A Nightmare on Elm Street

Picture the 1984 horror classic A Nightmare on Elm Street. Now picture that film if it was produced by bombastic Michael Bay, director of Pearl Harbor and the Transformers films. Now picture all of the worst possible outcomes of that marriage.

You don't have to. You could just plunk down your hard-earned cash – better yet, don't – for this lame remake.

Not that I can stop you from seeing it. No number of bad reviews (and this will be just one of many) would have kept me away. Curiosity alone demanded I see the new Elm Street, so when a critic buddy asked if I'd like to tag along to a screening, I did.

I mean, it couldn't be awful, right? It's a darker take on a character that had fallen into parody. Its screenplay was co-written by Wesley Strick, who has worked with Martin Scorsese (1991's Cape Fear). And supernatural killer Freddy Krueger is played by Jackie Earle Haley, an Oscar-nominated actor who was so creepy as Rorschach in Watchmen. How bad could it be?

Really bad, it turns out. Astonishingly, amazingly, how-could-you- possibly-screw-this-up-any-worse bad.

Samuel Bayer, a longtime music video director making his feature-film debut, accomplished his stated goal of draining away all the cheeky fun of the Freddy films. Unfortunately, he also drained away all the scares. What's left is a dreary, poorly-lit slog with uninteresting characters, wooden acting and a complete lack of tension, suspense or energy.

We could spend all day talking about the problems, but two big ones sink this new Nightmare all on their own.

The first is the new Freddy – he's not scary at all. (Robert Englund's original Freddy at least was creepy for a couple of films before falling into camp.) Haley's tiny frame makes Freddy look puny and his voice sounds like an even-more-ridiculous take on the raspy Christian Bale "Batman" voice.

Haley's not helped by the terrible new Freddy makeup, which presumably is supposed to look like a more "realistic" burn victim, but it robs him of any expression. Freddy's not scary; worse, he's not even interesting.

You'd expect the new Nightmare to provide some creative new "kills," but that's the second huge problem. There are only a handful of kills throughout, and the better ones are taken directly from the 1984 original. In fact, fans of the original will note several virtually- identical scenes, all of them done on a higher budget but without a whit of artistry.

Special note has to be made of the acting, which (with a couple of exceptions) is dreadful. I'll blame Bayer, because a few of these folks have been decent in other things, but they're laughable here. (I'm pretty sure Thomas Dekker was attempting to portray Casey Affleck if Casey Affleck had suddenly completely forgotten how to act. And he's one of the better ones.)

Of all the leads, only Kyle Gallner manages to bring some desperately- needed personality and humor to the proceedings. Gallner single-handedly makes the final act interesting, since you'll have wanted every other character dead from the opening minutes.

But he can't overcome Bayer's clueless direction, which telegraphs every shock and dream sequence from a mile away. One of the most effective elements of an Elm Street film is the subtle slide back and forth from the real world to the dream world. Bayer doesn't get this at all. Every dream sequence is clearly defined, completely destroying any suspense.

The film spends two-thirds of its running time having its leads uncover Freddy's "story," which is ridiculous because it's a story everyone already knows. It momentarily plays with a slight twist on the original plot – a second of creativity, emerging like a flower through a crack in the sidewalk – then immediately chucks it.

Don't get me wrong: I love horror films. I don't even ask too much of them. I only ask that they be either A) scary or B) fun. If they can be both, that's awesome.

But with none of A and far too little of B, the new Elm Street barely rises above an F.

People are so whiney I swear.

If this was the original nightmare it would be rated far higher. People are just mad cause it's a "remake". I thought it was a very good adaption. Freddy was menacing. The acting, story and effects were also very good.

When it was announced that Jackie Earle Haley would be taking on the role of Freddy in the new Elm Street franchise reboot, a collective sigh of relief went up from the fans of the originals. Haley's Rorshach was one of the few redeeming qualities in the abysmal "Watchmen" movie. When pictures of Freddy's new face were leaked, the excitement grew. This Freddy promised to drop the silly one liners and be a return to the frightening, sadistic killer from the first film.

Haley does what he can with what he's given, but even a game performance from him and Rooney Mara(Nancy) can't save this film from mediocrity. The male lead is played by Kyle Gallner. He could generously be called a poor man's Robert Pattinson. He does a serviceable job here but the weak writing and directing don't do him any favours.

Fans of the original will be disappointed by the brief treatment of Freddy's origins, and it's unlikely new viewers will understand what is going on or even care for that matter. My hopes of a scarier Freddy were dashed within the first few minutes. The film doesn't even try to build an atmosphere and Haley spouts the same tired one liners that the later films leaned on so heavily.

Even as the original series aged, one could always rely on the excellent special effects and make-up work to carry the films. The highlight of each film was the creativity of the different "Dream Worlds" that Freddy would take his victims to. Each dream world was unique because it reflected the thoughts of the character Freddy was trying to kill. This new iteration strips away any of that creativity and takes place almost entirely in one location (I'll avoid spoilers, but if you've seen any other film in the series you can easily guess where). The makeup work that looked promising in production stills doesn't hold up well on screen, failing to be as frightening or iconic as the original. The effects aren't great, it would be easy to beat the dead horse of 'computer graphics' being inferior but I think the real problem here is directorial. Samuel Bayer simply can't hold a candle to Wes Craven.

If you want to disregard my comparisons to the original films and simply take this one for what it is, a brainless slasher flick, it still fails. None of the 'kills' show any creativity at all and audiences already fed on a steady diet of graphic violence won't find anything all that shocking or disturbing here. It's just boring.

Adding to that is an over reliance on cheap scares. This film is this the cinematic equivalent of someone shouting "boo!" in your face every ten minutes. This technique becomes annoying almost instantly and becomes increasingly more annoying because it is used in every single scene. It's like the director realized he didn't know how to direct a scary movie and instead of quitting and finding a new job, he decided to edit in sudden loud noises and hope no one would notice.

By the end the audience I saw it with could hardly hold back their titters of laughter and I don't mean that in a good way. This is one franchise that had some potential for rebirth, but I will be amazed if this one makes it to part 2.

We all need to learn that nothing is truly sacred in Hollywood, so we might as well just embrace these remakes and hope that, every now and then, one of them will turn out ok and be able to hold itself up to the original on its own terms. A Nightmare on Elm Street comes incredibly close to standing out from the original film, but for every leap forward, it takes a few steps backwards until it's straddling the line between the two and not really committing fully to anything original.

The story is, more or less, the same with a group of teenagers experiencing horrific nightmares involving a burnt man with a glove of knives who is slicing and dicing them. In both films, it's revealed that this man was someone their parents murdered in a fit of vigilante justice after he'd been let free for molesting their children. The new film adds a twist questioning if Freddy was actually guilty or innocent.

The new Nightmare has a much bigger budget than the original film, so it's odd that the effects work isn't nearly as impressive as the original film. A bit of Freddy's makeup seems computer generated and a few of the other effects resemble a cheap 90's video game. The cast is fairly strong with Katie Cassidy, Kyle Gallner, and Thomas Dekker standing out as three of the terrified teens. Rooney Mara is the weak link among the them as Nancy. She's made the choice to play the character as moody and depressive, which makes her hard to root for and dull to watch.

As Freddy, Jackie Earle Haley can only do so much to step out from the shadow of Robert Englund, but he does a good job and brings a different, more pervy energy to the character which adds a little threat that his silly makeup job keeps threatening to take away.

I had a feeling this was going to be slated, and some of the criticism is justified, but in all honesty I liked it. The opening scenes are fantastic, it's a very smart looking film, it looks great. The content of the film is decent, it's such a shame that Robert Englund didn't do the film, but I can imagine he feels it's a role that's well and truly in the past. That fact was a nail in the coffin for the film, I'm not sure what many were expecting.

Some of the scares are a little on the tame side by today's standards, but the story is good, it deserved a bit more loving that it got. 7/10.