Original Vs. Remake: Episode 2

A Nightmare on Elm Street 1984 vs. 2010

Here I am again, with my second installment of Original Vs. Remake. I was going to turn this into a series, but then forgot (you can blame that on school), but here I am with a second installment…finally! What movies will we be dissecting this time?
1, 2: Freddy’s coming for you…
Oh hello Freddy! Welcome to my series of Original Vs. Remake. For this installment we’re going to take a look at A Nightmare On Elm Street, the 1984 classic and the 2010 masterpiece (of shit). I guess I gave away the winner already; didn’t I? Well I don’t hide my disdain for the 2010 remake that should not exist. Let’s start cutting away to find out why it pales in comparison to the original.

CHARACTERS/ACTORS:
Let’s start with a look at the characters first and foremost. In the original film, the characters were likable, well developed and came off as real people. Even though the actors didn’t look like teens (aside from Langenkamp who has a very girlish face), they came off as real teens that I could care for and I wanted them to live. Even the adult characters came off as real people. They weren’t horror film fodder just there to die. When they died, I felt it. Nancy had real parents with real issues. Her father was never there and her mother was an alcoholic. Not only were the characters likable and well developed they each had a solid actor backing them up! Each actor brought something to the role adding extra depth. Then we have Heather Langenkamp as our heroine Nancy who was very likable and aside from one emotional scene early on, gave a great performance!
How does the remake fare in actors in characters? We get a mixed bunch here. I respect it tried to go a different way so it could distinguish itself from the original, but this is completely botched when they would re-create scenes of the original but they would fuck it up by either rushing through it or using SHITTY CGI…but more on that later. The adult characters were interesting enough, but not as great as Marge or Lt. Donald Thompson. The actors playing them were really good though! The teen actors…didn’t fare so well. While in the original they were all well acted and they each had a fun interesting character, we see NONE of that in this film. Each character is rather bland and I didn’t care for any of them. None of them had any personality. I don’t know if it is the actor’s fault or the script’s but either way…these kids are about as bland as the kids in My Soul to Take! There were some shines of light in Katie Cassidy and Kyle Gallner who were able to bring something to their roles and I actually SORT OF cared about them. Put these two in better films! Gallner especially had the best character and was probably the only character to stand out in my eyes. Kellan Lutz was boring…why was he here again? Oh right he was in Twishit…sorry, I mean Twilight! Thomas Dekker (who is USUALLY a good actor) was wasted here and gave one of his worst performances. I guess that was bound to happen since they gave him NO role to work with. Shame, he’s a great young actor. Which brings us to the new Nancy (played by Rooney Mara)...what can I say about her? Read on.

HEROINE:
The heart of the films fall to our heroine, named Nancy in both the original and the remake. Heather Langenkamp played the original Nancy with strength, vulnerability, and was able to come off as a real teen while being badass at the same time. Heather’s Nancy was an everyday girl that we all know or could relate too. She is a bit awkward and kind of gawky and nerdy. She isn’t sexy, popular, and she isn’t even the clichéd outcast. She is just your typical girl-next-door. What sets her apart from many other heroines is the fact that she not only uses her strength to survive, but her wits as well. Throughout the film she only had herself. Not ONE person believed her – not her parents or her boyfriend. She had to rely on herself and no one else. No one comes and saves her in the end. When it all comes down to the finale she rigs her house with traps (in an AWESOME 80’s montage) and lures Freddy out of her dream. How many fifteen-year-old girls do you know would do that?
How does Rooney’s Nancy rank up against Heather’s? Not well; not well at all! They went for a different and more morose take on Nancy. That is all fine and well – I love a good depressed character with issues. I used to have problems as a kid so I can relate to those characters. But why did they have to perceive her in such a stereotypical way? She is an ugly outcast who happens to be an artist. First of all she is model hot and second of all, why does EVERY tortured outcast have to be an artist? Just once I’d like them to have aspirations to be a supermodel or something. To add further insult, her Nancy has NO PERSONALITY! The original Nancy is full of personality, spunk, and adorableness. This one…pouts? That’s about the extent of her character. A piece of wood that has been cut down has more personality than this broad. Geez! While the original Nancy is independent and smart and did EVERYTHING on her own with no man to save her in sight, this Nancy is completely dependent and has to be saved by her boyfriend in the end. Is this Rooney Mara’s fault? I’m not sure. I do know she didn’t help! I want to go out on a limb and blame the script because she really did have NOTHING to work with; maybe she is talented…or maybe she really is a boring woman with no talent. Only time will tell. But when it comes to Nancy, this is an insult since the original Nancy is a one of a kind and they made the new Nancy a bland and boring character that is more generic than white bread.

FREDDY:
Ah…the villain of the films! In the original film, they kept Freddy in the shadows and there was never a clear view of his face. It was Nancy’s film through and through. Freddy was a dirty child molester/killer that was terrifying. He had little dialogue and they hid him very well. Then we have Robert Englund who played the despicable character with ease and terror, giving me nightmares for years.
They casted a brilliant actor for Freddy 2010 – Jackie Earle Haley! He did a fine job as Englund’s replacement. He made his performance creepy enough and tried to make it his own. He even added that one creepy mannerism I really liked where he scratched his finger knives together. So my fault does not lie with the actor. He deserves a beer for coming out of this quite well! But the way the roll is written is terrible! I respect they were trying to go scary…but then why would you plaster his face on EVERY poster and put it throughout every damn trailer and commercial. Part of what made him scary in the original is the mystery and how he stayed in the shadows. In this one he had too much dialogue and they showed him way too early. It was like the film came too early before the other person was ready to climax. You never want to blow your load to early – and that is exactly what this film did. Then there is the fact Freddy was just annoying in this. He came off as a whiny little child; not a vicious child molester (they got rid of the child killer aspect). Seriously…what the fuck?! On one other note, the make up job sucked and wasn’t scary. In the original he looked and felt demonic almost. In this one they took away the demon aspect of his look and just made him cheesy looking (the CGI didn’t help).

DEATHS:
The deaths in the remake suck. Can I just leave it at that? Oh well, let me elaborate! The death scenes in the original were inventive, scary as fuck, and creepy! The original film created one of the best death scenes ever – scratch that! Tina’s death IS the best death scene ever put in any film – PERIOD. It is terrifying and creative. That one scene alone is better than the entire remake. They re-do this scene in the remake and they fucked it up so badly. It was rushed, silly, and TAME! How the hell do you make a girl being dragged across the walls and ceiling and being cut up tame? I don’t know, but the remake managed it! They made a terrifying scene seem silly. The rest of the deaths were boring and generic – something a Nightmare on Elm Street death scene should NOT be. Even the most generic death in the original (the hanging scene) still comes off creepy and gets the heart to pump.

FINALES:
This is the ONE thing the remake did okay – not great, but okay. It didn’t fuck up too bad with the ending and is the reason why this film doesn’t have a lower rating. The last half hour is actually rather cool when Nancy goes after Freddy. There are some cool chase scenes and the ending fight is rather nifty. It is quite generic and I knew how it was going to end, but it was still a fun scene…and the scene in the pharmacy is one of the best scenes in the film. The movie needed MORE scenes like that!
The original’s ending was fun, inventive, and showed off just how smart and strong Nancy is. Not only does she booby trap her house, but she also manages to fight off Freddy and she back talks him. She doesn’t let him go down easy. She will not go out without a fight. The remake’s ending while fun is very generic and is like most horror film endings, while the original is creative and shows just how resourceful our young heroine is.

DIRECTING:
Seriously…do we need to elaborate? Wes Craven is one of my favorite directors (even with his mishaps – Less said about My Soul to Take, the better!). Obviously he beats some lame music video director any day. He kept Freddy in the shadows, used cool angles, and gave the film a feeling of dread. There were some great suspenseful scenes that really will get the heart beating and he uses only one jump scare and it is quite effective.
The new director (I forgot his name) gave the film a cool look…but that is about it. There was no suspense, no terror; it was just BORING. He replaces suspense and fear with jump scares and these are fun when they’re used SPARINGLY – not when they’re replacements for true scares. The whole microcap idea is a cool one that could have been interesting…but sadly wasn’t used well. It was ONLY a factor to add more jump scares – LAME.

EFFECTS:
I use these films as one of my reasons for why practical effects trump CGI every time. Let’s compare Freddy coming out of the wall. In the original they used a rubber wall and in the new one they used CGI. The original was subtle, creepy, and effective. In the new one they over do it and the CGI just looks silly. More isn’t always better! This is a case of worse.
Freddy’s make up in the original also is better. It was scary, demonic, and gives me the creeps. The new one is silly looking, and the CGI does not help whatsoever.

Fuck-Ups:
Oh how the remake fuck up MANY TIMES!!! Where do I begin? First of all, let me state that when you remake a film, it is NOT part of the same franchise. It is like you’re starting a new franchise so you can’t just take aspects of the original and expect the audience to go along with it. That is NOT how it works.
Let’s start with the boiler room! In the original, when Freddy was alive he took them to an abandoned boiler room which is also where he was killed. In the new one, he is a gardener so he took them out to his garden shed. It’s different, but it’s okay. It’s going its own way…BUT when Nancy and the other teens fall asleep in the remake, WHY ARE THEY IN A BOILER ROOM?!?!?! Did the film just FORGET that they changed that detail? Because that is a pretty BIG detail to forget. Talk about being lazy screenwriters. Again – new franchise. Don’t just use it because the original did. You either make it work, or not at all.
Another aspect the remake fucks up is the use of his glove. It’s a fuckin’ scary and original weapon. When you think Freddy, you think of his finger knives. They are what make Freddy and provide for some rather sweet death scenes. So of course they HAVE to give those to him. The original opens up with him making them and he killed his kids with those…which is why he uses them after he is dead and haunting teens in their dreams. BUT in the remake, he was a child molester so he never had that glove in real life. Why does he use that glove in the remake then? Oh right! He used it in the original…but I thought this was a new franchise…oh it is! Nice going there writers! You can’t just add all these details ONLY because they were in the original. You have to make it work! Because what did he do? Did he RANDOMLY decide to make this weapon after he was dead? Was he bored or something and there was no room to play croquet in hell?

VERDICT:
You already know where I stand. The remake blows; the original is perfect. Even the sometimes bad effects add to the charm of the original. The new one is just a cash-grab for an extra buck. It defaces the original and makes money. This remake is EVERYTHING I hate about today’s state of horror films. At least it isn’t PG-13…then we’d have a problem!

A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984): 10/10
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010): 3/10

ORIGINAL WINS…duh