Log in

No account? Create an account
Wes Craven's New Nightmare - Danny Danger Oz [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Wes Craven's New Nightmare [Jan. 21st, 2009|08:24 am]
[Tags|, ]
[mood |cheerfulcheerful]

Given I talked about Nightmare on Elm Streets 5 and 6, I though I may as well talk briefly about the seventh film, given I've just finished going through the box set.

New Nightmare is not only the best Elm St. movie since the original, it's probably the best movie of the series. Wes Craven's had ten years to further hone his writing and directing skills, and it shows. The core premise is interesting and a clever twist on the old idea. The best summation is that of all the films, this was the only one that still evoked feelings of tension from me, even though I know the film well.

Freddy Krueger is back to doing what he does best - being an all pervading background presence that only appears now and again. This is highlighted by an appearance of Freddy as he became, a pop-culture icon, as opposed to a demonic force. It makes the appearances of demon Freddy more interesting, scarier, because we haven't had time to get used to his new incarnation.

Some clever ideas, solid acting, and a great script - I could easily sit and watch it again. Which I'll do at some point soon so I can listen to Craven's commentary track.

[User Picture]From: jack_ryder
2009-01-20 11:01 pm (UTC)
In my mind it's the only true sequel. I must get both of them and revisit the scary Freddy Krueger.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dalekboy
2009-01-20 11:24 pm (UTC)
Elm St. 3 is a reasonable sequel, co-written by Craven, and Freddy still has the dangerous aspect to him that got lost as he became more popular. But it's not terribly scary.

I grew up watching late-night horror movies with my dad, and at the age of 18, the original movie was the first to scare me since I was quite a small child. I now know the original film back to front, so it was nice to have New Nightmare make me tense up.

Watching the first and last one after the other would be interesting though. The change in directorial style, the different portrayals and realisations of the characters. I think I'll try it at some point down the track.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: angriest
2009-01-20 11:45 pm (UTC)
I love the subtle changes in the Freddy makeup and costume they put in place for New Nightmare.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dalekboy
2009-01-20 11:56 pm (UTC)
I remembered it as being a good film, but it was much better than that. Lots of clever touches, including Englund as Freddy playing up the fact that the character had gone on to do things like host MTV, compared to the "real" Freddy demon that is simply darker and nastier, and in many ways a more stylised representation of the character.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: angriest
2009-01-21 12:14 am (UTC)

It also employs a slow burn technique, taking comparatively ages to get to Freddy actually coming back.

I actually find the ending a bit crap, as if Craven wrote himself into a bit of a corner and didn't know how to resolve the plot.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dalekboy
2009-01-21 12:27 am (UTC)
Yep, totally agree about the ending. I think it falls down once the tongue comes out, that never works. And the models look like models.

But at least the ending is in keeping with Craven's thematic ideas for the film. And overall, it meant the Elm St series went out on a high.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: angriest
2009-01-21 12:33 am (UTC)
Yep, the tongue is definitely the crossover point.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ext_98582
2009-01-22 12:06 am (UTC)
I love New Nightmare. I also love the further level of metahumour in the Nightmare references in the Craven-directed Scream movies (the third one of which, of course, never happened).
(Reply) (Thread)