Nine

2010

Well, this is it; what everything else has been leading up to.  First off, let me say that I while I had no expectation that this would live up to the original or some of the better sequels, but I thought that it would at least be better than Dream Child and maybe Freddy's Revenge.  Unfortunately, that's not the case.  What's so terrible about this movie?  I'm glad you asked:

Before I even start to talk about the film itself, I'm going to mention how much I hate Platinum Dunes.  They're absolutely awful.  Aesthetically, all of their movies look the same.  They've got this cookie-cutter formula to remake horror films, and they all look the fucking same.  And it's Michael Bay.  Why aren't there more explosions?

The new Freddy looks like some Mongoloid reject from Close Encounters of the Third Kind.  The reasoning is that the makeup looks more like a burn victim, and producers were trying to make this a more realistic film.  This is the same reason I don't like these shitty Batman movies that everyone has a boner for.  Because at the end of the day, I'm watching a film about a guy who dresses up like a bat or a ghost that kills people in their sleep, and there's no fucking way that you're convincing me that it's remotely realistic.

You know what would be a realistic movie: Freddy Krueger rapes some kids, gets burned alive by their parents, and stays dead (because, realistically, that what dead people do).  Maybe the kids repress it.  They're probably socially awkward, and probably have be held down and beaten to climax, but still wake up everyday.  Maybe someone commits suicide.  Maybe its a parent who can't live with murdering someone.  Anyway, that could make an interesting realistic film, but it wouldn't be Nightmare on Elm Street.  If you're going to take the fun out of a movie about a guy who creatively murders people in their sleep, what are you left with?

Which brings me to the creativity aspect of everything.  As I've said reviewing previous movies, this type of vehicle can allow some really unique surreal dream sequences.  Just about every dream is the opening scene of the original, with Freddy making sparks in the boiler room, or set in the preschool.  And what's with the fucking preschool flashback?  Was the school run by the gardener?  This was 1997.  People were suspicious about this kind of thing.  No one noticed that the gardener was playing with these children a little too much?  Why was he allowed in the classroom?  He's a fucking gardener.  Where were the teachers?  Why was he allowed to take these children into the basement for such long periods of time?

And the nursery rhyme children are the ghosts of the main characters.  Wait.  What?

Then they introduce the concept of "micro-naps."  That's when you start to fall asleep with your eyes open and hallucinate.  So now Freddy appears when kids are semi-lucid.  So pretty much all the time.  There is absolutely no build-up or suspense in this film.  It's just jump-scare after jump-scare until it loses all meaning, and Freddy's presence isn't even the least bit frightening.  I don't know if it's because I'm old and appreciate suspense and buildup (like I prefer Alien to Aliens).  I guess with texts, Facebook, hula hoops, Zimas, and Pac Man video games, kids today have attention spans that can only be measured in nanoseconds. 

They also establish that if you stay up for 70 hours, you fall into a coma.  When this happens to Nancy, Freddy reveals that this was his plan all along so that he could rape her forever.  Pretty clever of Freddy.  But then he immediately tries to kill her without even one rape.  What happened to your genius plan, Oppenheimer?  So then they pull Freddy into the real world, chop him up, and burn him.  I actually liked the final scene.  It was gory and kind of cool.

One more thing:  I understand that to make money, movies have to be made so that the dumbest of retards can understand, but was it absolutely necessary for the establishing shot that prominently features the Elm Street sign?  Were people commenting at test screening, "I get the nightmare part, but where is Elm Street?"  Why does everything have to be shown in flashbacks?  Can audiences no longer process dialogue unless there are images in front of them?  And halfway through the film someone has to say, "If you die in your dreams, you die in real life."  Are there people who wouldn't come to that conclusion by watching the first half of the movie?

So there's that.  I should be done with Freddy Krueger stuff on this website.  For the most part, it was a pretty good time.  I'll probably do another franchise in the future.  There are two very obvious ones to choose from, but if anyone has any other ideas, let me know.  And on that note: Screw your pass!