A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) Review
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
J.R
I think I may have gone into this expecting a little too much. It's a solid movie with some creepy scenes, but it's one of the most well-known horror movies of all time, rife with iconic imagery and deaths, being responsible for launching Johnny Depp's career and spawning six sequels, a crossover and a 2010 remake. And it did this on a $1.8 million dollar budget.
Firstly, it's enough to watch this just to see how much it is a product of its times. From the clothes to the music to the dialogue, this film screams '80s'.
The idea behind this is brilliant - a monster waiting to kill you in the one place you can't hide from forever. It's a creepy thought that there's no way to avoid Freddy, no legitimate evidence you can present that proves he is real and no way to kill him (I think. The ending was confusing).
I really did enjoy the subtle touches that were put into this movie. Like the design of Freddy's jumper appearing throughout the movie like on the high school girl's clothes in one of the dream sequences and on Glen's car at the end. I really like little things like that because they show that the people behind the production are really passionate about what they're making, which is what you need when you're making a movie on a limited budget. You need the cast and crew to be passionate about what they are doing. But a few actors may have had a little too much passion...
While Johnny Depp was the best actor on-screen, a few seemed like they were trying a tiny bit too hard. Then a couple more seemed like they were trying much too hard, bordering on comedic. And some moments of weaker writing definitely contributed to the more laughable moments.
On the Horror element of this movie, I'm sure that this was genuinely terrifying when it was first shown, but now that every scare, image, and death has been ingrained in popular culture for decades, I feel like I was numbed to the whole experience. But that's what makes me want to watch the unspoiled sequels. I know that sequels don't have the best reputations, particularly horror ones, but I want to see more of Freddy (certainly more than the seven minutes of screen time he had) and I want to see more imaginative and creative ways the dream gimmick can be used. In fact, I struggle to find reasons why this is still rated 18 (But I don't understand age ratings on older films at all any more when Men in Black has a ton of swearing and gets away with a PG) when there's little gore, and it's obvious to modern viewers that prosthetics and practical effects are being used. However, the one scene I found I really liked was the death of Depp's character. It's creepy, sudden and shockingly original, though let down slightly by his undersized shirt (or is it meant to look like that? I'm not a massive fan of american football).
On that point, I'd like to mention that I am a big fan of practical effects. They tend to age a movie pretty badly, but often not nearly as badly as overusing CGI (Phantom Menace, anyone?), so it's definitely the lesser of two evils in that regard. Though they're all pretty obviously fake, I think they make the movie creepier as they looked like they were part of the on-screen world.
One other downside of the film is the lack of explanation. Of course horror should work on the basis that humans fear what we don't understand, but up to a certain point...the more we know, the more we fear. I think it would be scarier if the ending and the dream world rules were a little more understandable, particularly with regard to:
That last one may have been a teeny bit of a nitpick, but seriously, I am open to answers. Please let me know if there's an answer to any of these that I missed.
Besides that, there are few other issues I have. Like why it made sense for Nancy to for some reason have her burn and her cut from Freddy on the same part of her arm (just seemed like a weird decision), and how much more effective the hand reveal in the bathtub scene would have been with either no ambient music or with a quick swell of music.
To conclude, I went into this looking for gory horror, when this was really mostly psychological (a little ironic, given Freddy's method of murder). I'm definitely going to give the sequels a go and see if I find them any scarier. But all in all, this was a product of its time with a brilliant premise and ideas let down by strange performances, unexplained rules and being a massive presence in popular culture (In other words, it's so good that it's ruined for future viewers).
J.R
Firstly, it's enough to watch this just to see how much it is a product of its times. From the clothes to the music to the dialogue, this film screams '80s'.
The idea behind this is brilliant - a monster waiting to kill you in the one place you can't hide from forever. It's a creepy thought that there's no way to avoid Freddy, no legitimate evidence you can present that proves he is real and no way to kill him (I think. The ending was confusing).
I really did enjoy the subtle touches that were put into this movie. Like the design of Freddy's jumper appearing throughout the movie like on the high school girl's clothes in one of the dream sequences and on Glen's car at the end. I really like little things like that because they show that the people behind the production are really passionate about what they're making, which is what you need when you're making a movie on a limited budget. You need the cast and crew to be passionate about what they are doing. But a few actors may have had a little too much passion...While Johnny Depp was the best actor on-screen, a few seemed like they were trying a tiny bit too hard. Then a couple more seemed like they were trying much too hard, bordering on comedic. And some moments of weaker writing definitely contributed to the more laughable moments.
On the Horror element of this movie, I'm sure that this was genuinely terrifying when it was first shown, but now that every scare, image, and death has been ingrained in popular culture for decades, I feel like I was numbed to the whole experience. But that's what makes me want to watch the unspoiled sequels. I know that sequels don't have the best reputations, particularly horror ones, but I want to see more of Freddy (certainly more than the seven minutes of screen time he had) and I want to see more imaginative and creative ways the dream gimmick can be used. In fact, I struggle to find reasons why this is still rated 18 (But I don't understand age ratings on older films at all any more when Men in Black has a ton of swearing and gets away with a PG) when there's little gore, and it's obvious to modern viewers that prosthetics and practical effects are being used. However, the one scene I found I really liked was the death of Depp's character. It's creepy, sudden and shockingly original, though let down slightly by his undersized shirt (or is it meant to look like that? I'm not a massive fan of american football).
On that point, I'd like to mention that I am a big fan of practical effects. They tend to age a movie pretty badly, but often not nearly as badly as overusing CGI (Phantom Menace, anyone?), so it's definitely the lesser of two evils in that regard. Though they're all pretty obviously fake, I think they make the movie creepier as they looked like they were part of the on-screen world.
One other downside of the film is the lack of explanation. Of course horror should work on the basis that humans fear what we don't understand, but up to a certain point...the more we know, the more we fear. I think it would be scarier if the ending and the dream world rules were a little more understandable, particularly with regard to:
- how Nancy brought Freddy into the real world at the end of the movie (if that's what happened)?
- how Nancy brought Freddy's hat into the real world (I thought only your injuries stayed)?
- how Nancy was able to somehow decide to stop fearing Freddy and make him disappear, and how did she know that doing that would make him disappear?
- why Nancy and Glen were able to see Freddy hang Rod (I assumed Rod was the one dreaming)?
- why Rod was able to open his eyes and appear conscious while Freddy was hanging him, surely that means he's not dreaming any more (though I guess the others being slowly murdered would also wake them up, but at what point can you no longer wake up and your fate is sealed)?
That last one may have been a teeny bit of a nitpick, but seriously, I am open to answers. Please let me know if there's an answer to any of these that I missed.
Besides that, there are few other issues I have. Like why it made sense for Nancy to for some reason have her burn and her cut from Freddy on the same part of her arm (just seemed like a weird decision), and how much more effective the hand reveal in the bathtub scene would have been with either no ambient music or with a quick swell of music.
To conclude, I went into this looking for gory horror, when this was really mostly psychological (a little ironic, given Freddy's method of murder). I'm definitely going to give the sequels a go and see if I find them any scarier. But all in all, this was a product of its time with a brilliant premise and ideas let down by strange performances, unexplained rules and being a massive presence in popular culture (In other words, it's so good that it's ruined for future viewers).
Comments
Post a Comment