Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by mclay18, Dec 12, 2008.
Yeah me too
I rewatched the remake last night, and my reaction was more or less the same as it was when I first saw it: It is a scary movie. I am affected by - and enjoy - jump scares, and the remake does a good jump of putting me in a state of unease and finally startling me.
It doesn't quite have the charm of the original, nor is it quite as stylish, but I'm glad it didn't throw in too many cheesy (and unfunny!) one-liners, like so many a sequel to the original.
A have a question for you guys. The remake wasn't enthusiastically received. I know many will reject a movie simply because it is a remake (a narrow perspective), but I am wondering if something else is at stake. The original left the theme of child abuse up to the viewer - taken at face value, Freddy is simply a child murderer. However, the remake introduces the theme in a way that is difficult to ignore. My question is: Do you think the reception of the movie was affected by the fact that it introduced this taboo theme? Is a theme as heavy as child abuse too hard to swallow in what is essentially a popcorn movie?
Interresting question. It certainly makes Freddy less likable. In the original there's always that element of doubt, like maybe Freddy was set-up or something (or maybe he just killed kids who need to be killed, they do exist and grow up to be cops and politicians). I don't know if it's too hard to swallow, but removing any doubt makes it hard to root for Freddy, which is what made the first films what they were. Sure I would take an interest in a character or 2 from each film, but Freddy was always the most interesting no matter what else was going on.
I don't think the child molesting was a big issue. I think the fact that he was solely that whilst alive and not a killer was something a bit harder to stomach.
I think another reason it wasn't well received was due to a lot of footage we saw and heard about that was well received but then never ended up in the movie. I know that pissed me off. It seemed like a lot of suspenseful scenes were cut down to jump scares. This I assume is what director and producers were fighting with each other about. Not sure who's cut we saw in theaters but something tells me it was the producers cut.
Another thing I didn't like was how obvious they made some of the dream scenes. There's digital motions all around the screen in some scenes which is not only distracting but pointless. The greatest thing about the original was not being sure when the dream started or ended.
Lastly I hated the fact that they re-used lines from older movies. That I find distracting when it really serves no purpose in this film.
This had nothing to do with my negative feelings about the film. I hated the main characters and actors in general--and Rooney Mara in particular. I've never seen an effective film that had such an uncharismatic and unlikeable heroine. Her miscasting alone pretty much sealed the deal for me.
Of course, the characters weren't the only weak link. Despite good technical qualities the film is uninspired, dull, and lifeless. A lot of bad films have enough passion and energy to make them watchable. But this is one of the most uninvolving movies ever. It's missing something essential. I don't feel any of the love for the genre that makes more incompetent films enjoyable. The Nightmare remake is the best example of paint-by-numbers pure product that Hollywood has ever churned out.
Thank you for your thoughts, guys!
I think the point was that Nancy was damaged because of what she had experienced at the hands of Freddy. They did make a point of her being withdrawn. Mara Rooney also plays the character of Lisbeth Salander in the American Millenium trilogy - another piece of damaged goods. Maybe she has a nack for it.
Interesting - that puts child abuse higher on your list of moral offense than child murder. While we can all agree that child abuse is horrifying and sad, at list a victim of child abuse still has a chance to build a normal life, even if he or she bears the scars of that trauma. Whereas if you're dead, you're dead - no second chance in this life. Still, I think your response highlights that it is an uncomfortable subject.
I did not know that. Very interesting.
I actually didn't mind that. At least they didn't re-use the truly bad ones ("It's Superfreddy!"). It re-uses whole scenes from the original (levitating death & body bag scenes, the latter of which was more stylish and frightening in the original).
Like I said, I found the remake enjoyable and scary. It probably won't replace the original for me, but I liked the pace, the suspense, and the jump scares. I was, however, somewhat surprised that an uncomfortable theme like that was introduced into a mainstream popcorn flick.
This was one of the worst theatrical horror outings of the past few years.
It was just a dull and lifeless imitation of the original. The cast was all-around awful (especially Rooney Mara, Kyle Gallner, and Connie Britton). The only cast member I liked was Katie Cassidy, who was dispatched of too soon. In order to keep up with the times, they had characters shooting up adrenaline. Seriously?
If you want to see what is wrong with it, just compare the scenes that they lifted directly out of the original. When Freddy is above Nancy's bed, he is this laughably bad animated CGI thing moving back and forth. Tina's death is one of the stand-out moments from the original, but here the girl is just bounced around the room to pinball noises?
Everything that was scary or fun about the original film was sucked out of this one.
My sentiments exactly, fell asleep on first viewing, second was a struggle too.
Not necessarly higher, but combined it's far worse. It's slightly easier to stomach hearing a child was killed than a child was raped, tortured and then killed. Sometimes the damage of just abuse can be too much to overcome, even leading to new monsters being born. I do agree dead probably isn't better, but could argue it is in some cases.
Yea, I don't know the whole story but the two producers and the director did not see eye to eye.
I think it showcases poor and lazy writing. Sometimes it can work but I didn't feel it did here.
Plus the body bag scene in the remake is a jump scare. In the original it was actually a frightening and suspense driven scene. It gave you an uncomfortable feeling rather than a quick fix scare.
Plus a lot of the re-used scenes felt like they had no purpose here other than to be head nods. Not to mention most of them were far inferior to the original.
re watched this today and then the friday the 13th remake i must say the f13th remake seemed far superior to the NOES remake!!!
I hadn't heard that. Where is this info from?
I think I read it on BloodyDisgusting or Horrorbid at one point.
Huh. I actually used to drink beers with one of the exec producers back in college. Next time I see him (prolly at a wedding or something), will ask.
Yea do ask. I'm curious myself. I know I read somewhere at one point that there was a lot of tension and creative differences. I assume that's why we haven't seen a lot of footage that was shot.
I think it's easier to keep the Jason thing going, he's behind a mask, but Freddy is the make up on Englund's face and he an't doing it forever/
At the same time, the freddy remake was a big change,the change of actor, child abuse theme played to serious lengths.
I think the remake would of gone better if they underplayed the child abuse thing and just concentrated on scary mightmares, we saw less of Freddy in the first nightmare film anyhow, I don't thnk audiances want to see too much of freddy in this serious child abuse type manner, they want him in the shadows a bit more.
Anyhow I don't think we really got the film that a new actor deserved, it's big boots filling the iconic image of England's freddy, I think they should of done a prequel with england involved and maybe a younger actor who looks like him, a proper passing of the torch, then that young actor can take up the older freddy in the sequels to follow.
Englund reckoned he had 2 more freddy's in him, because of his age. I think they should of used him if he was up for it, then give the series a big 2 film epic era close of that actor, and have the new young actor involved with him.
As it stands I'm not happy with the series last entry and it's timing more so, I see Englund as important to the freddy series as Stallone is for Rambo. His freddy is too inconic, somethings in horror take a step of their own.
I guess it was interesting to wonder what the new film would of been like with a new actor, recasting iconic roles like James Bond always big news, great speculation, what will it be like etc, in this case they didn't understand the series legacy in the horror genre and tampering with it's roots. I guess reboota have become fashionable, even James Bond-but even with Bond I wasn't too happy with the changes, if the roots are strong, your never going to please anyone totally outside those roots, and if you never rebooted at all, you would never need to have felt disappointed or worry about this new reality-rebirth of a series, it's not for everyone, you'll get more people displeased then say getting another freddy vs Jason out, and I would rather have a freddy vs jason vs ash, then a nightmare reboot anyday. Give the people what they want.
The F13 remake felt more like the TCM remake to me. The big mistake in my opinion was ditching the counselor angle and doing the young adults partying in a house routine instead.
That said, I did enjoy the NOES remake. Much more than on my first viewing.
I still say this is a piss-poor film judged on its own merits. I sincerely wish the filmmakers devoted as much thought to it as some of you guys. It would have turned out better.