A Nightmare on Elm Street

Here is the ninth instalment of the accursed Elm Street, accompanied by a debutant director in Samuel Bayer. For those who have seen the original film, you needn’t bother with this pointless exercise of a horror film. Generic conventions such as the loud clanging noise followed by a musical chord, screaming teenagers; and of course a voice transformer in order to allow Freddy Krueger to speak with a deep, ominous voice.



Oh, and don’t forget the dog that constantly barks at the invisible presence of evil during the night, forcing our teenage heroine to come out of the house in her flimsy PJs. By this time, as the barking abruptly stops, we can assume the dog has been put out of his own nightmare.

With the plot exactly the same as the one 26 years ago, I’m sure pretty much everyone can predict where the sudden camera cuts take place; as a result of this, the story loses the attention of the audience. Being a re-make, why didn’t anyone in the pre-production team update all aspects of the film, instead of just relying on CGI to provide a slightly better visual? Horror, itself, has been outdated for many years now, and A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly doesn’t do it any favours – rather, it relies on the weary genre elements to create an outdated scare.

Some of the big news about this film was that the iconic Robert Englund didn’t retain his role as Freddy for the ninth consecutive time. Why not? It’s not exactly as if the franchise is breaking free of the old Nightmare on Elm Street films, it isn’t a reboot as much as it is a re-make. Jackie Earle Haley takes on the role of Freddy. Does he do a good job? How could he, when all he is required to do is growl and grimace through heavy make-up. The voice transformer does the rest for him. A back-story, which is utter nonsense, attempts to give an insight of what a caretaker of a primary school can become; a supernatural force that can appear anywhere, living in wallpapers and has no need for physical presence. Except for landing the killing blows. In dreams. That kill you. In reality.

The other actors and actresses, well, they are no different from the characters that were created in the 1984 version, although they seem to be vaguely aware of Freddy; before gradually fearing for their lives. Being able to scream was probably the only specification for the actors and actresses alike.

Whilst re-makes are supposed to improve on the original film, this is almost exactly the same. However, there are some notable changes, definitely for the worse. In the original Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven keeps you in the dark as to whether you’re witnessing dreams or reality. With the re-make, Bayer makes it painfully blatant which world has just been entered. These are just senseless changes that manage to destroy what’s left of the worn-out franchise legacy.

Lacking any depth, this just a run-of-the-mill horror film, predictably devoid of personality and substance. Rather, Bayer relies on some impressive visuals, but this is still desperately short of any creativity and flair. Just as the 2D characters are fighting to stay awake, you may find yourself doing the same.