Pesadilla en Elm Street

There have been many periods of film release that have had impact on film history(think "Wizard of Oz","It Happened One Night" and "Gone With the Wind" in 1939 or "Close Encounters" and "Star Wars" in the Summer of 1977,for examples),but one that comes to mind for me was one particular month:November,1984. That's when two somewhat under-budgeted films,James CAmeron's "The Terminator"(which would catapult then-cult figure Arnold Scwarzenegger to super-stardom) and this film,Wes Craven's "A Nightmare on Elm Street". Both central characters,the eponymous Terminator and "Nightmare" menace Freddy Krueger would become iconic film images for decades to come.

The plot line of the story's no government secret here: a handful of high schoolers in a seemingly ordinary town in Ohio are being haunted in their dreams by a grotesque figure. When this figure starts murdering each one of the group,it's up to Nancy(Heather Langenkamp),the most stable and level of the group,to ferret out and end the terror. Robert Englund,previously known from supporting character roles and his touching,gentle alien in the "V" mini-series and t.v.series,is able to develop a nearly permanent career as the seemingly indominable child-killer. Wes Craven would redefine his own career,as well as the slasher genre,with this film,where he had previously been known for visceral,uncomfortable shockers like "LAst House on the Left" and "The Hills HAve Eyes".

Definitely worth a look,especially for those who consider themselves horror film buffs.

"A Nightmare on Elm Street" is so original, realistic, and overall terrifying that it is easy to overlook the film's numerous shortcomings. The film deals with a deceased child molester who now lives only through the dreams of the children of those who cooked him to death. Robert Englund is truly frightening as Freddy Krueger, a dark figure whose only purpose is to kill all the siblings of his killers. The knife-styled finger glove has become a trademark of this amazing character who was created by writer-director Wes Craven. The film goes for suspense, drama, and gore and delivers for the most part. None of the characters are developed very well, but most do not live to see the end of the film so it really does not matter. A great horror film that still delivers today. Ignore the endless sequels, they each detract from this truly original and interesting film. Look for a young Johnny Depp as one of the unlucky teens. 4 out of 5 stars

Nancy is having grisly nightmares. Meanwhile, her high-school friends, who are having the very same dreams, are being slaughtered in their sleep by the hideous fiend of their shared nightmares. When the police ignore her explanation, she herself must confront the killer in her shadowy realm.

This Film Starred: John Saxon, Heather Langenkamp & Johnny Depp.

A Nightmare on Elm Street was released in 1984 was written and directed by Wes Craven.

In my personal opinion this was a great film, it had it's scary moments which every horror should have unfortunately they did go a bit far on a couple of the sequels which got rather low ratings on here. Not all of the sequels are bad, for example I am a fan of 3 & 4 but sequels like 2 & 5 ARE GIVING THE Freddy movies a bad name and are shadowing the excellence of this movie in particular. People seem to recognise Freddy Krueger as the burnt serial killer with knives for fingers who appeared in all them bad films. A Nightmare on Elm Street 1984 is not one of them films and should be recognised as a the great movie it is. I highly recommend this film to all fans of the horror genre.

****/***** Very Good.

Wes Craven created Freddy Krueger and when he did the world of Horror welcomed a great new character to its screens (or should that be its Screams).

Freddy, a child murderer in life, now hunts the children of the men and women that killed him, while they sleep.

Very gory, tense and full of over the top deaths scenes A Nightmare on Elm Street brought something new to the Horror Genre, and will go down in history in recognition of this.

The rarity of the film, is the character of Freddy, because he actually has character without distracting from the terror (in this outing at least)

Thanks Wes

9/10

While I love horror films, I am not a big fan of the slasher genre, which has come to dominate and indeed practically to define horror since the late 1970s. While I do love the original "Psycho," most slasher films follow a different, and far more predictable, formula. The idea of a faceless killer going around stabbing teenagers just doesn't frighten me a whole lot, though some of these films do fill me with disgust--a rather different sort of emotion.

I am far more frightened by films that deal with distortions of reality, where it's hard for the characters to tell what's real and what's not. Admittedly, that genre isn't always so lofty either. Dreams are one of the most overused devices in the movies, having a whole set of clichés associated with them. We are all familiar with the common scene in which a character awakens from a nightmare by jerking awake in cold sweat. This convention is not only overused, it's blatantly unrealistic, for people waking up from dreams do not jerk awake in such a violent fashion. Moreover, these scenes are usually nothing more than little throwaway sequences designed to amuse or frighten the audience without advancing the plot.

What makes "Nightmare on Elm Street" so clever is how it creates an entirely new convention for representing dreams on screen. The dreaming scenes are filmed with an airy, murky quality, but so are many of the waking scenes, making it very difficult to tell whether a character is awake or asleep. Indeed, the movie never shows any character actually fall asleep, and as a result we are constantly on guard whenever characters so much as close their eyes for a moment. In crucial scenes, it is impossible to tell whether what we are seeing is real or happening only in a character's mind. But the movie ultimately suggests that the difference doesn't matter. The premise of the movie, in which a child-killer haunts teenager's dreams and has the capability of killing them while they're asleep, turns the whole "It was all just a dream" convention on its head: in this movie, the real world is safe, and the dream world is monstrously dangerous.

The movie finds a number of ways to explore this ambiguity, including a bathtub scene that invites comparisons with the shower scene in "Psycho" without being a cheap ripoff. My personal favorite scene, and one of the scariest I've ever seen in a movie, is the one where Nancy dozes off in the classroom while a student is standing up in front of the class reading a passage from Shakespeare. The way the scene transitions from the real classroom to a nightmarish version of it is brilliantly subtle.

The director, Wes Craven, understood that the anticipation of danger is usually more frightening than the final attack. There are some great visual shots to that effect, including one where Freddy's arms becomes unnaturally long in an alleyway, and another where the stairs literally turn into a gooey substance, in imitation of the common nightmare where it is hard to get away from a pursuer. The movie continually finds creative ways to tease the audience, never resorting to red herring, that tired old convention used in almost all other slasher films.

Despite the creativity in these scenes, "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is still a formula movie, with relatively one-dimensional characters and no great performances. This was Johnny Depp's first role, as Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend, and although he does get a few neat lines of exposition (his speech about "dream skills"), his personality is not fleshed out, and there is no sense of the great actor Depp would go on to become.

Within the genre, however, "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is a fine work. My main criticism isn't its failure to transcend the formula, but its confusing and obtuse ending, apparently put there in anticipation of sequels, but managing to create a mystery that the sequels were unable to clear up. The climactic confrontation between Freddy and Nancy is weakly handled. The crucial words she says to him are surprisingly clunky, and her father's muted behavior during that scene is almost inexplicable. It has led me to consider an alternative interpretation of the scene, but one that feels like a cop-out. The scene that follows, and where the movie ends, is anticlimactic and unnecessary. These clumsily-made final two scenes come close to ruining the movie, and it is a testament to the film's many good qualities that it still stands as an unusually effective horror film that invites repeat viewings.