Les griffes de la nuit

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

A legendary horror with one of the most popular slasher killers of the 80s-90s. The beginning of this franchise turned out to be more than successful, an original idea with a mysterious maniac and an atmosphere, it is in this part that the intrigue of horror is most sustained.

The young cast is quite good, it was here that Johnny Depp started, Freddie has not yet become that charismatic killer with his jokes, as in subsequent parts. So far, he is more secretive and tries to instill fear in all the victims.

Many people at that time were afraid to sleep after watching, nowadays it's hard to scare you with this movie, but you'll still get pleasure!

On Elm Street, the teenager Tina Gray (Amanda Wyss) has a creepy nightmare with a burned man wearing a glove with blades called Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). She invites her friends Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), who had also a nightmare with Freddy Krueger, and Glen Lantz (Johnny Depp) to spend the next night with her, but her boy-friend Rod Lane (Nick Corri) appears in the house and they spend the night together. In the middle of the night, Rod awakes and sees Tina having a nightmare and being sliced. He is accused of murder and arrested by Nancy's father Lt. Thompson (John Saxon), despite the protests of his daughter. When Rod and Glen are mysteriously murdered, Nancy realizes that the only way to defeat the evil Freddy Krueger is bringing him to the real world.

The classic "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is one of the best horror movies of the 80's and Freddy Krueger is my favorite villain. The story is original, very well written and directed by Wes Craven and is the debut of Johnny Depp in the cinema. As far as I know, the open conclusion was forced by the producers to give a sequel to the saga of Freddy Krueger. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Hora do Pesadelo" ("The Hour of the Nightmare")

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.

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.