|
|
Post by janntosh on Oct 30, 2021 4:43:00 GMT
Is it? I mean it’s well shot and directed but the story makes no sense and the acting (with the exception of John Saxon and Englund) is terrible. Dream Warriors and New Nightmare are honestly much better than this one and I haven’t seen any of the other sequels but I can see some of those maybe even being better
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 5:32:25 GMT
It is that good. It is largely due to the directing and simplicity of the movie and the sins of the parents fallen on the children and being violated in a place that is the most personal, the mind. It is very original and I actually like all the acting a lot, though it may not be technically the best. The movie is visceral horror and this is a rare thing in the slasher genre. It took a subgenre that was wearing very thin at the time and has never been a very good genre in the first place and added a clever and more emotional and serious layer to it, while still managing to be a lot of fun to watch. The suburban setting of the movie is very important too. It has a very lived in and strangely down to Earth feeling to it. It has an outlandish story, but there is a feeling of realism in the directing.
Not sure how the story doesn't make sense. It makes more sense than the nonsense in Dream Warriors with Freddy's mother. I guess lucky for everyone that they are sent to the mental hospital where it just happened that Freddy was conceived and there just happens to be an exposition ghost there. I have never liked this stuff in this movie. The stuff with the mental patients raping the nun is just goofy imo. This movie has a good idea with the basic ideas of teen trauma/mental issues, but it just doesn't make the best use of this and this is also when everything starts to get more cartoonish.
The original knows how to invoke terror in a way none of the other movies in the franchise come even close to. It keeps Freddy more mysterious and keeps what we know about him to a minimum.
My problem with New Nightmare is mainly that it isn't at all entertaining or creepy, though it tries to be. I like the idea of the effect these movies have on the people who make them and a reflection on the genre, but it does it in a way that leaves me completely indifferent. I wish it had been it's own movie and not a meta Nightmare on Elm Street spin-off.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on Oct 30, 2021 5:32:53 GMT
The first film was definitely not the scariest but it was still amazing, to be frank none of the Nightmare films in the series are 'scary' but rather unsettling or just gross in how they are killed off. The one where he got Nancy in the bathtub is just creepy.
But 'Dream Warriors' was the most enjoyable film in the series since they took control of their dreams and beat Freddy's ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 5:41:15 GMT
The first film was definitely not the scariest but it was still amazing, to be frank none of the Nightmare films in the series are 'scary' but rather unsettling or just gross in how they are killed off. The one where he got Nancy in the bathtub is just creepy. But 'Dream Warriors' was the most enjoyable film in the series since they took control of their dreams and beat Freddy's ass. Interesting. I think the first is the only movie in the franchise that is scary.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Oct 30, 2021 5:57:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 30, 2021 6:32:17 GMT
Conceptually it was a breath of fresh air for horror on the cinematic marketplace at the time and it was an instant hit that launched not just a franchise but a studio as well, but I see it as more of an iconic movie than a great one - Outside of Englund, Saxon, and Depp the acting is pretty hammy and community theater level, it's a bit inconsistent with it's rules, and I think stylistically Craven should have had all the nightmare sequences stabilized and steady as possible and the physical world be hand-held: a distinction would've been nice. The score is memorable, but ages it the more time goes on. And is it just me or does the first one seem ashamed to have Robert Englund in it? They modified his voice and kept him so hidden in the dark it's like they didn't even want him in the movie - to be fair though they wanted a hit and Englund wasn't really known for playing scary roles at the time, I think most recognized him as a quirky alien on V so I can sort of see their point and am happy they embraced him in the sequels.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 6:35:22 GMT
Conceptually it was a breath of fresh air for horror on the cinematic marketplace at the time and it was an instant hit that launched not just a franchise but a studio as well, but I see it as more of an iconic movie than a great one - Outside of Englund, Saxon, and Depp the acting is pretty hammy and community theater level, it's a bit inconsistent with it's rules, and I think stylistically Craven should have had all the nightmare sequences stabilized and steady as possible and the physical world be hand-held: a distinction would've been nice. The score is memorable, but ages it the more time goes on. And is it just me or does the first one seem ashamed to have Robert Englund in it? They modified his voice and kept him so hidden in the dark it's like they didn't even want him in the movie - to be fair though they wanted a hit and Englund wasn't really known for playing scary roles at the time, I think most recognized him as a quirky alien on V so I can sort of see their point and am happy they embraced him in the sequels. I assume it was done to make him feel more like an entity rather than a person and imo, it was a very smart move. The less we see of Freddy the scarier he is. I agree about the rules being inconsistent, but that has never bothered me much. The score might be dated, but I think it is extremely effective. I have always been a big fan of the performance of Heather (can't remember her last name). It might be on the amatuerish side, but she has a likability and a relatability and this underlying emotion that makes her one of, if not my favorite slasher movie protagonist. I like her even more than Laurie Strode tbh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Oct 30, 2021 7:03:23 GMT
But the story makes no sense? Well yeah, it's about a dead serial killer who attacks and kills people in their dreams.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 30, 2021 7:17:39 GMT
Conceptually it was a breath of fresh air for horror on the cinematic marketplace at the time and it was an instant hit that launched not just a franchise but a studio as well, but I see it as more of an iconic movie than a great one - Outside of Englund, Saxon, and Depp the acting is pretty hammy and community theater level, it's a bit inconsistent with it's rules, and I think stylistically Craven should have had all the nightmare sequences stabilized and steady as possible and the physical world be hand-held: a distinction would've been nice. The score is memorable, but ages it the more time goes on. And is it just me or does the first one seem ashamed to have Robert Englund in it? They modified his voice and kept him so hidden in the dark it's like they didn't even want him in the movie - to be fair though they wanted a hit and Englund wasn't really known for playing scary roles at the time, I think most recognized him as a quirky alien on V so I can sort of see their point and am happy they embraced him in the sequels. I assume it was done to make him feel more like an entity rather than a person and imo, it was a very smart move. The less we see of Freddy the scarier he is. I agree about the rules being inconsistent, but that has never bothered me much. The score might be dated, but I think it is extremely effective. I have always been a big fan of the performance of Heather (can't remember her last name). It might be on the amatuerish side, but she has a likability and a relatability and this underlying emotion that makes her one of, if not my favorite slasher movie protagonist. I like her even more than Laurie Strode tbh. I know Craven wanted to make him as mysterious as possible and at one point even wanted him to be mute, but things changed. Craven also didn't like the ending and wanted it to be a one-and-done kind of story but the ending we all know got filmed and placed in final cut - which I like by the way, because it shows how much Freddy is willing to dramatize things just to screw with the heads of his victims. Her last name is Langenkamp, I like her as well and while not the best performance she did bring plenty of grounded-ness to the character and came across as pretty believable as a teenager in such a fantastic situation. She got better over the years and in Dream Warriors actually sold the idea of being older than the rest of her co-stars despite being the same age or younger in real life, and all the while appearing in sitcoms like Just The Ten of Us. I wish she got better acting parts these days. Fun fact- her husband is a make-up artist and she helped out on The Cabin in the Woods, Cinderella Man, and 2004's Dawn of the Dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 7:42:03 GMT
I assume it was done to make him feel more like an entity rather than a person and imo, it was a very smart move. The less we see of Freddy the scarier he is. I agree about the rules being inconsistent, but that has never bothered me much. The score might be dated, but I think it is extremely effective. I have always been a big fan of the performance of Heather (can't remember her last name). It might be on the amatuerish side, but she has a likability and a relatability and this underlying emotion that makes her one of, if not my favorite slasher movie protagonist. I like her even more than Laurie Strode tbh. I know Craven wanted to make him as mysterious as possible and at one point even wanted him to be mute, but things changed. Craven also didn't like the ending and wanted it to be a one-and-done kind of story but the ending we all know got filmed and placed in final cut - which I like by the way, because it shows how much Freddy is willing to dramatize things just to screw with the heads of his victims. Her last name is Langenkamp, I like her as well and while not the best performance she did bring plenty of grounded-ness to the character and came across as pretty believable as a teenager in such a fantastic situation. She got better over the years and in Dream Warriors actually sold the idea of being older than the rest of her co-stars despite being the same age or younger in real life, and all the while appearing in sitcoms like Just The Ten of Us. I wish she got better acting parts these days. Fun fact- her husband is a make-up artist and she helped out on The Cabin in the Woods, Cinderella Man, and 2004's Dawn of the Dead. If you are talking about the very last scene, I have mixed feelings. It does feel tacked on and sillier than the rest of the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Oct 30, 2021 7:47:57 GMT
Well, I disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Oct 30, 2021 15:04:50 GMT
It cost between a tenth and fifteenth of the shooting budgets of 'Poltergeist' (1982) and 'The Thing' (1982) but cast and crew made imaginative use of unusual resoruces. I think they did a fine job and I include the original screenplay.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Oct 30, 2021 15:34:35 GMT
It is that good. It is largely due to the directing and simplicity of the movie and the sins of the parents fallen on the children and being violated in a place that is the most personal, the mind. It is very original and I actually like all the acting a lot, though it may not be technically the best. The movie is visceral horror and this is a rare thing in the slasher genre. It took a subgenre that was wearing very thin at the time and has never been a very good genre in the first place and added a clever and more emotional and serious layer to it, while still managing to be a lot of fun to watch. The suburban setting of the movie is very important too. It has a very lived in and strangely down to Earth feeling to it. It has an outlandish story, but there is a feeling of realism in the directing. Not sure how the story doesn't make sense. It makes more sense than the nonsense in Dream Warriors with Freddy's mother. I guess lucky for everyone that they are sent to the mental hospital where it just happened that Freddy was conceived and there just happens to be an exposition ghost there. I have never liked this stuff in this movie. The stuff with the mental patients raping the nun is just goofy imo. This movie has a good idea with the basic ideas of teen trauma/mental issues, but it just doesn't make the best use of this and this is also when everything starts to get more cartoonish. The original knows how to invoke terror in a way none of the other movies in the franchise come even close to. It keeps Freddy more mysterious and keeps what we know about him to a minimum. My problem with New Nightmare is mainly that it isn't at all entertaining or creepy, though it tries to be. I like the idea of the effect these movies have on the people who make them and a reflection on the genre, but it does it in a way that leaves me completely indifferent. I wish it had been it's own movie and not a meta Nightmare on Elm Street spin-off.
I think I share your thoughts about the grounded sense of realism. I think throughout his career, Wes Craven mixed elements of realism (he began by editing documentaries), hyperrealism and surrealism in unusual ways. He referenced Luis Bunuel's 'The Exterminating Angel' (1962) in 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' which I feel is telling on a conceptual level.
David Lynch would continue to mine the dark depths of suburbia explored in movies like 'The Stepford Wives' (1975), 'Halloween' (1978) and 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' with 'Blue Velvet' (1986) which opens with a homage to the work of Bunuel. Craven and Lynch were often connected by personnel, I once drew a chart many years ago and found at least 33 cast and crew members they'd shared on creative projects.
I like 'New Nightmare' myself, I find it fresh and engaging, but I don't think it's as effective as a horror movie. I do like that it put its foot down heavily on the calamitous 'Freddy's Dead'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Oct 30, 2021 16:26:49 GMT
I’ve got to hard disagree. It’s my favorite horror film. I acknowledge flaws in the ending but overall I find it fantastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 30, 2021 20:22:46 GMT
Conceptually it was a breath of fresh air for horror on the cinematic marketplace at the time and it was an instant hit that launched not just a franchise but a studio as well, but I see it as more of an iconic movie than a great one - Outside of Englund, Saxon, and Depp the acting is pretty hammy and community theater level, it's a bit inconsistent with it's rules, and I think stylistically Craven should have had all the nightmare sequences stabilized and steady as possible and the physical world be hand-held: a distinction would've been nice. The score is memorable, but ages it the more time goes on. And is it just me or does the first one seem ashamed to have Robert Englund in it? They modified his voice and kept him so hidden in the dark it's like they didn't even want him in the movie - to be fair though they wanted a hit and Englund wasn't really known for playing scary roles at the time, I think most recognized him as a quirky alien on V so I can sort of see their point and am happy they embraced him in the sequels. The fact that you're never really sure when it's a dream and when the characters are awake is usually cited as one of its strengths, which I'd agree with. Englund got an "And" credit so I don't think they were ashamed of him, though he wasn't Craven's first choice (David Warner, who was cast and then dropped out) and they tried to recast him with a stuntman in the second movie before realizing they needed Englund. It's common to shoot cheaper effects in the dark so maybe that's what Craven was doing. Freddy's voice was always modified, even when Freddy became a superstar. |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Oct 30, 2021 23:25:18 GMT
Is it? I mean it’s well shot and directed but the story makes no sense and the acting (with the exception of John Saxon and Englund) is terrible. Dream Warriors and New Nightmare are honestly much better than this one and I haven’t seen any of the other sequels but I can see some of those maybe even being better It's a movie about nightmares. Nightmares and dreams in general are notorious for not making any sense.
I'm actually thinking of one I had the other day, I dreamt I was driving, driving uphill, not a big hill, just a small incline at the top of our alley but for some reason I can't get the car to go up it, and it rolls back down the incline so fast, that the car flips over, not turns on its side, flips end over end and basically somersaults upside down. When I woke up I thought 'whoa, THAT belongs in a horror movie'.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Oct 31, 2021 6:29:09 GMT
The original is by far the most narratively creative slasher film of the 80s and features a charismatic killer - something highly unusual during an era when silent, creeping hulks were the backbone of the genre - and highly elaborate kills.
Dream Warriors is plenty of fun and does boast more elaborate set pieces, but the fear factor isn't the same, the mythos increasingly contrived and a comic book vibe starts to encroach upon the pure horror (laced with subtle camp courtesy of Englund's performance) that defined the original.
New Nightmare isn't bad but it was really just a reasonably successful attempt to do something new with what was by then a worn-out concept.
|
|
