Better than original


This movie is undoubtedly is shot more seriously than the original OR any of its sequels!

reply

I agree that this movie was better better than the original in every way.
Most people put it down for two reasons.
1. Micheal Bay
2. No Robert Englund
And some of the people who put it down, haven't even seen it.
Here is what made it better if you ask me.
1. No Robert Englund (This time Freddy was creepy as hell instead of being the Joker with feces on his face).
2. The story made more sense. If it was the parents' fault he was burned alive, he would have have targeted the parents.
3. Better acting. Johnny Depp and the ones who played the adults were the only good actors in the original.
4. Freddy's face was just... Wow! So perfect. Just like a real burn victim.

reply

Having watched all the Nightmares, I have to disagree.
1. Admittedly, they went down roads they could not have done in 1984 due to attitudes at the time but that's where they got it wrong. Giving Freddy this much backstory diminishes his mystique, especially to people who haven't seen the original. Paedophiles are sick no doubt but they make a sick sort of "sense". They're not really so "scary" unless you're the victim. Besides, I remember the opening scene of the first movie where Freddy walks in to a room and starts making his trademark glove. That's all you really need to know. It gets you thinking"who does he intend to use that thing on?" and you find the answer soon. It's this simplicity that defines movies like Black Christmas and Halloween.
2. Robert Englund did turn Freddy into a campy, wise-cracking shade of his original vision but that's from movie 3 on. Movie 1 was good. Movie 2, with the whole idea that Freddy wanted to take over the guy's body and be reborn, had its moments. Movie 3 on, he stopped being really scary and became more of a master of ceremonies. But I liked New Nightmare(movie 7) where Freddy is featured as an entity attacking the actors themselves.
3. I'll agree with acting and effects. But standards of acting change with the times and today, there seems to be a tendency to sentimentalize a bit too much. Also, "Nightmare" was a low-budget production that paid well when released(he made the movie with just under 2 million dollars so I doubt he could afford the best makeup and visual effects).

reply

The original A Nightmare cost 1.2 million to make so not even close to 2 million. I agree with you in that they tried way to hard to explain things to much and take away that air of mystery. This new film is pretty much just a long winded explanation of the classic. They also did a terrible job of shooting the movie. The original had these moments between the dream world and the real world that felt seamless. This movie was trying real hard to be bigger and you always new the difference between the worlds. The scene where Kris starts flying in the air is so over done with her hitting all of the walls was ridiculous. This is a moment when technology of movie making is wasted, that scene in the original is just so much better with the character spinning as she being levitated looked real. The first two originals were Englunds best work as Fred Krueger. Jackie Earls turn as Krueger was to me just as good as any of Englunds performances. I do however feel that he talks too much, the "six more minutes to play" line was painfully bad. I really wanted the movie to be really good as I loved the first three movies but it fell short. I also hated the opening scene where the uses the scream formula by "Shockingly" killing Kellan Lutz and then BAMM!!! TITLE. Pardon the pun but it screamed Scream. Now the original had nods to other horror movies like showing Jasons hockey mask, showing evil dead on the television, and Myers mask in the final scene. It just didn't jack scenes from those movies like the Drew Barrymore opening scene which I will admit brought the horror genre back from the dead.

reply

If it was the parents fault he was burned alive, he would have targeted the parents.


He went after the kids to hurt the parents. It was even said in the movie.

reply

[deleted]

It's definitely one of the better remakes.

HARLEYS R4 YUPPIES
(my bumper sticker)

reply

Obvious troll is obvious.






















www.jmberman.com
Online Mews, Reviews, Poetry, Music, and Ideas

reply

Are you high? The sequels maybe, but not even all of them. Freddy 1 and 3 are way above this trash.

reply

Are you high?


LOL! I was thinking the same thing! LOL

The original was WAY better.. Robert Englund is and will always be Freddy Krueger. I liked his voice, his laugh, his look way better than the New Freddy. The New Freddy sounded weird.. I don't know, but he didn't scare me at all, Robert Englund would give me goosebumps with the way he talked, especially in the 5th one with Alice and Freddy fighting in the chapel, when Freddy came up behind Alice and says "You think you got what it takes!" creeped me out.

Other things...

- I didn't like the use of the "F" word in the Remake. They didn't use that word in the Original or any of the others if I remember correctly.

- When New Freddy says to NANCY "How's this for a wet dream?" I'm sorry, but that was so stupid and it made no sense in the scene. Original Freddy said that to Joey in #4 in the waterbed when he killed him. THAT made sense in that scene.

- I didn't like how some of the quotes were said in the Remake that weren't even said in the Original, they were said in 3,4,5, or 6. AND said in scenes where they don't even make sense. (like "How's this for a wet dream?" and "I'm your boyfriend now", etc..) In the Original, when Old Freddy said that to Nancy and his tongue came out of the phone? Creepy!

- I actually liked "funny" Freddy in the Original and others in the series. The jokes went along with the scene. Like, Jennifer in #3 with the TV "Stick to prime time, bitch!" and the scene in #5 (I think) with the video games and he had that glove "Now I'm playing with power!" or something like that. I loved that he joked at times and was serious at times too. He was playing with them before killing them, it was sick in a twisted way. In #4 with Sheila, he used her asthma to kill her.. "Wanna suck face?" then "You flunk!" and Debbie, who hated bugs, Freddy turned her into a cockroach "You can check in, but you can't check out!" With Dan in #5 the motorcycle, and "Has a need for speed!" Things like that.

It was like they were trying to hard in the Remake. I hated his voice, it was annoying not scary at all. On YouTube, they have a Old Freddy VS New Freddy on Voice, Laugh, Look, etc.. and Old Freddy wins all, no question. I have a weird obsession with these movies.. I know everything about all of them. LOL! :)

reply

The original '84 film WAS serious! It was really some of the sequels that ventured into comedy territory. And, to be honest, even most of the sequels didn't strike me as very comedic, just some of Freddy's dialogue. Of all of the 80s movies, only Part 3 really had a comedic edge to it, but it was very entertaining. The original film was pretty scary.

reply

I love both.
The original is a all time Horror masterpiece and is my favorite Slasher film.
The remake is also a Horror masterpiece it's a good film but it isn't in the same league as the original it's close but it's not.


Guns are for pussies,Real men use fist.

reply

You deserve to die

check yourself before you wreck yourself BOI!!

reply