Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)
Written and Directed by Wes Craven
Freddy was dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by New Line Cinema, Rachel Talalay, Mike Deluca, and the the outraged fanbase. We signed it.
But Freddy always comes back, doesn't he? Well, yes and no... he did come back twelve years after his cinematic demise, but not in the film. Except he kind of did... but not really. But still, kinda...
Wes Craven originally wanted to do this film as Nightmare On Elm Street 3 - and it follows various real life people involved in the production of the original Nightmare On Elm Street. Heather Langenkamp (Nancy in the original and Part 3) returns, this time playing herself. So does Robert Englund - again as himself. And they're all having Nightmares... about a man with a burned face and claws for fingers... which in the end is revealed to be a Demon who has taken the form of Freddy Krueger. That demon invades the world via our dreams, making him very similar to the original Krueger (albiet with different motivations) and it is said that the Nightmare films, by featuring Freddy managed to contain the demon. Why? I dunno.
It's a pretty neat idea, blurring the lines of reality and film the same way the original blurred the lines between dreams and reality. But would it have worked as Nightmare 3? No way, the whole things relies on Freddy being a pop-culture icon. They needed those six movies before this one for the movie to truly work - otherwise Freddy would just have been "that ugly guy from those couple of films."
So Heather plays Heather, an actress struggling to put her past as a horror movie star behind her and move on to better things. But people just won't let that happen and continue to focus on A Nightmare On Elm Street - during an interview she is reintroduced to Robert Englund (in full Freddy costume) and we eventually learn that the two are having some similar problems.
People around Heather keep dying and her son acts like a nutter - this demon in the form of Freddy is using the kid as a passage into the real world. It's all done rather well and is quite creepy.
There's a definite sense that Craven introduced this confusing (well, when you watch the movie it's very simple - but trying to explain it is a bitch) new entry into the franchise to take Freddy back to his roots as an evil, terrible monster and not Bob Hope with burns. And this Freddy is sick - he has no time for jokes and is intent on making Heathers life as miserable as possible whilst slaughtering just about everyone she loves. Craven suceeds it making Krueger (even though it isn't really him) a sick puppy again.
The highlight of the film is towards the end where film and reality come even closer together - with Heather playing Nancy again - but in the real world. The idea that the NOES films kept a demon (in the form of Freddy) at bay is novel and works as a one off - but any further exploration of this concept would have been silly. Ultimately, the film is unique in the series and is certainly enjoyable as an experiment. The performances (even from the non-actors) seem pretty solid all round it's an enjoyable flick, more in line with the early films than the later sequels. Brilliant.
Written and Directed by Wes Craven
Freddy was dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by New Line Cinema, Rachel Talalay, Mike Deluca, and the the outraged fanbase. We signed it.
But Freddy always comes back, doesn't he? Well, yes and no... he did come back twelve years after his cinematic demise, but not in the film. Except he kind of did... but not really. But still, kinda...
Wes Craven originally wanted to do this film as Nightmare On Elm Street 3 - and it follows various real life people involved in the production of the original Nightmare On Elm Street. Heather Langenkamp (Nancy in the original and Part 3) returns, this time playing herself. So does Robert Englund - again as himself. And they're all having Nightmares... about a man with a burned face and claws for fingers... which in the end is revealed to be a Demon who has taken the form of Freddy Krueger. That demon invades the world via our dreams, making him very similar to the original Krueger (albiet with different motivations) and it is said that the Nightmare films, by featuring Freddy managed to contain the demon. Why? I dunno.
It's a pretty neat idea, blurring the lines of reality and film the same way the original blurred the lines between dreams and reality. But would it have worked as Nightmare 3? No way, the whole things relies on Freddy being a pop-culture icon. They needed those six movies before this one for the movie to truly work - otherwise Freddy would just have been "that ugly guy from those couple of films."
So Heather plays Heather, an actress struggling to put her past as a horror movie star behind her and move on to better things. But people just won't let that happen and continue to focus on A Nightmare On Elm Street - during an interview she is reintroduced to Robert Englund (in full Freddy costume) and we eventually learn that the two are having some similar problems.
People around Heather keep dying and her son acts like a nutter - this demon in the form of Freddy is using the kid as a passage into the real world. It's all done rather well and is quite creepy.
There's a definite sense that Craven introduced this confusing (well, when you watch the movie it's very simple - but trying to explain it is a bitch) new entry into the franchise to take Freddy back to his roots as an evil, terrible monster and not Bob Hope with burns. And this Freddy is sick - he has no time for jokes and is intent on making Heathers life as miserable as possible whilst slaughtering just about everyone she loves. Craven suceeds it making Krueger (even though it isn't really him) a sick puppy again.
The highlight of the film is towards the end where film and reality come even closer together - with Heather playing Nancy again - but in the real world. The idea that the NOES films kept a demon (in the form of Freddy) at bay is novel and works as a one off - but any further exploration of this concept would have been silly. Ultimately, the film is unique in the series and is certainly enjoyable as an experiment. The performances (even from the non-actors) seem pretty solid all round it's an enjoyable flick, more in line with the early films than the later sequels. Brilliant.
No comments:
Post a Comment