Don't understand the hate


I love the original, but I also really dig the remake.

The reason I don't understand why people hate it is because it's the same damn movie. Other than a few changes, it's pretty the original but with modern special effects. So if you love the original, there's no real reason to hate this one.

reply

The reason I don't understand why people hate it is because it's the same damn movie. Other than a few changes, it's pretty the original but with modern special effects. So if you love the original, there's no real reason to hate this one.

I disagree. This movie is okay, but nowhere near as good as the other films. This remake is nothing like the original. Aside from pointless homages I suppose. Nancy for example is nowhere near as good as the original. The effects are so fake. Freddy's make-up makes him look like some kind of freaky hairless cat.


http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

reply

lol u wanna see something funny, look at the movie posters for Friday the 13th (2009) and this movie, i could swear they even used the same font for the title

rabble rabble!

reply

I hated the Friday The 13th remake. Nothing but sex. Only Jared made it watchable. But I liked the ANOES so much better. Jackie made Freddy freaky more than Robert in his sequels.

reply

completely wrong-no one agrees with you. Englund was mcuh more frightening. Jackie Earl is a great actor, but at five feet tall, he just coudlnt pull off scary-that is why the movie is considered a failure

reply


completely wrong-no one agrees with you.

Actualy, I agree with her.
Robert Englund was great for a while, but eventually turned the character into a joke (or maybe we have to blame the writers for that.) By the time we get to Freddy's Dead, he's playing Nintendo games and doing Looney Toon impressions as he drags spikes across the road.

This new Freddy actually returned to being a villain, not a comedian, and that was a good thing. Also, although JEH isn't physically intimidating, he doesn't need to be. TEven Englund's Freddy was never seen as being physically imposing. He was a fairly skinny guy.

reply

"no one agrees with you"


You're stupid for even saying that. Many agree. Myopic much?








'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

reply

The sound design is really unimaginative and cliched here, making it feel like every other forgettable horror movie churned out over the last 15 years. Freddy's voice is actually 'cool', not creepy. Characters are boring. The film doesn't focus on scaring the inner child in the way that the original did. The characters seem less vulnerable and innocent here. In the original Nancy was trying to get help from 'daddy' - the protector. It's supposed to remind you of when you had nightmares as a kid and the desperation with which you tried find a safe pair of arms. Why do you think they made him a police man?!
The CGI is cringeworthy. The setting is less clear. This guy is a music video director, not a horror movie director or even a movie director at all. This movie is clearly not a labour of love.

And I'm not hating on remakes, there are plenty I like (think Evil Dead remake), but this just isn't one of them. 4/10.

reply

His height was the failure of the film??

reply

The original Nancy was a dreadful actress in all three of her nightmare films.

reply

It was okay, I didn't like how they made freddy look in the remake. Maybe I'm just used to Robert eungland. Also thought it was dragging on a bit in the middle.

reply

The biggest reason is...wait for it...Robert Englund IS Freddy Krueger. End of story. Also, they changed a lot of things...his tone of voice by using that horrible voice distortion, they focused too much on making him a child molester rather than a child murderer (which was Wes Craven's original idea anyway) just way too much story centered around p edophilia, instead of make-up they went with the horrible looking CG face, too many more flaws to mention. Horrible remake and the fact that Wes Craven wasn't even consulted while writing/filming, made it even worse. I think most people who have been watching from the start would agree. All of you kiddos should just stick with the horrible horror movies of your generation and quit trying to critique/justify a terrible remake of a horror classic. t(-.-t)

reply


I grew up with the Nightmare series. The original Nightmare on Elm Street is my favorite film ever, regardless of genre and I still liked this movie. It was not nearly as good as the original, which most horror films aren't, but the remake was better than a lot of the latter sequels IMO. In fact, I would say those latter sequels were much more of an insult to the original than the remake was. Reason being, they turned a dark and scarily brilliant character into a caricature. Dropping bad one liners everywhere and not even attempting to be scary.

You are right, Robert is Freddy and made the character who he is, but he could not play the part forever and I would rather have more Nightmare movies without Robert than not having any at all. Maybe you feel different and that's cool. Robert not being Freddy is what allowed way to many people to be against the remake and saying it sucked before it even came out. The makeup and voice were way different. Personally I was glad because I did not want the same ole thing. You probably did and again that's cool and I respect that.

I most certainly agree that focusing on making him strictly a child molester was an absolute unforgivable blunder. He was both in the original series.


Haters gonna hate

reply

The remake is OK, watchable, but it's not as good as the original - it's nowhere near as good as the original. I think it lacked the charm that the original lacked, and I don't think Jackie Earle Haley was very good as Freddy, and I won't even start about Rooney Mara

reply

Hardly any movies come close to the original. To me Robert was the best in the first movies. The sequels were funny not scary. That's why I said that Jackie made it freaky. I was glad there was not comedy in it. Horror should just be that.

reply

My problem with the remake wasn't with Freddy, it was with the victims. None of them really stood out or had real personalities that made you want to see them survive. With the original series, virtually all the kids were kids you didn't want to see die, even the ones who came off as a-holes (Debbie in 4, Greta in 5, Grady in 2) had enough characterization to where you were rooting for them to live. There was none of that in the remake.

All New Season:
http://www.fictionpress.com/s/3063383/1/Omega-Guardians-Season-2

reply


I could not agree more. People are saying JEH version of Freddy was terrible and insulted the original. My thing is, those latter sequels destroyed what was once a scary character, turning him into a lame caricature that was nothing like the Freddy from parts 1-3 and New Nightmare. That's why I like the remake so much. JEH made Freddy his own and brought back the dark and scary Freddy and nailed it. That Freddy was SO much better than the way he was portrayed in the sequels 4-6. I don't like funny, one liner cracking Freddy. I was Freddy from parts 1 and 2, half of 3 and New Nightmare.


Haters gonna hate

reply

To be frank, I never was that much of a fan of the original movie. Perhaps it was because I saw it years after it was released (I was born in 1984) or just because I saw several classic horror movies before. In my own humble opinion, the original has dated badly in terms of certain elements, such as several effects, some of the acting and the dialogues. For me, Wes Craven often has great concepts for horror movies, but their execution on screen is unfortunately not always that good (in the case of The Last House on The Left, for example, it was downright awful to a profound degree). I was actually more genuinely stimulated and frightened by Freddy's Revenge, Dream Warriors, New Nightmare and the remake itself. Granted, Robert Englund was amazing as Freddy, but I thought Jackie Earle Haley was VERY effective as well and constantly creepy and disturbing. Furthermore, I appreciated the fact that they did explore the pedophilia angle, which was a bold but interesting move. I also like that Clancy Brown was in it (always love to see him), and thought the young lead actors were actually good and believable (Rooney Mara already displayed her talent here).

Bill Foster: I'm the bad guy?...How did that happen?

reply

I'm so happy to see someone who thinks the same way I do

reply

Bottom line: Its an empty movie with no real attempt to draw in the audience. It's message was: We think you want Freddy. We will give you Freddy. Thats all you want right? HERE'S FREDDY! WE HOPE YOU LIKE ALL THIS FREDDY.

In a lot of ways it does exactly what most later franchise installments do: Overuses the main gimmick.

The movie. does absolutely nothing else to stand on it's own. Even the worst additions to the series at least made some attempt to have its own identity, building up the characters and the unique stakes.

Here we as the audience really know nothing about the cast. We have no idea of what their life is actually like, as if the moment Freddy came into their lives everything else was put on hold. Kris's plot arc is extremely muted. Have you noticed how utterly isolated she is for someone who should, by all rights, be very much an actively social young girl. She has no friends, her romance with Dekker's character is only SPOKEN of and barely physically acknowledge in two three brief scenes.

Likewise for most of the rest of the cast. The only one who gets any real development is ironically Nancy, who is such a forcibly muted character that she's difficult to identify with. When she finally gets her crowning moment, its in the version that was cut in favor of a by-the-numbers version that did no justice to the arc they were building for her.

The script is just abysmal, the writers knowing full well that they were relying on Jackie to chew the scenery, and hoping nobody would notice the vacuum left by the lack of anything else required to make a solid film.

Add in the fact that the producer, director, and event he entire cast knew that they really didn't want to do this film, and its not surprising that this became a blase entree. There was so much potential here, but the production side wanted to play it safe. They deserve the backlash.

reply

I thought it was good. Not fantastic or anything, but good.

reply

My favourite is still the original but I really liked this movie. I am not one of the "I hate it 'coz it's a remake' cliche crowd and actually give the new gang of remakes a chance. I thought Jackie took Freddy back to when he was 'Fred' and scary, not the comic book character that he became that we all loved, but still was never as dark as he was originally and for that this movie deserves praise.I personally felt it ended too quickly with Freddy's demise being over if you blinked, which I felt was a weaker point, but I have watched this several times and enjoy it,as I said, mostly because of Hayley. I'd happily watch a sequel, if that were to happen, but all the bitching that resulted in poor box office because it's not a "perfect" movie has probably robbed us of that chance.It's not claiming to cure cancer people, it's just a movie, and not a bad one.

reply

Have you seen the new 'Carrie' remake? You'd probably like it. It's been catching a buch of flack but I really don't know why. It's actually a pretty decent remake.

reply

I thought it was a pretty decent remake. I liked all of the actors, except Haley. Freddy looked ridiculous. He was way too short, and his freakin head was huge!! I was really into the movie, up until Freddie's appearances.

reply

[deleted]