A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)Written and Directed by Wes Craven
There's not much new to say about this film, anything really worth saying has already been said... but I'm gonna try and rant on anyway.
At 26 years old it already stands as one of the 'classics', and has done for years. When we look back at the horror boom in the 1980's we generally regard this as one of the best.
There's few people who haven't seen it - and those that haven't still know what it is, although in many eyes its reputation may be tarnished by some less than stellar sequels.
It arrived in 1984, when the horror genre had settled into a fairly stagnant "stalk & slash" cycle. Hundreds of movies were being released, each one seeming very much the same - very few standing out from the crowd. We don't remember too many of them today (with the exeptions of the Friday the 13th and Halloween flicks.)
A Nightmare On Elm Street gave us a new kind of horror movie, and a new kind of Movie Monster in the person of Fred(dy) Krueger.
Forget the silent stalkers, Michael and Jason, who kill because it is hardwired into them - Freddy is sick, twisted and terrifying. And he just loves to kill.
Freddy probably stands alongside Pinhead as the most interesting modern-movie monster - simply because he is so different from the Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees model. He talks, he torments - it's not just about the kill, he revels in the chase.
Unlike subsequent entries in the series (and the remake in particular) this film has Fred(dy) Krueger firmly in the background. The result of this is that he's actually scary. Nor is he the walking punch-line factory of the later installments - here he comes across as a sick, twisted, sadistic bastard - a guy who'll cut off his own fingers just to freak someone out. Robert Englund gives one of his best performances in the role, unhampered by corny one-liners and given a chance to play with a truly great story. Despite the more restrained Freddy, we can already see the origins of what would become a full blown pop culture icon.
But the thing that really makes this movie stand out from the crowd is that it gives you characters than you genuinely feel for. Some of them you like, some you hate - but they feel like real people... most of the time. It's hard to relate to these kids today, the movie portrays them all as being pretty innocent, shielded from the harsh realities of the world - kids who'll go to school the day after their best friend is cut up. You can't really relate to them - but their choices seem believable after their characters are established. They're just those kind of kids.
Let's talk about the story - it's a simple one. Group of teenagers are stalked and killed in their dreams by a Fedora-wearing loon with a burned face and a sharp glove. Simple, stripped-down and awesome. Having such a simple story makes the film enjoyable - you don't have to worry too much about insane plot developments and can just enjoy the ride. The real reasons this film works so well are the characters and Wes Cravens excellent, inspired screenplay. Two basic ingedients that many horror films sorely lack.
The film focuses on one particular girl, Nancy, and her small group of friends. Most of them are pretty likable - largely due to the fact that real time is spent developing the characters. Compare the body-count of this film to the remake and it seems miniscule. That's because this movie is concerned with creating suspense and building character. Most important of these is Nancy, who we totally believe as a very sweet, niave girl who is being confronted with things no one can imagine. I feel that, even as a male, I can connect with Nancy. She's one of the best characters in slasher-film history in my opinion.
It's not a film concerned with filling the screen with gore (although it does at several points) but instead wants to tell an actual story. There's quite a lot in here, including neglectful parents, alcoholism, moral issues, nightmares, relationships - but everything is juggled well, nothing feels under developed.
The dream sequences are amazing. Part of the reason they work so well in this film is that they are kept dairly simple - they take place in real locations and feature just enough of the surreal to make them feel like dreams. Personally, as the films went on and the dreams got trippier I lost interest a bit. I felt this film best captured the slightly unreal, disjointed feel that (my) dreams have. Thus I relate to them better. The ending is amazing, really playing with the boundaries between dream and reality - to the point where you have no clue what is going on.
The thing is, when a film is great there's not much to say about it - so let's more on to Part 2 and see what happens there...
There's not much new to say about this film, anything really worth saying has already been said... but I'm gonna try and rant on anyway.
At 26 years old it already stands as one of the 'classics', and has done for years. When we look back at the horror boom in the 1980's we generally regard this as one of the best.
There's few people who haven't seen it - and those that haven't still know what it is, although in many eyes its reputation may be tarnished by some less than stellar sequels.
It arrived in 1984, when the horror genre had settled into a fairly stagnant "stalk & slash" cycle. Hundreds of movies were being released, each one seeming very much the same - very few standing out from the crowd. We don't remember too many of them today (with the exeptions of the Friday the 13th and Halloween flicks.)
A Nightmare On Elm Street gave us a new kind of horror movie, and a new kind of Movie Monster in the person of Fred(dy) Krueger.Forget the silent stalkers, Michael and Jason, who kill because it is hardwired into them - Freddy is sick, twisted and terrifying. And he just loves to kill.
Freddy probably stands alongside Pinhead as the most interesting modern-movie monster - simply because he is so different from the Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees model. He talks, he torments - it's not just about the kill, he revels in the chase.
Unlike subsequent entries in the series (and the remake in particular) this film has Fred(dy) Krueger firmly in the background. The result of this is that he's actually scary. Nor is he the walking punch-line factory of the later installments - here he comes across as a sick, twisted, sadistic bastard - a guy who'll cut off his own fingers just to freak someone out. Robert Englund gives one of his best performances in the role, unhampered by corny one-liners and given a chance to play with a truly great story. Despite the more restrained Freddy, we can already see the origins of what would become a full blown pop culture icon.
But the thing that really makes this movie stand out from the crowd is that it gives you characters than you genuinely feel for. Some of them you like, some you hate - but they feel like real people... most of the time. It's hard to relate to these kids today, the movie portrays them all as being pretty innocent, shielded from the harsh realities of the world - kids who'll go to school the day after their best friend is cut up. You can't really relate to them - but their choices seem believable after their characters are established. They're just those kind of kids.
Let's talk about the story - it's a simple one. Group of teenagers are stalked and killed in their dreams by a Fedora-wearing loon with a burned face and a sharp glove. Simple, stripped-down and awesome. Having such a simple story makes the film enjoyable - you don't have to worry too much about insane plot developments and can just enjoy the ride. The real reasons this film works so well are the characters and Wes Cravens excellent, inspired screenplay. Two basic ingedients that many horror films sorely lack.
The film focuses on one particular girl, Nancy, and her small group of friends. Most of them are pretty likable - largely due to the fact that real time is spent developing the characters. Compare the body-count of this film to the remake and it seems miniscule. That's because this movie is concerned with creating suspense and building character. Most important of these is Nancy, who we totally believe as a very sweet, niave girl who is being confronted with things no one can imagine. I feel that, even as a male, I can connect with Nancy. She's one of the best characters in slasher-film history in my opinion.
It's not a film concerned with filling the screen with gore (although it does at several points) but instead wants to tell an actual story. There's quite a lot in here, including neglectful parents, alcoholism, moral issues, nightmares, relationships - but everything is juggled well, nothing feels under developed.
The dream sequences are amazing. Part of the reason they work so well in this film is that they are kept dairly simple - they take place in real locations and feature just enough of the surreal to make them feel like dreams. Personally, as the films went on and the dreams got trippier I lost interest a bit. I felt this film best captured the slightly unreal, disjointed feel that (my) dreams have. Thus I relate to them better. The ending is amazing, really playing with the boundaries between dream and reality - to the point where you have no clue what is going on.
The thing is, when a film is great there's not much to say about it - so let's more on to Part 2 and see what happens there...
No comments:
Post a Comment