A bloody yet anemic retake on a 1980s classic....

He’s back. Risen once more to bring horror to our nights and terror to our dreams. So, are you ready for Freddy?

Er, no, is the answer to that one, not if this is all the latest film in the franchise has to offer us. Touted as a ‘re-imagining’ and not a remake, it’s interesting that the one thing lacking in this latest instalment of the Fred Krueger franchise is, well, imagination.

Directed by Samuel Bayer, this new nightmare is let down on several fronts, the most important ones being story, characters, a god-awful script and poor performances by an almost forgetful cast. The film’s only saving graces are Jackie Earle Haley (Watchmen, Little Children) as Krueger himself, and a surprisingly good turn by Kyle Gallner (A Haunting in Connecticut, Jennifer’s Body) as sleep-deprived teen Quentin Smith. Unfortunately, these two alone cannot save this film from what it really is – a lazy and misguided effort by a director who apparently knows nothing about the horror genre, or how to tell a story.

In this version the story is, for better or worse, almost identical to the 1980s original and so, to a certain extent, we know what to expect. A group of terrified teens in the fictional town of Springwood, Ohio, are having more than a little trouble sleeping. Plagued by nightmares of a fedora-wearing burn victim called Freddy, the youngsters struggle to understand their dreams and the inexplicable deaths befalling them.

Nothing new there, and to expect otherwise would be unfair. The film, after all, does make good on its initial intentions to hold true to the basic story and characters of Wes Craven’s original. And, in a very basic way, it does that. The two main, and most important characters from the original, Nancy and Freddy, are both here and their relationship, like the original, serves as the centre-piece on which the entire story hangs.

But this is also where, this time, it falls apart. It was the journey Nancy made in gearing up to face Krueger and her ability to control her fear that made the first film so worthwhile, but it’s also where this film fails so spectacularly in trying to repeat it. The same applies to other repeated storylines, most notably that of the parents and their conspiracy of silence. Where before this part of the story was integral to the plot and gave and added dynamic to the history of Krueger, here it feels tacked on, underplayed and unnecessary.

That said, there are subtle changes and added nuggets this time around, most notably to the Krueger back-story and how he came to be. Unfortunately, this added history comes off as a misguided attempt to humanise and even elicit some sympathy for the finger-knifed killer, an attempt that fails miserably and only serves to add confusion and wasted screen-time to a story that could have been so much more.

Another, and probably more severe change is the one made to the character of Nancy. Gone is the plucky and innovative upstart established by Heather Langenkamp in the original, and in her place is a more reserved and withdrawn Nancy, quiet, introspective and totally lacking in any of the brashness that made Nancy, well...Nancy. This time, Freddy’s favourite plaything is portrayed by Rooney Mara, and it’s a good performance; she does the character justice. Unfortunately it’s the character itself that is lacking, and fails to make us care one way or the other as to whether she lives or dies.

The same holds true for the rest of the cast. One of the things that made us care about the original characters was how normal they appeared to be. In Wes Craven’s Nightmare, our heroes were nothing more than run-of-the mill small town teens. Johnny Depp and his age-defying good looks aside, the young heroes were not exceptionally attractive or, for that matter, exceptional in any way. They looked and acted just like us. We could identify with them and missed them when they were gone.

Not so with this latest crop. This year’s teens are unrealistic, self-absorbed and prom-queen perfect, which stops us from feeling any real sympathy for their ‘can’t come quick enough’ demise. And as for the young actors portraying them? The words 'hammy' and 'reaching' come to mind. Exempt from such criticism, of course, is the already mentioned Gallner as Nancy’s wannabe boyfriend, Quentin. His is the only character who we don’t want to see die, due in no small part to the effective performance Gallner gives him.

"This Freddy is far more evil and twisted than anything Robert Englund could have delivered"

And now to the man of the hour - the one and only Freddy Krueger. If this film achieves any of its goals, it’s this one. The comic absurdity of what Robert Englund’s Freddy eventually became is gone. In his place is a much more perverse, much more violent and much more sadistic Freddy. Uncomfortably playing more into the child-abusing past form which the character was initially born, this Freddy is far more evil and twisted than anything Robert Englund could have delivered. Played with absolute relish by the always-brilliant Jackie Earle Haley, there’s something much more real about Freddy this time around, and he’s made all the more scary for it.

But again, for all of Haley’s immeasurable talents, not even he can make good on such a poor script. And as much as the film tries to stay away from the silliness of past Elm Street’s, the writers (Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer) can’t resist inserting cringe-worthy one-liners and mouthfuls of bad dialogue, wasting an opportunity to breathe new life into what has become a laughable, and embarrassing character.

Finally, is this new nightmare scary? Yes and no is the answer. There are jump-out-of-your seat moments, of course, but these are few and far between and eventually become so predictable that it’s almost laughable – I say almost, because, really, that joke isn’t funny any more. If you’re not going to do horror well, don’t do it all. One of the greatest ways to scare a movie-going audience is to not show them the monster, or at least not show it too early, allowing their own imaginations to run riot first. The trick is not to blow your wad, to hold back and let the fear build.

"It’s a shame, when you consider the potential here for the character and the film itself"

Director Bayer doesn’t seem to have time for this and can’t wait to show everyone what he’s done with Freddy, revealing his version (in it’s entirety) within the first 20 minutes or so. It’s a shame too, when you consider the potential here for the character and the film itself. Given the proper care and direction, this film could have been done so much better – sadly, it lacks both.

The movie gains a few plus points for faithful nods to the original, and fans of Wes Craven’s classic will recognise them when they appear. But the ability to rehash and repeat something that’s already been done, and been done better, is not something to shout about, and let’s hope Bayer isn’t prone to do so. When all is said and done, though, what are we left with? A worthy interpretation of the Freddy character by Haley for sure, but an otherwise wasted opportunity and a lack lustre effort overall. Freddy’s dead? Let him stay dead.

A Nightmare On Elm Street is released on 7th May 2010

IF YOU ENJOYED THIS ARTICLE, PLEASE HELP SUPPORT OUR SITE, AT NO COST WITH ONE CLICK ON THE FACEBOOK 'LIKE' BUTTON BELOW: