A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

F

Fahad

Veteran
couldn't find a thread for it, so...

rotten tomatoes

imdb

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE


i watched it tonight. i wasn't expecting much, and that's what i got.
i think if you're of a certain age/movie watching experience, then this movie is predictable from the onset.

i don't know why is rated so highly on imdb. i'm probably not the target demographic anyway.

what did you guys think?
 
Last edited:
you linked to the original on rotten tomatoes. thats why the rating is at 95%. the new one is at 15%.
 
I think that the reason the film has such a low rating on Rotten Tomatoes is that people are obsessively comparing it with the original. And in a sense, comparing the two films is totally legitimate for obvious reasons: the new one is a remake of the original, and shares the same name, and shares roughly the same story if not the exact events of the plot.

But the problem in comparing the two is the original film is like...legendary. If you were to ignore that there had been an original, the new Nightmare might even be considered decent to pretty good. It's like if you were to remake another landmark of film, say something like Fritz Lang's Metropolis, even if you did an excellent job on it you'd still fall short of the original and thus be subject to harsher criticism.

So, to summarize: I think the new Nightmare is actually decent. It's just that the original is SO GOOD that it makes the new Nightmare look piss-poor, which is something that's reflected in ratings on sites like Rotten Tomatoes.
 
Finnegan said:
But the problem in comparing the two is the original film is like...legendary. If you were to ignore that there had been an original, the new Nightmare might even be considered decent to pretty good. It's like if you were to remake another landmark of film, say something like Fritz Lang's Metropolis, even if you did an excellent job on it you'd still fall short of the original and thus be subject to harsher criticism.
Click to expand...

i agree with this. moreover, i'd say that the memory of "classic" films that one likes is the thing at stake. as you said, the original nightmare was legendary in some sense. the new one can't replicate that, because it has already been done.

perhaps all remakes, by definition, have this in common. the essence and artistic expression cannot be remade. all that's remade are the situations and updated production quality.

although i haven't seen Metropolis, i'm almost certain if it was remade, the critics would shred it apart.

a classic: a successful artistic expression founded in the culture of the times.
a remake: a culturally disconnected recreation of a classic.

are there ANY good remakes, for that matter?
 
Fahad said:
are there ANY good remakes, for that matter?
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on what you define as "good". Obviously, the term can't be used ubiquitously across all forms of film since some films have innate qualities that can't be remade, like you pointed out. Case in point: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). What made Nightmare good? There's quite a bit, but I think the big ones are that it had a unique and completely terrifying villain that would establish himself immediately as an icon of horror, a deep and psychological theme of terror and fear that extended far beyond just the slashing of innocent teenagers, and production techniques that reflected the tone of the movie - shadowy, backlit figures and the director's choice to hide key information from the camera and therefore the viewer in times of tense action all contribute to this immense feeling of dread, fear, and terror that we all got when watching it for the first time.

Those things can't be replicated, at least, not exactly. Why? Because we saw it in the original. So many people have tried to replicate the extreme strangeness and psychological terror of Phantasm (1979) and failed in that regard as well. So, some movies are good because they bring to the table something that goes beyond technical and production quality, and those movies obviously don't lend well to being remade.

But, take for instance a movie like Superman (1978). This is one of my all time favorite movies. What makes THAT movie good? Because it certainly isn't special effects or cool action sequences. Sure, when I was a kid I'm sure I did thing the special effects and action sequences were awesome, but not anymore. What makes that movie good is Christopher Reeve's and Gene Hackman's performances of iconic comic book characters, an intriguing story, engaging characters, great direction, and a sense of wonder and awe. In my opinion, THOSE things DO lend themselves to being remade because it's a result of great direction and vision. Even though Superman Returns (2006) sucked, I do believe that it could have been good or possibly even better because the same things that made the original good could have been present in Superman Returns had there been a good director, AND it would have benefitted from modern technology. Instead, it was pretty much all technology and no substance.
 
Was taken aback when I saw in the new trailer all the iconic shots from the original movie were blatantly stolen.

Still, despite the reviews I'm hoping this is going to be alright.

** Yeah but remakes like Texas and Hills were done quiet well and very watchable. Apparently this *ahem* blows.
 
^^ it's not terrible. i went because all my roommates wanted to go watch it, and i was up for it (mostly for laughs). i guess i'd already made up my mind before hand. if you do go, go with a friend who can talk s**t about the movie with u.

@Finnegan
i was especially looking forward to Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. shame the movie sucked, though.
 
Fahad did you think Spacey was good in superman? I thought he camped it up waaayy to much.
 
tmnt said:
Fahad did you think Spacey was good in superman? I thought he camped it up waaayy to much.
Click to expand...

it's been a while since i saw that movie, but yeah, Spacey didn't impress me in it. that whole movie was made as if someone was forcing everyone to make it. maybe it was some psycho studio exec hehe
 
Fahad said:
are there ANY good remakes, for that matter?
Click to expand...

David Cronenberg's The Fly is a MILLION times better than the original. These kind of remakes I can get behind, where they take something with a good idea but weak execution and make something better. Unfortunately, the whole reason studios do remakes is so they can cash in on the good name of something that was once very popular, usually because it was done well the first time.
 
I didn't know The Fly was a remake. Learn something new everyday.

Can't wait til they remake Airbud...
 
tmnt said:
I didn't know The Fly was a remake. Learn something new everyday.
Click to expand...
I love both versions. The classic was quite good (in its day) and the remake was great. Hell, most of the remake takes place in the guys warehouse style flat. Shows you what you can do in one location.

MAH
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
I love both versions. The classic was quite good (in its day) and the remake was great. Hell, most of the remake takes place in the guys warehouse style flat. Shows you what you can do in one location.

MAH
Click to expand...

I only ever saw the orginal once to be fair, when I was a teenager. The only thing I remember liking was the ending.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
I only ever saw the orginal once to be fair, when I was a teenager. The only thing I remember liking was the ending.
Click to expand...
Yah, it's not for everyone. But as a kid... seeing the guy come of the teleporter with the head and arm of a fly was very cool. Crappy image below...

fly_labcoat2.jpg


And yes, the ending for both the scientist and the fly was quite disturbing as a child.

Loved it. :)


MAH
 
The classic shots from the original were "stolen"? Really? Making references to where you got your movie doesn't seem all that terrible to me, and I think the fans needed that.

I also think the reason it's getting poor reviews is that it's being so compared to the original, but the creators of this one didn't help with that. They did nothing to make the story their own, given such a great opportunity to find a new angle. All they did was make it what marketers call 'edgier', with a few more curse words and sexual references. It was decent, but even standing on its own I wouldn't go too far beyond decent.

And no, I'm not a fanboy who compares every shot and whines about them not getting stuff right or whatever. I'm completely open to reinterpretation... unfortunately, there isn't much of that here.

Still, beats anything else in theaters right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top