Rotten Tomatoes: "Visually faithful but lacking the depth and subversive twists that made the original so memorable, the Nightmare on Elm Street remake lives up to its title in the worst possible way."
The Wrap reports, "there is no script or even a story for the sequel as of yet, according to the folks at New Line. All they know is that you folks really liked the first reboot, and since 3D is the in thing with the kids nowadays, a “Nightmare” sequel in 3D just seemed like a no-brainer."
There seems to be an inverse relationship between the hype created around a movie leading to much eager anticipation and the degree to which it fulfils your expectations. Remakes, especially the ones that take on the tall, almost impossible task of revamping a classic or to the least, living up to its predecessor, very often come down to the bitter truth of the inverse relationship.
The classic series of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' from the 80's (the ones that i saw) are epic for indulging every ingredient of the horror genre, be it the supernatural, gore, thriller, creepy, skin, stupid (& horny) kids, boobs, hot quickies, bloodshed, special effects, vile humour and the list exhausts within this one awesome movie. I give the makers of the 2010 remake this much slack that a series of movies that already had it all can hardly be made much better. But did you really have to screw it up, altogether?
To begin with, Jackie Earle Haley fails flat as a legend of a character like Freddy Krueger. No one can be blamed for making the mistake of thinking Haley, with his natural disposition of a quiet/creepy kind, pulling it off with much ease yet he doesn't quite live up to it. I would have been fine with his improvisation of the role once he had fully filled his shoes but thats just where he missed out. Haley's impersonation of Krueger is a relative sombre one that didn't manage to entertain like Robert Englund did.
I dearly missed Krueger's sharp burnt features (new one looks like a badly baked quiche) and it is his expressions that actually did the job! Moreover, Krueger is better known for his playful, conniving ways and constantly clever innuendos that makes him a lively character in the league of dumb ghoul figures like Jason or from Scream or My Bloody Valentine. Although, credit still must be given to the only two innuendo lines from the 2010 remake: "Now that's what I call a wet dream"
Krueger: "What do you want to play?"
Last girl standing (or dreaming): "Fuck you!"
Krueger: "Ooh we can play that. Though that is a bit fast for me!"
My memory may be faint but I remember a basic plot line to the movie and how the series successively added to it. Perhaps, this movie was meant to be a 'remake' and not a continuation (of any sort) to the series, thus, it literally stuck to the basic plot line. However, what did the makers really achieve from doing just this much? I mean the old series were ahead enough of its times, in effects and make-up and this one didn't particularly progress beyond the given. Ideally, they should have furthered the plot to a more contemporary feel and had more wise crackers from Freddy, which would have been more typical of him. Apart from everything else that disappointed, the kills did not. Thank God they didn't mess with the gore aspect so i could at least console myself with the fact that i paid, booked in advance and drove in heat to watch some bloody good slits and scratches.
The only excuse for this movie is its tagline, "Every story has a beginning". Well the beginning's been (re)told, how about we hear something good here onwards?