A Nightmare on Elm Street

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.

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.

Yes, we all know that Wes Craven's original is far more superior than this. That doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. And as much as I enjoy the Elm Street series, a few of the sequels did cross the line into way-too-cheesy territory, and lost the horror charm. "Freddy's Dead" will always remain one of the absolute worst sequels of all time to me, it really is unwatchable. This movie isn't great, but it isn't a 1/10 either. I'd place it about around the same level of quality as say, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. I enjoyed it, and I liked Jackie Earl Haley's portrayal of Krueger, despite Englund forever reigning superior.

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.

With remakes being inevitable, I'd prefer that they be based on flawed originals. The new Clash of the Titans, in concept tried to do this. This is my stance on remakes. The trouble is that Hollywood green lights remakes of popular, good, movies because of their justifiable built-in fan bases. The 1984 A Nightmare on Elm Street was a refreshing, novel, approach to the slasher subgenre film. I can understand why Platinum Dunes would have was well-known music video director Samuel Bayer helm its remake.

A Nightmare on Elm Street focuses on a group of teens that share haunting nightmares. When they go to sleep, they have demented dreams of a maniacal burn victim named Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley). Freddy chases the kids through his world and if he can get his knife-tipped glove on them, they die in the real world. The remaining teenagers are then tasked with insomnia as they search for the reason why Freddy wants them dead.

I'll start with the positives. From an acting and casting standpoint Jackie Earle Haley is the guy you want in this role. He has a haunting voice that he modulates with perfection, coming up with his own unique take on the notorious Mr. Krueger. When combining his talents with the usual high production values (for horror films) provided by Platinum Dunes, you get a workable formula. Unlike the other films, but like Platinum Dune's other remakes, there is an attempt at a Freddy Krueger origin story. It just so happens I like the way this part of the movie is told and having the cursed teens see it in their dreams is interesting.

With these elements working in the film's favor, there are many conflicts elsewhere. Notable among these are redundant dream sequences. The settings sometimes change but they almost all play the same way: teenagers walk through eerie environments followed by a Freddy attack. For a screenwriter to be so lacking in imagination is mind-boggling. Freddy's costume is easily recognizable, but the new burn victim look of his face is unappealing. Chances are a real life Freddy would look more like this than he did in the '80s, but The English Patient is not a frightening countenance.

What mars the first half of the film is an insistence on not developing characters. We assume these are high school kids, who mysteriously are devoid of personalities, and then they die. I understand the concept of an ensemble cast, but when main players take such a backseat that when they finally move to the front of the minivan we don't know them.

Despite a rocky start things do turn around, but our unfortunately thickheaded protagonists are slow to put things together. They should be going on about a week of sleep deprivation, but the new Nancy (Rooney Mara) seems only mildly annoyed. When Heather Langenkamp played Nancy, she was just as active but with more lines we had a better understanding of her frustration.

The biggest problem of all is that the 2010 A Nightmare on Elm Street is not scary. Scare tactics all center on sound effects and it gets old fast. Every time Freddy appears there is a scream of some kind that pierces the ears of the audience. No one is jumping at fright; maybe some will jump at the surprise. This is silly, outdated, and uncreative.

After Remake on Elm Street, Platinum Dunes is seemingly out of horror franchise fodder. Almost all of their remakes have been critically lambasted, but most of them managed to be profitable. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they plan to shell out as many sequels as the original franchises generated, but I'd prefer that action since it would keep them busy and off of more esteemed films.