Loading
A Nightmare on Elm Street
 Tags: a nightmare on elm street, burnt, freddy krueger, horror icon, Jackie Earle Haley, Katie Cassidy, killer, KILLERS, Platinum Dunes, re-imagining, reboot, REMAKES, Samuel Bayer, Thomas Dekker |
A group of suburban teenagers share one common bond: they are all being stalked by Freddy Krueger, a horribly disfigured killer who hunts them in their dreams. As long as they stay awake, they can protect one another…but when they sleep, there is no escape.
|
|
PROJECT DETAILS
- It's said that Freddy will have more realistic burn scars than the original, and he's less comedic and more serious in this version.
- The film will supposedly detail a bit more backstory on Freddy.
- Freddy actor Jackie Earle Haley is reportedly signed on to do a total of three Elm St. films.
- Freddy in this film is described as "Nosferatu meets Ed Gaines."
- Connie Britton plays Nancy's mother.
- Katie Cassidy plays one of the lead females named "Kris".
- Kyle Gallner plays the role that was made popular by Johnny Depp in the original.
- Young actor Thomas Dekker will reportedly play "Jesse" a local jock on the swim team, who's trying to get back with his girlfriend.
- Actor Jackie Earle Haley (Little Children, Watchmen) will be playing "Freddy Krueger."
- Originally scripted by Wesley Strick (Arachnophobia, Cape Fear, Wolf), but rewritten by Eric Heisserer.
- It's said the film will take a more psychological approach.
- Once again this is a "re-imagining" of the original film, with hopes of giving the story a complete "overhaul."
- Platinum Dunes (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, Friday the 13th remake) is behind this.
- The franchise was also turned into a television series that ran for two seasons from 1988 to 1990, where Freddy played host to a collection of strange tales.
- No relation to the Nightmare on Elm St. prequel that's supposedly "in talks" right now, although, I wouldn't be surprised if the two projects blended together.
- A remake of the original 1984 Wes Craven film starring Robert Englund as the iconic Freddy Krueger.
GALLERY
VIDEOS
REVIEW
5/10 | Click here to read the official review from a UHM staff member.
All user reviews and new comments (if any) can also be found on that page.
INTERVIEWS
HEADLINES
Dates are tentative and subject to change.
- Tue, February 14, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, February 14, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, February 14, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, February 17, 2012
- Tue, February 21, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, February 28, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, February 28, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, March 2, 2012 (VOD)
- Tue, March 6, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, March 9, 2012
- Sat, March 17, 2012 (SyFy)
- Tue, March 20, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, March 30, 2012
- Tue, April 3, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, April 6, 2012 (Limited)
- Tue, April 10, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, April 13, 2012 (Chiller)
- Fri, April 13, 2012
- Tue, April 17, 2012
- Tue, April 17, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, April 17, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, April 20, 2012 (Limited)
- Fri, April 20, 2012
- Tue, April 24, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, April 24, 2012
- Fri, April 27, 2012
- Fri, April 27, 2012
- Fri, May 4, 2012 (VOD)
- Fri, May 11, 2012
- Fri, June 8, 2012
- Tue, June 12, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, June 22, 2012
- Fri, August 17, 2012
- Fri, August 24, 2012
- Fri, August 24, 2012
- Fri, August 31, 2012
- Fri, August 31, 2012
- Fri, September 14, 2012
- Fri, September 21, 2012
- Fri, October 5, 2012
- Fri, October 19, 2012
- Fri, October 26, 2012
- Fri, December 21, 2012
- Fri, January 11, 2013
- Fri, February 1, 2013
- Fri, February 15, 2013
- Fri, February 22, 2013
- Fri, April 12, 2013
- Fri, May 10, 2013
- Fri, June 28, 2013
WOOOOO cant wait just one more day!!!!!!!
I'm interested in seeing how well Bayer executes the "trickery" of the dream vs. reality environment on the audience. I felt that Craven accomplished this feat quite well. It will be interesting to see...
can't wait till friday
I am a fan.
http://thrillfiction2009.blogspot.com/2010/04/wes-cravens-new-nightmare....
Which is why I'm arguing the point. I don't believe in giving paedophilia latitude for the sake of commercial cinema. That's not entertainment.
As for whatshisname below - Wes changed it from molester to killer. That's the whole point.
You're probably a catholic.
Catholicism being COMPLETELY irrelevant, outside short of a poorly executed pro-priest touching alter-boys joke-
Implied child molester vs making Freddy outwardly one make you hate, loathe, fear and feel disgust for the antagonist. You're not supposed to be cheering on Freddy Fucking Krueger.
It is like saying Last House on the Left gives "latitude" to brutal rape and sadism.
Freddys evil, he was never meant for childrens' pajamas. Nightmare lost all its steam by making Freddy an Anti-Hero rather than a pure villain. Pure fucking evil, to be hated not embraced.
p.s. vs your blog- Nightmare gave us Johnny Depp.
Dude
Freddy was a child murderer - not the kind of demon I cheer for. My argument is of the less-is-more dictum. Unless molestation was going to move the story forward in terms of plot(as opposed to -gasp - he's worse than the first time) I'm opposed to it on the principle of boo! cinema.
As for Johnny Depp. He's that good it was fun to see him in Freddy's Dead. Alas it wasn't the original that made him a star. It was 21 Jump Street.
In other news here's an early review.
http://www.showcase.ca/blog/archive/2010/04/29/in-theatres-a-nightmare-o...
No spoilers.
It wont stop me seeing it.
So your write a blog, that must make you the biggest fan ever.
As for the whole child molesting angle that they are playing up; it has always been implied that Freddy was a child molester. Never overtly stated but implied, make of it what you will.
And if you don't feel that is has been implied then look at it as a different perspective. It's no different than werewolves having the ability to change on a whim instead of on a full moon.
And before anyone jump in with the "Freddy is an iconic character not a type of thing." Think about Frankenstein's monster. In the original novel the monster becomes intelligent, however in the classic 1931 film it doesn't. It's is just changing an aspect of a character. To fit with how the writer wants to tell the story.
Have you seen all the classic Frankenstein movies? The monster was indeed intelligent, it was just a toddler in the first one. Bride of Frankenstein proved that the monster was indeed intelligent. The sequels after that turned him into a mindless killer/kidnapper.
I was not comparing any of the sequels. I was talking about the first one only. And though he may have gained some intelligence in Bride, he was never as intelligent as he was in the novel.
In the novel the monster was indeed intelligent- his brain came from a criminally insane... not a toddler or retard. He had a mind in the works of demented cognizance, where violent reaction was his primary impulse. "Frankenstein, Monster- or misunderstood" was in reference to the Dr. not the monster.
Don't have an opinion til I've seen it
I just feel bad for Samuel Bayer. He's the director, not Michael Bay.
i cant wait, i love platinum dunes remakes.
I'm not the biggest fan of Platinum Dunes remakes but I feel sos about seeing this movie...low expectations. I just gotta how funny it is that you "love" Platinum Dunes remakes (low grade commercial fare that always sacrifices much of the original aspects we fans fall in love with) and yet you have a Mona Lisa avatar. Seriously? That's the epitome of artistic expression some would argue.
...personally, Platinum Dunes hasn't let me down yet either.
But rather than write my usual essay of just why I support the flicks, ill just keep my opinion short and sweet.
What's the story with Freddy being a child molestor? If the rumours are true then it defeats the purpose doesn't it? Sounds like paedophilia for shock/entertainment value to me.
confused...your icon makes it look like your a fan but then you"re arguing against it. so the storyline could be a little off I'll give you that but it's a movie...give the storyline a little latitude.
In Wes Craven's original screenplay Freddy was, in fact, a child molester. Craven later changed it because of a string of molestations in California. Google it.
This movie is going to SUCK without Robert England!
Stop being so closed minded, you make me want to see this even more for that reason. Robert England is not that good.
You probly think Connery is the only 007 to.
Yes, you're right it most likely will be pretty bad but you act like Robert Englund is Marlon Brando. He may own the Freddy role for lack of a better term but it's a character role that never demanded any sadistically deep range of method acting in order to satisfy the auds. Enough make-up should clear that all up unless you yourself are so close minded that you won't dare to see past it. Basically, you're going to see whatever you want to see, it's up to you.
I would tend to agree, however, Jackie Earl Hayley has a lot of the same facial features that Englund does, so if you stare long enough you probably wont be able to tell the difference, not to mention their going to doctor the hell out of his voice. Should be interesting.
Huh?
Is this an opinion coming from someone with the balls to have a Rob Zombie's Flunkoween Avatar? Where people said the same thing about Donald Pleasance not playing Dr. Loomis? Or Jamie Lee Curtis not being Laurie? Only difference is the trailer park wannabe, Frank Zapa ripoff, no-talent HACK couldn't get his fingers into this one to put rush on the soundtrack and slap a beard on 9 ft tall Freddy... or have Sherri Moon's flat ass shaking around as Nancy's mom, the neighborhood section-8 prostitute, who Freddy pimped into child prostitution, while Sid Haig plays Sheriff Thompson and Ken Foree bla bla bla bla Bill Moseley bla bla bla needs work bla bla bla groucho marx bla bla bla beards bla bla bla Brad Dourif bla bla bla
Jackie Earle Haley is the only worthwhile element here but I sincerely hope that the make-up department isn't going to ruin the experience. I'm sure the rest of the movie will be mediocre.
The third trailer looks MILDLY interesting but this will not be scary at all. Freddy doesn't even look all that gruesome and based on the Platinum dune remake resume I can say from experience that they will do whatever it takes to jump into a commercialized and luke warm horror attempt, alienating the true core audience and original fan base.
This rendition is supposed to bring back the original elements of Freddy. A dream stalker isn't supposed to be cracking jokes every time he get's the chance, Craven himself hates parts 2 on(reference Scream quote "The first one was good, the rest sucked") Craven directed both movies, also, the original was never supposed to have a sequel
After seeing the third clip, I've realized this movie isn't going to be scary or suspenseful at all. The only thing that'll stand out is the elaborate transition from reality to dream and vice versa. There may be some gory scenes, but no real sense of dark, looming danger.
I'm not bashing this film. As it's own movie, it's probably a decent flick; but I want to be SCARED FOR ONCE! The original completely scared the crap out of people. If you watch clip 1 from the new film and watch the opening dream in the original, you will have two different vibes. And that's what I'm talking about, SUSPENSE folks.
The last film to really give me that edge of your seat feel was The Descent. I honestly have to say that was a good horror film. We need more films to have suspense and build leading up to the jump out or scare. When I get my script marketed, you'll guys see good suspense. Working on the final re-writes right now!
Nobody will know squat till April 30th.
-Meanwhile, Horror films have been re-made throughout film history, this isn't a new thing, its just a different generation of legends being re-tooled.
-It used to be the golden age monsters Dracula, Wolfman, Frankenstein, Phantom, the Mummy... now its Michael, Jason, Freddy, Leatherface and Pinhead...
What everyone seems to forget is when this happens, is when the next generation really begins to shine through. While they were doing the Italian Dracula and Vampire flicks, Bram Stoker's 90's Dracula after the emergence of the 80s werewolf flicks- taking golden age monsters and making them for modern audiences, killers like Chucky and The Candyman were just emerging.
This is a common cycle everyone has to grin and bear, whether we like it or not, but enjoy the silly re-hashings and don't lose sight of the new faces coming up amidst the classic monsters and madmens' last hoorahs. Jason's done to death, yeah, but now we have Victor Crowley- Leatherface is in the recycling bin, but we've had JigSaw. Michael suffered a most terrible fate... but now we have the Collector.
So yes, America is the land of the re-make and cashing in on every last drop of cinematic history, but whatever, new ground is being broken every day.
Twenty years from now, ill see you all at the Saw and Hatchet re-makes.
Gotta say, how do any of you know this film is gonna suck? because of the second trailer? idiots! i do agree that america has basically ruined every decent old school film out there by remaking them and turning them into franchises so we end up with 8 sequals! no need to remake friday the 13th, no need to remake halloween! there were only ever 2 good freddy films anyway being the original and the 3rd (dream warriors) the rest were crap! we dont need any more remakes, you just ruin them! i tell you what, i have a novel idea! if you have the money to make a film why not make something thats brand spanking new? and start addind some suspense!
Seeing the "New Freddy" lets just say here's hoping the movie is better and can hold its own cuz they ruined him the make up is horrid. You'd think with all the new effects out there they could have done a better job
I disagree. I feel that the new make up is amazing (even if it is a bit Voldemortish), he looks like a true burn victim.
I'm super stoked on this.
How is it horrible? Outside the definitive Englund-Freddy being completely different in all senses, the make-up looks like a completely legitimate/ realistic burn victim.
I thought the point was to make him darker and scarier and it just seems like they went down the same road as halloween and friday the 13th remakes and made this just as horrible and took away the scare factor the originals had.
How do you know that if you haven't seen it yet?
I agree, we don't know until we've seen it but the initial reaction is one of feeling duped yet again by laziness, greed, and lack of creativity BUT final conclusion can't be drawn until we've seen it.
Michael Bay is a whore, it's as simple as that.
I've never posted a comment on here before, but I felt that I must say something today. After watching the second movie clip, I STRONGLY FEEL this movie is going to suck. Ever since Zombie's Halloween, I've tried to go into every horror remake with an open mind and average expectations; I'm always disappointed when I leave.
Yes, I do love all the originals, but I'm a horror movie fan at heart. I'll watch any horror/suspense/thriller film. These films today lack any type of suspense or build up before the scare or jump out.
A Nightmare on Elm Street Franchise is my all time favorite. As a die hard fan, I feel robbed of the thrills and spills that made the franchise what it was. Seriously, if you watch the clips, there is never a moment where your nervous or scared. I got the same feeling when I watched the clips to Sorority Row. And we know that movie was mediocre at best.
Another franchise gone done the drain. So sorry Freddy. Least we have the memories from yesteryear.
Honestly... the Nightmare franchise has been down the tubes since Nightmare 4... Freddy got silly, likeable, funny and wound up on kids' bedsheets and pajamas. Maybe, this film can kickstart some of that dread and hatred youre supposed to have for Fred Krueger. While the clips seem to lack suspense and thrill, keep in mind theyre only snippets and the whole film can't be judged on the little free-bees the studios handing out to the public.
While I do agree with your points on Zombie and your overtly kind comment per Sorority Row (as I felt that film was a disaster at best) I feel uncomfortable with your argument based on one point and one point alone: We have yet to see the film. That said, it is virtually impossible to make a full judgement call until such time.
Additionally, I am deadened by overly used terminology such as "the good old days." History has proven that most art (I understand that this is overly commercialized art - but the job of an artist is to know the audience for whom they are speaking i.e. horror fans and mainstream america) is never appreciated in the present. In fact, it is often torn to shreds at present, at times going on to "classic" status once enough time has passed. Your argument, while well put together and valid, unfortunately sounds like the argument my parents made about the music I've grown up on and how it could never compare to the legendary sounds of their youth. Perspective is everything and history tends to always repeat itself...a point noting that we all have short term, biased perspectives.
you got all that from a preview?
that one kid was in saw 2
It did not scare me.
It was not the movie that was bad it was the little bitty freddy with the pathetic make-up job and over the top under below voice he lays on ya.
"Well done hollywood, you ruined another classic."
I remember a saying " If it isn't broken ------- DON'T MAKE A REAMKE WANNABE BIG BUDGET MICHAEL BAY, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, THIS MOVIE SUCKS VERSION OF IT."
Can't wait FRIGHT NIGHT IS NEXT.
I'M VERY UPSET
I lied I never saw this movie.......But i saw what I needed to ------- clip 2 thank you, thank you very much.
liar. asshole. idiot. d.) all the above
sounds good cant wait
Remakes can be good if done right, The Hills Have Eyes is a perfect example. The source sucked but the remake was great. They need to follow that format. Take the lesser know crappy horror films from the past and remake those. I am excited for this remake but I'm a huge fan of the original so any chance I can get to see Freddy is good to me. Plus I'm only 24 and was too young to see the originals in theater so it's a treat for me. They're also talking about a Hellraiser remake. Not sure how to feel about that. They need to give most of, if not all, of the control to Clive Barker on that one. Only way to do it right.
Prove me wrong I hope it's decent enough to sit through the theater. Jeez just leave the classics alone and come up with your own damn ideas. Hollywood Corporate Whores cash in you motherfuckers!
Prove me wrong I hope it's decent enough to sit through the theater. Jeez just leave the classics alone and come up with your own damn ideas. Hollywood Corporate Whores cash in you motherfuckers!
from what i took from an early reading of things is theyre trying to play it off as if the kids think he might be innocent and theyre trying to find out so maybe they can clear his name but ofcourse they tell you he wasnt innocent