God dammit, blip.
Yep, that's what happened. God damned it. Not my fault.
KNOW WHEN TO FOLD 'EM! KNOW WHEN TO WALK AWAY! KNOW WHEN TO RUN! YOU NEVER COUNT YOUR MONEY WHEN YOU'RE SITTING- Geico.
There's no Devil. That's just God when he's drunk.
Person 1: Huh. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.
Person 2: Everybody knows that.
Person 1: Well, did you know that *famous person does something that you wouldn't normally think the famous person would do*?
*cut to famous person doing just that*
So simple even a caveman can do it.
thank you for making Mondays less terrible.
fuck you blip >*(
Now this is a Film I was never expecting the Snob to cover. Colour me suprised.
Why? He covered Friday the 13th and Halloween.
God damnit blip you cocksucker!
I just saw Interstellar and was about to finally watch the Midnight Screening but THIS IS SO MUCH BETTER. (I did like Interstellar and I already knew you guys gave it approval).
I'm actually glad to see you didn't take the easy route and attack a lesser sequel. You went for the challenge, and you succeeded. Very funny all the way through. Though, I kind of figured the first John Saxon movie on the Snob would be Cannibal Apocalypse.
Wow. I didn't know that bit of trivia regarding David Warner; thanks for that..... he's one of my super-favorite actors. And even MORE thanks for the many 'Time After Time' references.....one of my most beloved movies that I manage to re-watch every year. :)
If you watch the "Never Sleep Again" documentary (a great documentary covering the whole series) it shows David Warner in early Freddy make-up.
I've been meaning to watch it....its on my loooong list of things to see, but I never seem to catch a decent minute break. I'll be looking forward to that part - Thanks! :)
Uh no. this movie doesn't exist. I burned the script in a dream. therefore it doesn't exist.
i love nightmare no elm street the remake sucks i really hope to see the sequels reviews
Tide goes in, tide goes out.
You can't explain that.
Congratulations to the real LloydFan. Whatever comment you made that got this guy butthurt must have been a good one!
Every time an entire thread of comments is deleted, a troll gets its wings.
See this thing==> .
It's called a period.
I didn't write this douche comment.
Don't be that guy.
Or that shemale.
Oh you're impersonating me.
"So what's going on here, an orgy or something?!!?"
Forgot about the riveting dialogue in this film!!!
#notallboilerrooms made this episode for me.
Yay Brad watches Rick and Morty! Well that or he just saw the Scary Terry clip.....I hope he likes it cause that's one of the few things that Adult Swim had done right in for fucking ever.
too many cooks
Can the Snob please review Mahakaal aka the Indian A Nightmare on Elm Street?
I don't know, Heather Langenkamps awful performance and the skizofrinic tone of the movie did leave me kind of cold on this movie. Might give it another chance.
You're entitled to your opinion, sir, but if you want top quality acting check out the awesome remake.
Rooney Mara is as exciting as Kristen Stewart with a prescription to hypnocil. Don't forget about Jackie running around talking like Rorschach for some reason.
But hey, different soaks for different folks, cause why would everyone the same cleaning rituals?
"have' the same cleaning rituals.
It's spelled schizophrenic.
I stick up for the remake. The dreams were back to being simple and creepy like in the original, Freddy was back to being sinister and a pederast, I thought Jackie Earle was an excellent replacement, and I really loved its use of The Everly Brothers. No, I don't think it's better than the original, but I definitely loved that it went back to the original's tone.
Have to agree to disagree with you there, sir. Jackie Earle Haley was not a bad choice, but he gave the wrong kind of performance, the use of CGI to recreate some of the iconic moments was awful, the acting preeeetty bad (except for Clancy Brown, who is always awesome, but he only had a minor role), and there was an unnecessary jump scare every five minutes. And the idea that Krueger molested the kids and ALL of them forgot was pretty terrible (admittedly, it's always been on the fence about whether the original Freddy was a child molester, but still, I'd imagine any survivors would have known about it).
Still, did love the bit in the gas station with the shifting between the real world and the nightmare boiler room.
Disagree with Jackie Earle's performance, he brought a level of menace that was missing from the character since the first couple movies. For the first time in 20 years I was actually scared of Freddy; and for the scenes pre-burning, I was actually skeeved out by him. If there's one thing Jackie Earle can play, it's a molestery type.
There's a lot of silly jump scares in the movie, but the original has that too, and honestly, it's something I didn't really notice the first time I saw the remake. The 2nd time I saw it, I noticed it more, but at least it was typically always Freddy, and no "oh shit, a cat!"
As for the acting, if we're judging a Freddy movie on acting, then it's a little late in the game for that, as most of them have had at least a few awkward performances in them. But, I agree that Rooney Mara was a little wooden (but I didn't find her unlikable), though I did really like Kyle Gallner as the tweeked out dude.
The recreations of scenes from the other films definitely took me out of the movie, but that was only a few times during the entire thing. It's definitely not a perfect movie, but as a return to Dark Freddy, I was perfectly satisfied, and I wish that they would do more to explore this universe, but it's freakin Platinum Dunes, a "one and done" company. I'd love to see a more ambitious studio take this story on, still with Jackie Earle in the role.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Linkara! Burner of bad books!
I've loved Jackie since I first saw him in Little Children. He was great in Watchmen, though why he talked like Baleman when his entire face is covered, but still good, & then for the 10 min he was in Robocop he was great. When I heard he was the new Freddy I was stoked, I suppose it's a compliment saying he's good at creepy roles, & when I saw the NECA figures I was even more psyched. Yes, the makeup was different but it still was recognizably Freddy, & for a remake that's mostly what concerns me. So yeah, disappointed that they told him to just use the never tiresome use tough guy voice instead of letting him just be himself. Like Robert Englund, he was himself with some Jimmy Cagney, Nosferatu & a gunslinger for the glove posture added. If like Brad says, a better company tries another take on it I hope they give Haley another chance, he IS awesome to watch.
Also, the difference between (most) old & new jump scares is nowadays the physical jump isn't enough, they need an ungodly loud sound sting, as opposed to letting it be silent while Freddy, or whoever, lunges into frame. Yeah, uh, making me twitch in theatre chair after a blast of loudness doesn't count as a scare, you dicks!
The original used sound effects and stingers for its jump scares too. It wasn't just Freddy. The difference between the two movies is that the remake did it more, and while they did it too much, there was enough creepy shit in there for me to still recommend the movie.
Plus considering how schizo even the original Freddy was written (look at the original vs parts 4-6, and it's a completely different character), I didn't find anything wrong with Jackie Earle's take on Freddy, and seeing how it's a remake, it's good that he didn't simply impersonate Robert Englund. What was important was menace, which I thought Jackie Earle completely brought (but I realize that's subjective), even Englund talked about how Jackie brought the rabid dog vibe to Freddy that Englund used so well, just with his own take.
Oh also, I DO agree with Lewis when he mentions how it's weird that none of the kids would remember him. Yeah, there's repressed memories and all, but for them all to have that, that's a little clunky. But again, the original films did stuff like this all the time. Especially when we get into the later sequels that are made up of a lot of characters who have never heard of Freddy.
Freddy vs Jason pretty much spells it out that he was a molester, and even if he wasn't, I know I would certainly remember if there was a child murderer who was killing a bunch of kids in the neighborhood. But, as with the others, I was always able to look past that (or simply not even notice or care) because the good qualities about them usually outweighed the bad. Lets be honest, if you put all of the movies together, this is a continuity that's been flawed for over 20 years, difference being is that back then we didn't really give a shit about stuff like that.
Huh, I'm surprised you liked the remake Brad, considering that it was done by Platinum Dunes, the same company that previously did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the 13th remake, two remakes you openly said you disliked. But to each their own I always say.
I will agree though that Jackie Earl Haley's performance is pretty intimidating, and the dream sequences go back to being simple.
Freddy vs. "Jason" also claimed Jason is afraid of water. Friday pts. 6,7 & 8 says otherwise. But hey, my favorite part of FvJ was the opening flashback of Fred's SS days, that's the creepiest he's EVER been since the original (my opinion).
Eh, like I said, give Jackie another chance with a non-platinum doom related company & I'll see it.
Happy anniversary, Freddy!
The big problem with the remake is that it looks like it's been shot through a lens filter of green poo and too many of the set piece scenes are run like a greatest hits repackage. Having said that, I like Plat dunes Friday the 13th which does pretty much the same thing.
My main issue with the remake is how it butchers Freddy's origin. It's not a matter of performance -I like Haley- but I don't like the innocent spin they put on Freddy. Freddy is an unapologetic evil motherfucker and that's what makes him so damn intimidating. He was even more fucked up as a living person than he was in death. I also take serious issue with the fact that the entire reason it takes place on Elm Street is because Nancy lives in Freddy's former home where these crimes took place. You move it to some random day care center, doesn't really make it a nightmare on ELM STREET does it? I also don't see why they had to explicitly spell out that he was a molester, I liked the implication and that particular scene in Freddy vs. Jason was more than enough of an answer.
I'm all for another Elm Street movie because I think the basic concept of nightmares has endless possibilities. What I don't need is a rewrite the origin for no necessary reason and crappier recreations of scenes from the first movie.
It's a remake. It doesn't have to follow the same continuity of the other films; at the end of the days what needs to happen is that Freddy fucks up children, he was burnt by pissed off parents, now he's going to kill you in your dreams and scare the piss out of you. They didn't really put an innocent spin on him, the main characters thought he was innocent at first, but he was still just as, if not more, evil in this version, since in this one he actually "did that shit."
Also, it originally said Freddy killed kids in the boiler room of the power plant her worked at, and then later in the series said it was the house. Nowhere in the first one does it say that house has any significance to Freddy, so the title Nightmare on Elm Street bears as much significance to the remake as it does to the original.
I'll give you the boiler room situation as what I was referring to is more in accordance with the flashback stuff in Freddy's Dead. Obviously the most important of the series seeing as it's never brought up in any of the sequels.
Though I still personally found it more disturbing that Freddy was caught as a child murderer and tried but then released on a technicality. The parents in the remake do not confront him with the police or any actual evidence, they just assume what the children tell them is the truth and murder and "innocent" person. I mean yeah he did it but it's scarier that in the original the system completely failed the parents and that led them to murder.
And again I'm all for another take on the series that takes the subject matter serious and makes it dark. I would rather just see a "reboot" more in vein with Evil Dead's remake that had the basic idea of the original but is still it's own movie. I feel that the remake relied too much on the original and made it impossible for me not to make those comparisons.
the house is on elm street because of brad's review of "Saturday the 14th" it took place on elm st
If his backstory was more like in the original series, you definitely would have compared the two movies more so in that situation. In the newer one, I can see why they wrote it the way that they did. For one, the wrote the parents as the type of flawed, hotheaded, jump the gun people who actually would immediately take justice into their own hands like this, and also, if they added in a courtroom trial, it would have made the movie about a half hour longer, which would have been too long for this kind of film. Most movies with vigilante justice don't add in a courtroom scene, that's kind of like getting mad at The Exterminator because Robert Ginty didn't wait through court procedings first.
I don't need a courtroom scene, that's silly. Ronee Blakely's speech in the original movie is all the explanation that movie needed. I feel that you don't need to change his origins to make him "darker", because it's pretty dark to begin with. That's why the change baffles me. I can understand making the molestation element more apparent to add to Freddy's ick factor, but you can't really get any worse than murdering children. Just ask Albert Fish.
Anyway I'm a huge fan of the series through and through. But I can totally understand that people like the remake because it does go back to Dark Freddy and loses the stupidity that you see in parts 4-6. As I've said, I think this series has endless creative potential and would like to see them take another crack at it if they actually have an idea that isn't just to carbon copy nightmares out of the original.
I feel bad that the comments section got so caught up in talking about the remake though because this was a great review. I'm very excited to see the Snob take on Freddy's Revenge in the future. Also someone posted links to what I assume are Blinky Production's ANOES fan films which are actually very good and I recommend you watch them if you got an hour to kill.
You can get worse than murdering children. Molesting them and then murdering them is worse. I appreciated that the movie went there; it gave it a sleaze factor that I liked, but then again, I love some good sleaze. To me it's not even that baffling of a change, since I've always thought of Freddy as a pederast; this movie just explored it more.
I'm a huge fan of the series too, but too many of the critiques of the new movie are made up of things that the entire series has been guilty of for years and years.
But there's totally things that the new one is guilty of. The make up, while certainly very realistic, could have used another once over to make him less alien like. Rooney Mara, great in other movies, obviously didn't want to be in this. The young kids dressing like they were from the 50s and 60s made sense in the original because it fit that timeline, but in 2010, that's kind of an anachronism. The new one definitely could have used less jump scares.
Yeah Rooney Mara bummed me out because Nancy Thompson is one of the best horror heroines of all time and there is just no life to her character in the remake. And while Robert Englund will always be Freddy I thought Jackie Earle Haley was inspired casting.
I love in the remake when the girl is the attic and Freddy jumps out at her. So she went in the attic and fell asleep?
Or the Freddy death flashback where its a kid wearing a speedo watching the whole thing. I guess that one was for the ladies?
I'll buy people constantly falling asleep in class for cheap jump scares, but the remake seemed to go to a level of not give a fuck it was amazing.
Even Freddy's one liners are awful. "You know, you really shouldn't fall asleep in class." That was the line they went with! Not: "You must be DEAD tired." or anything clever. He had only one good line: when they find the dead dog and he says "I was only petting him." Jackie Earle Haley was wasted. He could have been great if given the right material.
But the remake was so lifeless and boring. And just so many weird choices. Like the film tried to do a Psycho thing, where Nancy doesn't become the main character until Cris dies.
I sort of prefer the Friday the 13th remake. Its a least trying, even if you hate ever single character in the film.
Shut up, freak.
Freddy had absolutely no shortage of awful one liners throughout the entire series; plus even in the original Tina was the main character until she was killed, then Nancy became the lead. They even mentioned how intentional that was in the making of.
But Nancy was Tina's friend so she was an active part of the Tina story. In the remake, Nancy was a waitress at the beginning, it almost seemed like she was an extra in the film who became the lead after the other lead dies.
It didn't work; they made a lot of odd changes. It seemed like they changed things just to change things, not to effect the plot. Like Nancy's last name.
And it also seemed like they wanted Quentin to be the real lead, not Nancy. He's the one who sees Freddy's origin in a dream- not her. He might even have more screen time in the film than Nancy.
There's so much stuff that makes me wonder "what were thinking."
OMG they changed her last name, boo, zero stars :P I'm fine with those changes, those changes made sense in context to the story, they weren't holes, they weren't confusing, and they're things that absolutely no one would be complaining about if the movie came out in 1984 and not 2010. In fact, I want those changes, otherwise it IS just a carbon copy of the first one.
Yeah, maybe that's it. It came out the wrong year; wasn't a poorly written film at all.
The remake pissed me off royally, precisely because the first two acts were very, VERY good. The setup was done well, Haley was amazing, and I liked the new direction (although they spoiled that last bit). I like how Fred was set up to be the wronged party, accused for crimes he didn't commit and murdered by an angry mob only to come back and seek vengeance. The whole 3rd act reveal that "oops, nope, he's a diddler" ruined all the work they had done. Especially since, as y'all have already noted, the fact no one remembered that fact until it was dramatically convenient was just stupid.
In short, it was 2/3 of a great movie.
Go team Snob.
Wait, I thought people liked "Nightmare on Elm Street III: Freddy's in It"
I think this must be #1 on Lloyd's scary movies list. Imagine something he can fight only by NOT SLEEPING!
Rick and Morty reference! WOOO!
You just did this so you could do Part 2, didn't you?
If he does Part 2 then he has to do it on hard mode. AKA: without making a single gay joke.
Not necessarily, I love Part 2; so if I do Part 2 (which is likely), it wouldn't be the same as coming from someone who hates it. =)
I didn't quite understand what you meant to say Brad, you reviewed Caligula which is your favorite movie of all time and nonetheless achieved the snobby quality we all came to expect from you, thus you could review Part 2 with no problem.
Hey Snob, the name is not "Coffin Joe", is Zé do Caixão, stop translating names...
Although I am happily surprised that you have seen his movies, even to the point of referencing him, you must be a world connosieur of exploitation movies, kudos to you!
The character is wildly known as Coffin Joe by English-speaking audiences so it would be kind of a mouthful to just say his full name when people would already get the point by just saying Coffin Joe.
Yep, that makes sense, actually I meant that as a joke, because I saw his reviews to other brazilian movies such as the Tramps movies (Os Trapalhões) in Portuguese, and I noticed that he uses the English form of the names which is totally understandable, so that's the joke, but thanks for the explanation, buddy!
If you Google Zé do Caixão, it actually says also known by his alter ego Coffin Joe, a character played by José Mojica Marins a famous Brazilian filmmaker.
Yes, that's it, but I'll ask you to please read the reply I gave to Mr. Smith above, it contains further explanations to my comment, thanks!
I dont get your joke, whats funny about that?
The first line is a joke, I kinda explain that to Smith above, basically I was complaining about something without reason, that's the fun part...
Actually is funnier if you speak the phrase using the Cinema Snob talking style, lol.
Cinema Snob - Awesome, Nightmare on Elm Street - Spectacular
Snob + Nightmare on Elm Street = "Awestacular"?!
My favorite slasher flick all the time, and a big part of my childhood.
Also, I forgot just how much of the last 20 minutes of the movie that trailer gave away.
I enjoyed this flick, but I have not watched the rest of them (apart from part 6). I should actually watch them, after all I own the Elm Street collection!
No Freddys teamed up with knight rider
I did NOT like this film because the main character kills people, like in Man of Steel
Nancy doesn't kill anyone.
Pfffft, Everyone knows that Freddy Krueger isn't everyone's favorite pedophile. That title belongs to Garry Glitter.
He's English, so he'd be a paedophile, thank you very much.
Are you saving Hellraiser for its anniversary too? Tho it is nice to see you finally dipping into Freddy. Not like you'll be at a loss of movies to see in the horror/slasher category.
Hellraiser's 30th anniversary is 2017, and the anniversary for The Hellbound Heart would be 2016, so I'll most likely get to Hellraiser before then.
I too really enjoyed the remake. I agree that it was a nice solid return to the world of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and I really hope that one day a studio that's not fucking Platinum Dunes will take the reigns and give us fans something to shut us the fuck up. I know too many people that hate the remake but to this day I can't even figure out why. The parts that I didn't really buy never once took me out of the movie. In short that movie scared the piss out of me the first time I saw it, as did the original movie (I owned all of them on VHS when I was in elementary school and they were mine not my parents!)
I think that the scariest thing about this movie is that is was a part of our CHILDHOOD for so many of us. I think that my favorite part of this review as the fact that Brad pointed out how scary this movie really was. To be a child of the 80s was to be allowed to grow up in a world where Freddy was considered okay for kids. yikes...GO 80s!!!!
Man this Freddy Krueger guy is a real creep am I right?
Sweet! I love Nightmare on Elm Street are you going to get to any of the sequels like you did with Halloween and Friday the 13th?
You may wanna check out these fan films on Youtube. They are short stories about when Freddy when he was alive and a child murderer and I think the guy playing him does a superb job. It's been rumored they tare trying to do a feature length film about this subject. I always wanted to see a movie about Freddy when he was alive. Anyway, check these out and I hope you enjoy:
Sorry I'm not Brad, but I have been wishing for a "Springwood Slasher" movie since the opening flashback of Kruger in Freddy vs. "Jason'. A whole film of Robert acting that creepy & sadistic, hell yes!
Have you seen the Freddy's Nightmares series? The first episode of the show, No More Mr. Nice Guy, is the story of how Freddy was captured and released on a technicality. It was directed by Tobe Hooper, and I remember liking it many years ago, but I haven't seen it since, so don't quote me on it being high quality.
In fact, just had a quick look on Youtube, and there's a clip of that episode if you search for "Original Vs Remake Freddy Krueger". It's a wee bit cheesy, but it shows Freddy being burned alive in the series, then compares it to the scene in the Remake.
Funny you bring that up, Mr. Dennett.
I got the Nightmare collection on blu ray & Never Sleep Again the same day, in said doc there's a part talking about Freddy's Nightmares. I got excited when I found that the 5th bonus disc ofhe collection had 2 episodes from the show. Foolishly thinking they'd include the much important pilot, but nope, I got "It's a Miserable Life" & "Killer Instinct". . . wtf?!
But yes, I've seen it, good creepy fun. Thanks! :-)
Awesome review, Snob!
As a Brazilian, I'm proud of your funny joke about our Coffin Joe - and as a curiosity, he'd just completed 50 years of his debut in movies =D
Apoiado cara, eu também fiquei impressionado que ele tenha feito aquela referência ao Zé do Caixão, eu sabia que ele tinha alguma repercussão no exterior mas ainda assim fiquei orgulhoso! ^o^
Brad should make a poll for the fans. Who is creepier between Freddy and The Sea King? Freddy is one of the most iconic horror villians of all time and was in one of the greatest horror films ever made...but I think I might have to go Sea King.
Anyone having trouble with the film clip audio?
I didn't like the remake. It was better than the Friday the 13th remake, but it didn't do anything for me. Since I'm not a big fan of the original, I was hoping it would be an improvement. Like everybody else said here, I thought Haley was good in Little Children and Watchmen. But in Nightmare '10, he felt like Jim Carrey as the Grinch playing burnt Freddy Kruger. Plus, I wish the plot would've just left him completely innocent of the murders before he died. I felt that would've been a different and maybe better take on the original story. Instead, they flip-flop towards the very end.
I will say I like 2 & 3. Part 2 had a lot of overtones that added to the atmosphere of the movie and I think Robert Englund did his best performance as Freddy. Exactly why was there ever hesitation to classify Freddy as a pedophile as opposed to a child murderer? It doesn't seem that one is much more heinous than the other, not to mention being labeled a "child murderer" would cause someone to infer pedophilia as well. I see people bring this up from time to time (including on this comments section), but I guess I've never seen a satisfactory answer.
Sorry to once again be jumping in, but I agree, fellow Jake.
When I first saw a trailer for the remake where Jackie's holed up behind the factory door screaming "I didn't do anything!" I really thought they were going to make him an innocent victim of vigilante justice, then come back & punish them by killing their kids. You know, do something different as opposed of being shot for shot like some tend to do.
That would have actually pissed me off, plus it's hard to believe that people nitpicking so much about this movie would have been "okay" with him being innocent. And that would have been terrible character writing, because someone who is an innocent victim, is way more likely to punish the people who actually wronged him, and not torture the hell out of children, many of whom had nothing to do with the situation. You don't go from innocent victim of vigilante justice to "child murdering serial killer." And again, earlier you or someone else complained that in this version Freddy was less "unapologetically evil" like in the others, mentioning that he is supposed to be a mad man force of evil, so no, I don't think you would have been ok with him being innocent.
Brad I cant directly reply to you (no idea why) but why could an innocent Freddy not take revenge on the parents who burnt him by killing their kids?
That would work fine if say a lynch mob kills him and goes crazy while being burned and then just wants revenge.
Sounds like a nice change of pace for these movies tbh
Sorry, I wouldn't buy that some poor innocent is just going to randomly turn into a child murderer at the drop of a hat. They would need a really really damn good explanation for that to happen, and it's one that wouldn't have been contained in this movie. I love me some good sleaze, so I personally loved how they made him scuzzy as hell in the new one. I don't think the new one was a better movie, but that's one of the things I dug about it, and I liked that they went there.
With everything that people are saying in this thread about Freddy's character (saying he wasn't evil enough in the remake), I GUARANTEE people, even myself, would have criticized this movie if they made him innocent. I'm all for different acting and tonal interpretations of characters, but there's just some things that characters are. James Bond is a secret agent. The Terminator is a Cyborg. Freddy Krueger is a murdering bastard.
In regards to the remake, I misquoted the fact that he was still the killer at the end of the film. Rather, he had molested the children. I I forgotten because I hadn't seen this movie since my wife and I watched it at the local drive-in. I had also forgotten that Krueger hadn't killed anyone until the present timeline at the beginning of the film. I must have still had it in the back of my mind, because it now makes more sense to me that he should have been innocent and seeking revenge by becoming the very monster feared by the parents. I mean, if he's returned from the depths of Hell to seek retribution, what would be more fitting than to kill the children of those that wronged him?
Anyway, it's all really just a personal preference, I'm sorry if I upset Brad or anyone else. I just never cared for the original or the remake. For some reason, I just never found the 84 version to be that unnerving and I always thought Englund was his scariest in Part 2. :)
You have a good point, Brad.
But I've always seen Freddy as the live action version of the Joker, kind of. Before Nicholson & now Ledger (no disrespect to Ceaser Romero, I like him too) we had this sick freak going around killing the people closest to his enemies with sick, ever present smile.
Sound familiar? "A Death in the Family" or "The Killing Joke", where he WAS an innocent in the wrong place in the wrong time, anyone?
But yeah, I apologize for once again arguing old vs. new & clogging up your comments section. Everybody likes what they like, that's why were humans not drones.
So again, sorry Brad, & happy anniversary Freddy!
to be honest, I would much rather see a movie based on Carnage from the marvel comics then to see another "new" Nightmare On Elm Street film. plus, if I wanted to see the back story of Freddy before he was burned alive, I'd rather watch the pilot to Freddy's Nightmares.
personally, my most favorite Elm Street film is New Nightmare. as of the Elm Street remake, I can understand what they trying to go for, but it still wasn't a good movie. overall I just find the remake to be rather bland and forgettable. it's no where near as bad as other remakes and sequels I've seen like Psycho 98, The Thing 2011 (Pseudo-Prequel / Remake), American Psycho 2, or Hellraiser Revelations. to be fair, I think the remake to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was at least trying something new even though it's still no where near as good as the original. so, I think out of the 3 New Line Horror remakes, the 2 Texas Chainsaw Massacre films are more tolerable than the other 2.
my biggest problem is that when it comes to Hollywood and current horror films, they're not even trying. every now and then you do get maybe 1 or 2 decent horror films and yet the rest is either crappy remakes or lazy found footage films. either that or all they do is throw predictable jump scares at you while having little to no characters you care about. hell, I can come up with a better horror movie then what Hollywood releases. but, I digress.
one horror film that is not even out yet that I already have a major problem with is Maulers. it's a film currently in production made by the same director who made The Blair Witch Project and is being shot at a mall 1 block away from where I live. no joke. from what I read, the plot sounds like every single generic horror movie made in the past 10 years, and the film is not even finished filming yet.
so, I will continue to enjoy the elm street films and any other classic horror film even if they are extremely flawed. at least look at it from this point of view, I'd rather watch Indiana Jones & The Temple Of Doom over Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull any day.
I really hope that the snob reviews the movie Critters and the movie Strays.
While the remake is definitely not a masterpiece, many of you are nipicking it beyond such unimaginable belief that it's been kinda amazing watching Brad destroy most of it. The contradictions here are outstanding ("he's not as evil as he was in the original" to "they should have made him innocent"). Seriously people, come back with legitimate complaints and not things that the original series is guilty of too, if not more so.
Sure thing buddy. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtMW0CPd7eI This was an interesting perspective on the remake by Korey and co. back when SPill was a site
>How can I review the sequels if I don't start with the original?
>Started a Godzilla review with Godzilla's Revenge
So does this confirm that you're going to do more Godzilla reviews, Brad?
The full line was "you're probably expecting me to do one of the film's lesser sequels, but I can't do that, I haven't done the first one yet, and then you'd just be confused!" It was intended as a joke, because no one would actually be confused if I did one of the sequels first. It was a joke directed towards someone wondering why I didn't do one of the Elm Street movies that not many people like.
So I guess that means you would retroactively do Zombi 2? Or would it be more prudent to do 3 then 2? :)
I think this is the first time I've ever watched a film BEFORE the Cinema Snob reviewed it. Like, not 3 days ago so I could watch the review, but a couple months prior.
I feel proud of myself for some reason.
not only is it the 30th anniversary of the original Elm Street, but it's also the 20th anniversary of New Nightmare which is my most favorite film in the franchise. interestingly enough, Robert Englund stated in a previous interview that New Nightmare is also his most favorite elm street film. if only next year they can give these horror films more attention and a wider theatrical re-release. maybe next year we'll get a 40th anniversary re-release of Jaws, that would be sweet.
on the same topic, I don't know if you own a copy of Freddy's Nightmares. but if you ever intend to review the pilot episode for DVD-R Hell, I can make you a copy as long as you give me a credit at the end. I have both seasons my computer, so I can easily make you a copy of the pilot episode.
It's about time..........
RIP Wes Craven 1939-2015
I've waited quite a while to reply to this, because unpopular opinons are the most hated kind on the internet, but...
I've always hated this movie. The visuals are excellent, but Freddy hams and camps up the screen every time he's on it, and it takes away anything scary this movie might have had going for it. You can see exactly how the later movies when in the direction they did. Freddy was made for stupid one-liners and corny deaths.
Some of the older archived videos of 2009 were brought over from the youtube account before thecinemasnob.com was created, so please forgive the lesser video quality of such as some did not transfer well.