn't happen. Granted, she did get knocked around pretty good, but thats it!

BS: Yes, they did turn Nancy emo, this is true. And the rest of the characters were pretty lame and annoying, especially Quentin, who seemed to be there to appeal to the Twilight crowd. I also thought it was weird that they carried over Nancy, but none of her friends from the original. That said, I really liked how they delved into the Freddy backstory, and gave Jackie Earle Haley a lot to do. The movie was basically more about Freddy than the kids, which is different from the original, but I thought it was a cool direction. I even liked how they make you think for a second that he might've been innocent!

MM: Yes, her friends were annoying, and I'm still upset over the fact that we had no Johnny Depp character. Another famous bed scene, and another blood bath that didn't happen. The fact that Freddy might have been innocent was a cool concept, but I didn't like the new Freddy... from the makeup to his voice. It just didn't sit right with me.

BS: OK, I'll agree with part of that. His look did nothing for me. They made him look like a realistic burn victim, which was the wrong way to go. He wound up looking like an alien, or a turtle or something. But other than his appearance, I think he himself did a pretty good job with the role. I was OK with the more normal-sounding voice.

MM: Granted, the guy does creep me out in real life ever since I saw him in Little Children starring Kate Winslet. He is a great actor. This was not the role for him!

BS: I kept thinking of the Little Children part while I was watching this, and how they also went fully into the territory of child molestation here, too. They always kind of stayed away from that in the old ones, I think on purpose.

MM: The whole thing about him molesting the children, but no one actually saying he did, was a little weird to me. The whole plot of the movie just didn't work. I did not find it scary or suspenseful. Are you actually telling me you did? Seriously B-Sol, I'm starting to question your judgment on movies!

BS: I bet you're not the only one! I may very well be getting soft lately, but I actually liked how a lot of it was presented. It might not have been as scary or suspenseful as the original, but the Freddy scenes were still very well done, when they weren't relying too heavily on CGI. I, for one, loved the part where they paid tribute to the Tina murder from the original, where she's floating in the air. That really worked for me.

MM: By that point, nothing worked for me.

BS: I did come away feeling the whole thing was kind of unnecessary--at least from a creative standpoint, I'm sure it's making a lot of money. But as remakes of horror classics go, this was definitely one of the more acceptable ones in recent memory. Yes, that's a lukewarm endorsement; I liked it, but not as strongly as you hated it, I think.

MM: There were so many key points in the original that they left out. I even had to laugh at some mistakes that I caught in the movie. For example, Nancy is watching this one kid blog on video about his Freddy dreams ,and we see him die on film. Who uploaded it for him after? Or the fact that when Kris is home alone she puts the alarm system on, but her boyfriend has no problem climbing through the bedroom window with no alarm going off--then when he goes outside to check on the dog that ran out... again, no alarm. Sorry, the movie was poorly done.

BS: Yes, it did have a slew of logic issues, no doubt about that, but those kinds of technicalities didn't put me off. I initially had high hopes for the movie, which came way down after reading a lot of responses. But then when i saw it, I think I wound up somewhere in the middle. I was hoping mainly for a solid, mainstream horror movie that was fun without being actively awful or offending my horror snob sensibilities. And I actually think that's what I got. Unlike, say, the Friday the 13th remake, which was so lame and pointless it actually made me angry. Almost as angry as this Nightmare remake has made you!

MM: I would watch the remake of Friday the 13th anyday!

BS: So that one you liked??

MM: I actually didn't mind that one, but then again, you never cared for the original, so for you to judge the remake isn't acceptable to me... With all due respect, of course!

BS: I am a died-in-the-wool F13 hater, and yes, I did find the remake to be very faithful to the old ones, which explains why I didn't like it.

MM: If you don't like the original, it's just not fair for you to judge a remake.

BS: Well, clearly we are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the Michael Bay-produced horror remakes. How about you stick with Friday the 13th, I stick with A Nightmare on Elm Street, and we call it a day?

MM: Agreed.... Now just don't fall asleep...

Tweet

TRAILER TRASH: Nightmare on Elm Street Edition!

Tweet

A Quarter-Century of Krueger: The Final Nightmare

Well, this is it, the last installment of QCK, my little celebration of the 25th anniversary of A Nightmare on Elm Street. It's been fun looking back on one of the genre's most beloved and influential movies, and I hope you've enjoyed reading it as much as I've enjoyed putting it together. And so, as the anniversary year draws to a close, here's a handy-dandy index of all the QCK posts I've run this year, for your perusing pleasure:

• Freddy's Famous Friends
• Freddy's Life and Times
• The Music of Nightmares
• Favorite Elm Street One-Liners
• Freddy's Folkloric Origins
• The Kills
• Alice, Sweet Alice
• Happy Birthday, Dear Freddy...
• Nightmare on My Street!!!
• How a Porn Producer Changed the Face of Horror
• Who Knew Freddy Could Be So Cute??
• Following in Craven's Footsteps
• NOES Remake Comic Con Panel!
• The Remake that Might Have Been
• The All-American, Bullet-Headed Saxon Mother's Son
• Freddy in Love
• The Long-Lost Marvel NOES Comic Magazine...
• Variations on Freddy
• Creating Freddy
• Can We Talk About Ronee Blakley?
• What We Know About the Remake

And have no fear (or maybe you should), because coming in 2010 will be Psycho Semi-Centennial!

Freddy cartoon by Montygog

Tweet

A Quarter-Century of Krueger: What We Know About the Remake

There's so point in ignoring it. It's happening. A Nightmare on Elm Street is being remade. Just a few months after the end of the original's 25th anniversary, a newly "re-imagined" version of everyone's favorite surreal slasher pic will be hitting theaters. We can either embrace it or reject, and I choose the former. While I quibble with certain things--I much prefer Freddy's stylized look to the new, more realistic burn victim look--overall I'm excited. I think it's going to be a cut above the majority of horror remakes, a new take on a great idea. Basically, I'm keeping an open mind, and most of what I've seen makes me hopeful.

In anticipation of the remake, here in QCK this week I've culled more known info about the new flick than you can shake a razor-fingered glove at. So don't let my hard work go to waste, take a look:

• As most of us know by now, Freddy will be played by Jackie Earle "Rorschach" Haley--who incidentally tried out for the role of Glen in 1983.
• Nancy Thompson will be played by relative unknown Rooney Mara.
• Nancy's boozer mom Marge will be played by Connie Britton of Friday Night Lights.
• Aside from Nancy, it's looking like the rest of the teen crew will be a different bunch of kids. No Tina, Rod or Glen to be found. Weird.
• Also not on the character roster is Lt. Don Thompson. Understandable, since if we're all completely honest with ourselves, we know deep down that no one can fill John Saxon's shoes.
• Director Samuel Bayer is a music video director making his feature film debut (wait a minute, do I want to retract my optimism?)
• He's using another video guy as cinematographer, one Jeff Cutter. In the plus column, he also shot Orphan.
• The film is being made by Michael Bay and Brad Fuller's Platinum Dunes company, responsible for a slew of recent horror remakes including Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th and Amityville Horror.
• Steve Jablonsky, composer for The Transformers and several previous Platinum Dunes projects, will be supplying the score. No word on whether he'll be incorporating the original's iconic theme.
• Some filming took place in the abandoned City Methodist Church in Gary, Indiana.
• The Krueger character will be more serious in tone, with little dialogue. His appearance will NOT be rendered with digital effects.
• The release date is April 30.
• The trailer can be viewed here. Personally, I'm impressed.

Tweet

The Many Faces of Robert Englund

Tweet

A Quarter-Century of Krueger: Creating Freddy

"Unveiling a Nightmare"--a featurette originally found on the 2006 Infinifilm DVD edition of A Nightmare on Elm Street. Enjoy...

Tweet

A Quarter-Century of Krueger: Variations on Freddy

When you're virtually omnipotent in the dream world the way Freddy Krueger is, you can take an almost limitless host of different forms and appearances. This is part of what makes Fred such a memorable slasher. Here's a look back at some of the most famous (and infamous) incarnations of Elm Street's favorite psycho...

"Snake Freddy" devours Patricia Arquette in Dream Warriors.

In a twisted ode to Lewis Carroll, Krueger appears as a stoner caterpillar in Freddy vs. Jason.

It's a bird, it's a plane... no, it's Super Freddy, from The Dream Child.

"Welcome to prime time, bitch!" So says the rather crass Krueger in Part 3.

Freddy's charred skeleton battles the swarthy John Saxon, also from Part 3.

The very creepy marionette Freddy from Dream Warriors--damn, that movie has some good ones...

Cool, dude! Freddy on the beach in The Dream Master.

A cross-dressing Krueger, also from Part 4.

The notorious Power-Glove Krueger from Freddy's Dead--which leads to...

Video-Game Freddy! Probably not the franchise's finest moment.

And finally, also from Part 6, Wicked Witch Freddy. "I'll get you, my pretty! And your little soul, too!" Ugh.

Tweet

A Quarter-Century of Krueger: The Long-Lost Marvel NOES Comic Magazine...

First off, let me just wish a Happy Rosh Hashanah to all my Vault Kvellers out there. Having said that, I will now turn my attention to a rather obscure yet glorious corner of the Nightmare on Elm Street universe this week in QCK. I'm talking about the notoriously short-lived Marvel Comics NOES magazine.

Don't remember it? Shame on you. It came out in 1989, back when I was at the height of my newsstand comics collecting, being as yet too young and unsophisticated to have discovered the wonder of comic book stores. Did you know that it was the best-selling magazine-sized comic book that Marvel ever put out? Quite a feat when you think that this is the company that published things like Savage Sword of Conan!

And yet, as tremendously successful as it was, Marvel's A Nightmare on Elm Street magazine lasted all of two issues. That's right, two issues. It was a sad state of affairs, especially when you consider that it was a fine bit of reading. It was intending to take on an anthology format, unfettered by the movie continuity, yet still featuring Freddy Krueger on a regular basis.

But all we got was the initial two-part story, "Dreamstalker"--written by the late Steve Gerber, best known as the co-creator of Howard the Duck and mastermind of many other offbeat '70s Marvel titles; and drawn by Rich Buckler, acclaimed '70s Fantastic Four artist and co-creator of Deathlok.

I happen to own both of those issues, and I remember being blown away by them. At the time, much of the comic adaptations inspired by film properties were rather lackluster, but this NOES mag was some quality work. And being in large format, it was free of the crippling Comics Code, which made it that much better.

Unfortunately, it was also this that brought about its premature downfall. In his Marvel.com blog, Marvel Executive Editor Tom Brevoort (then a mere intern) recalls that then-Marvel president Terry Stewart got cold feet when he began receiving letters from "concerned parents" regarding this new magazine that supposedly glorified a child-murderer. And so, despite the clearly labeled warning indicating this mag was intended for mature readers, Stewart pulled the plug.

The story goes that an additional three issues were already in the planning stages. This included a rumored storyline written by Sam Keith (creator of The Maxx) and drawn by Peter David, best known for his revolutionary work on The Incredible Hulk during the same period. A sendup of Field of Dreams, Krueger style (one can only imagine what that might mean), alas, it never saw the light of day.

Marvel's NOES title was the first-ever comic based on the juggernaut horror film series. As we all know, it would be far from the last. But it's a shame that corporate timidity would bring it crashing down so quickly. I don't believe this would be something that would happen today, what with the much greater proliferation of "mature readers" comic books. But then again, when you think about what Savage Sword was getting away with back then, it really makes you wonder what Stewart was thinking...

Tweet

A Quarter-Century of Krueger: Freddy in Love

Behold, an animated short which is sure to get a chuckle from any die-hard Nightmare on Elm Street fan, particularly if you're an over-eager fangirl who ever harbored a secret crush for the bastard son of a hundred maniacs. Enjoy...

Tweet

A Quarter-Century of Krueger: The Remake That Might Have Been

I've got something pretty fascinating for you this week in QCK. The following is an independently produced "concept piece" created by actor/director/effects man Christopher Johnson, which was created earlier this year as a "tool" to demonstrate his passion for the Elm Street remake project.

Apparently, Johnson had originally planned to pitch himself to Platinum Dunes as a writer/director for the NOES remake. But when Samuel Bayer got the gig, Johnson switched gears and worked with his agent to land the role of Freddy Krueger.

Despite Johnson's best efforts, Platinum Dunes decided to go in a different direction. But nevertheless, we still have this faux trailer, which is a damn fine re-imagining of the '80s horror classic, if you ask me--at least on a par with those terrific Sandy Collora Batman trailers from a few years back. I especially like the flaming Freddy concept.

Anyway, hope you enjoy...

Tweet

A Quarter-Century of Krueger: NOES Remake Comic Con Panel!

This week, in the spirit of San Diego Comic Con envy, I bring you video from yesterday's special panel on the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street. On the panel are producers Andrew Form and Brad Fuller of Platinum Dunes, as well as director Samuel Bayer and of course the new Freddy Krueger himself, Jackie Earle Haley...



Very cool stuff, although I confess to being a little troubled by Bayer's somewhat condescending comment regarding how his remake will be "different from what's come before" in that it will be "scary [and] a little darker". As if the original was Patch Adams or something. Hmmm....

Freddy cartoon by Montygog.

Tweet

First Glimpse: Jackie Earle Haley as the NEW Freddy Krueger

OK, I know these images have popped up just about about everywhere else on the web by now, but I couldn't resist throwing them up on the Vault. I'm just too jazzed. So here they are, the first two official images of the excellent Jackie Earle Haley as the new Freddy Krueger in next year's A Nightmare on Elm Street remake. The first is a promotional shot, while the second image is a teaser poster:



I know, it doesn't really give us much to go on. But exciting, nonetheless. So what do all y'all think? Leave me some comments, and let me know!

* * * * * * * * * *

I'd like to extend mucho congrats to Vault Dweller numero uno BJ-C, and all the ladies of Zion's Razzle Dazzles on capturing the 2009 NBTA National Championship (in the category of Show Corps With Props & Scenery), earlier today at Notre Dame University. Nice work, you baton-twirling maniacs, you!

Tweet

A Quarter-Century of Krueger: Following in Craven's Footsteps

"I never set out to be Wes Craven, I set out to be Jean Renoir." - Jack Sholder

After the initial smash success of A Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984, it was easy to predict that New Line Cinema would be looking for a sequel. After all, the slasher hit had put the independent studio on the map after a decade of struggles. Yet once Wes Craven bowed out, citing lack of interest and also focusing on the sequel to his earlier classic The Hills Have Eyes, it became clear that the sequel would be a little more uncertain than had originally been imagined.

A new director was going to be required, and for a spot that would not be a very enviable one. After all, Craven was already a major luminary in the business, who had knocked the ball out of the park with the most successful horror film of the decade. But New Line soldiered on, with a screenplay called Freddy's Revenge, from rookie scripter David Chaskin.

The man New Line found for the job was Jack Sholder. Although Sholder had only one feature film to his credit, it had been a decent little horror/thriller called Alone in the Dark, which Sholder had also written and which had starred Jack Palance, Donald Pleasance and Martin Landau.

The film Sholder delivered to New Line, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, was nowhere near the success the original had been, and was rejected by many of the fans the original film had gathered. In fact, it even led New Line to get Craven back on board for the third one, and to return somewhat to the formula that had worked so well in the original.

The reputation of Freddy's Revenge continues somewhat to this day, and in my opinion, it is unwarranted. I've personally always found it to be one of the best in the series, and certainly superior to any of the other sequels that came after it, with the exception of Part 3.

Sholder's film retains much of the grimness and dark tone of the original film, which would begin to be dismantled in the third picture, despite its superior quality. Freddy Krueger is still the terrifying, nightmarish creation of Wes Craven here, and not yet the Borscht Belt comedian he would later become.

Not only that, but Chaskin's script is more daring than pretty much any of the other sequels, taking the franchise in an entirely different direction. This film puts a Jekyll & Hyde spin on the NOES theme. Instead of Freddy so much haunting the dreams of teens, he is literally sharing a body with one of them, threatening the real world to a degree not seen in any other of the films. Perhaps fans don't like it as much because it's short on a lot of the more imaginative kills and effects seen in the others. This one is grittier, more reality-based--in fact, it might even be a darker film than the Craven original.

It's also rich with symbolic overtones, as many others before me have pointed out how Jesse's struggles with the creature within him bear some resemblance to a young male's struggles with sexuality. And plus, we get the classic line, "You've got the body, and I've got the brain..." Gotta love that one.

The tepid reception of the film didn't open nearly as many doors for Sholder as the rampant success of the first film had done for Craven. He went on to direct The Hidden, an enjoyable piece of sci-fi horror starring Kyle MacLachlan and Clu Gulager, immediately after. But following that, his biggest claims to fame have been a 1990 episode of Tales from the Crypt, and Wishmaster 2, which he also wrote.

A shame really, as he did quite well under the circumstances with his NOES sequel, as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, he suffered from being put into a position in which virtually any result would've been deemed a let-down.

So I'll go on the record as having enjoyed Freddy's Dead. It manages to really take chances, while still holding true to the spirit of the original, something that none of the other sequels did quite as well. So thank you, Jack Sholder, for giving us one of the most underrated slasher sequels of the 1980s!

Tweet

A Quarter-Century of Krueger: Who Knew Freddy Could Be So Cute??

Tweet