Good evening, and Happy Friday the 13th everybody!!
And while we're not talking about Jason Voorhees, the titular killer from that particular horror series, I wanted to pay homage to another horror film great: Freddy Krueger. Not only because he's a much more interesting and intriguing character, but for the purposes of this blog, the Friday the 13th movies aren't really remakes....they just keep making more of them as a rebooted series.
So stay awake, readers. You won't want to die before finishing this one!!
SYNOPSIS (1984): Several people are hunted by a cruel serial killer who kills his victims
in their dreams. When the survivors are trying to find the reason for
being chosen, the murderer won't lose any chance to kill them as soon as
they fall asleep. Source: IMDb.com
DIRECTOR: Wes Craven vs. Samuel Bayer
One quick search on each director's filmography on IMDb.com would tell you in about 5 seconds which one is going to be the winner here. Chances are, you've heard Wes Craven's name circulating around college dorms and parties as being one of very few kings of the horror movie genre, if not THE king. While Stephen King is notoriously famous for his writing, so in the same way is Craven for is directing.
So, who's this Samuel Bayer guy? A nobody....more or less.
2010's Nightmare.... is the only movie that Bayer has directed. He's mostly done music videos or music DVD documentary specials for several famous artists. His attempt at directing a movie fell way short though. He might have done better going with an original screenplay instead of trying to improve--but failing miserably--on an already iconic and beloved horror franchise. As you will see, his remake got slashed--pun intended--by both critics and audiences.
Perhaps that's why he hasn't attempted another film to this day. Coincidence?
WINNER: Original, Wes Craven
SCREENPLAY: Wes Craven vs. Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer
Something pretty noticeable that the remake attempted to do was to flesh out--pun again intended (I could do this all night!)--the plot a bit. The audience watching the original film is wondering how Freddy is choosing is victims; and while it's explained that the parents of the high school kids killed him, it didn't really explain why then Krueger didn't go after the parents rather than their kids.
The remake explained that better. However, while it's better for the audience to understand the backstory of the relationship between Krueger and the victims he's killing in the remake, it doesn't necessarily mean that knowledge is better for the character. You see, in the remake, it's explained that while Krueger was alive, he was the gardener at the preschool where these kids attended. He would lure the kids down into the basement where he would play with them in a hidden room behind the maintenance room, calling it a "secret cave." The kids would then tell the parents, and just like in the original movie, the parents killed Freddy by burning him alive in a utility shed.
I like my horror movie antagonists to kill because they're psycho killers who enjoy the act of killing for the sake of killing. Understanding the backstory of Krueger in the remake just made his pursuits of the victims a bit......creepy. And creepy in the not-so-scary good way he should be creepy.
Something else the remake failed to do. I never got the real sense that Freddy was a supernatural being. He's supposed to be dead; but the way Bayer directed it and the way the screenplay was written, they failed to show him as anything more than just a normal serial killer.
Another thing worth noting is the tension and the build-up that the original movie used. The imagery was truly terrifying. Craven and his team and his directorial skill created the illusion of terror in the imagery alone, whereas the remake relied much too heavily on the "jump scare" to get audiences to jump out of their seats. When you know a jump scare is coming, it kinda makes it difficult to immerse yourself in the film and truly be terrified.
WINNER: Original, Wes Craven
CAST/ACTING: Robert Englund, Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp, and Ronee Blakley vs. Jackie Earle Haley, Rooney Mara, and Kyle Gallner
The original had one of the most recognizable names in Hollywood today in Depp; but by the time Nightmare.... was made, he was just getting his start. In fact, his role as Glen Lantz was his very first gig. And Langenkamp had only been in one other movie before; and her role made her famous and recognizable as she was in several of the sequels.
And let's not forget Englund, who played the prankster serial killer. A large majority of his work in acting is on the small screen; but his large performance as Freddy Krueger dominates. Englund IS Krueger.
So it took some guts for Jackie Earle Haley to try and fill his shoes. You might recognize his name, or his face, but you'll definitely recognize his voice as being the man behind the mask as the Watchman anti-hero, Rorschach. And Rooney Mara and Kyle Gallner had some lead acting roles in some minor films, and Mara would go on to be most well-known for her work in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.
So as far as casting, I think the remake edges out the original because of the early starts of the young cast's careers. The acting is definitely better in the remake, mainly because of the young actor's previous acting ability.
CAST/ACTING WINNER: Remake
MUSIC/SCORE: Charles Bernstein vs. Steve Jablonsky
As in previous films that we've discussed, if the music doesn't really help in creating the mood that the movie is supposed to convey with its imagery, then the music isn't doing its job. It's not supposed to distract from the film; but if it's done properly, the audience will feel that much more connected with the film to heighten their experience.
That being said, the original wins in this category. Not only does the remake fail to create the same kind of tension in its imagery where the original excelled, the music didn't make up for the lack of tension due to its direction by creating such heart-wrenching sounds and music. The remake, overall, was very forgettable and lack-luster at best.
MUSIC/SCORE WINNER: Original, Charles Bernstein
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984):
- Rotten Tomatoes: 94% or 7.7/10 average rating
- IMDb.com: 7.5/10 from 138,468 users
- Metacritic: 78/100
- Rotten Tomatoes: 15% or 3.7/10 average rating
- IMDb.com: 5.2/10 from 71,491 users
- Metacritic: 35/100
OVERALL WINNER: Original 1984 A Nightmare on Elm Street
No contest on this, folks. If you listened to my podcast interview with Israel Sanchez in the post prior to this one, you might agree with both of us that it really takes an intriguing story and in-depth character development to really carry a film and make it great. This movie is prime example.
While you may opt to watch the remake anyway if you're in the camp that think that because modern movies have better technology that it will makesa film like this seem more realistic. But you'd be wrong. While there are a couple scenes in the original where the effects are campy and completely fake, the rest of the movie makes up for it in regards to its realism.
Now, if you're still awake, go watch the four sequels to the original.
I plan to.
After I attempt to get some shut-eye.
No comments:
Post a Comment