 After 'Freddy vs Jason' things seemed to be pretty well put to rest for a while. That is until Michael Bay's production company, Platinum Dunes started picking up classic horror titles to remake and crank out with 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'The Amityville Horror' and 'Friday the 13th' just one year before this. I mildly enjoyed them each in their own way, but understood others' criticisms. Next on the list, however, was 'Elm Street', which was something I was pretty obsessed with at the time.
This was going to be the deciding factor for me as to whether or not I would keep giving Platinum Dunes a proper chance. Unlike many, I really didn't hate any of the previous titles - even 'Friday the 13th' which I actually credit for embracing its stereotypes and self-awareness. But Freddy Krueger was a character that an actor had to be very careful not to screw up, because fans were adamant at the time (and still kind of are) that Robert Englund IS Freddy Krueger, and simply cannot be replaced. To an extent, I agree, but it was also understandable that a remake would warrant a new actor, and frankly, I still think Jackie Earle Haley is fantastic for the job... he just needs a better script, and MUCH better makeup! The Plot here involves a group of kids, headed by Nancy Holbrook (Rooney Mara) and Quentin Smith (Kyle Gallner). Together, they seem to be experiencing unexplained nightmares, all involving the same burnt-faced, bladed glove-bearing character. They, and a handful of others are collectively afraid to fall asleep, knowing that something is after them, and further witnessing the reality of these manipulative nightmares first-hand. Instead of running from it, however, Nancy and Quentin take it upon themselves to do the research on the "man of their dreams" only to find out that a creepy elementary school caretaker named Freddy Krueger (Hayley) is much more involved with their past than they could remember. For me, this is where the movie sort of takes a nosedive. Wes Craven's original idea for Freddy was, indeed, to make him not okay for kids to be around for more reasons that the fact that he was a killer. This film plays with that idea, but that idea also kinda takes the forefront, overshadowing Freddy's dream killings without taking into consideration that the original film was probably better off without those things in it. These aspects were stripped from the original film due to relatable news articles and incidents of the time and, much like the lack of mechanical shark in 'Jaws', it made for a happy accident, especially considering that the invasions of one's own mind is honestly invasive enough. The other huge area that this film flops on, and probably what irks me the most about it is that with Nancy and Quentin doing their research on Freddy, they find that, much like in the original, the parents seek him down and torch him alive for his crimes, taking justice into their own hands. However this time around, they make some attempts to make Freddy a sympathetic character, which was just a dumb move in my opinion because as a Fred-Head, I feel like he's the big incarnation of evil in the slasher genre. Even Pinhead from 'Hellraiser' garners more sympathy than Freddy upon learning of his past as he wasn't always evil. Freddy, on the other hand, was a complete monster before and after his demise. Now, let's get to how incredibly disappointing the dream sequences are, themselves. There ARE some ideas in here that work on an interesting level, such as playing with dream time, not unlike 'Inception', and the concept of falling into "micro naps" while you're trying to force your body to stay awake. But as for the nightmares, themselves, don't expect a whole lot of pizzazz so much as a bunch of dark, 'Silent Hill'-like settings. You don't get much of the victims' psyche and/or fears from each nightmare, there are no cool transformations of any kind, and everything feels far too basic for a time when CG REALLY could have lent itself to some cool ideas. In other words, it's simply no fun for a Freddy flick. At the time of review here, it has now been a solid 13+ years since this release, now barely outdoing the wait between 'Jason Goes to Hell' and 'Freddy vs Jason' (which I remember feeling like forever), and I don't know what future plans are for Freddy if there's anything going on at all. Englund says he's done with it, but last I checked, he has recommended Kevin Bacon for the role, which I'm not sure I can totally see, but I'd be willing to give it a chance. That said, at this point, I'd say don't even try if you don't have something awesome up your sleeve, and use this as an example of what NOT to do. 2/5
0 Comments
 In 1991, things finally came to an end for Freddy Krueger, and it was time for horror to move on. That is until just three years later, it was discovered that there was still a fanbase for Freddy. So, in a solid move, producer Bob Shaye and director/creator Wes Craven got together in order to give Freddy a proper send-off, because despite 'Freddy's Dead' being financially successful, it was a critical flop, and to this day one of the more ridiculed Freddy flicks, even though for yours truly, it remains a guilty pleasure.
Perhaps the most important thing about this movie is the fact that Wes Craven was not only back as writer/director for the first time since the original '84 movie, but he was given a fair shake at closing his creation off his way. And God bless the man, he came up with something spectacular, and the 'Elm Street' series managed to actually close the way it should have, not only taking things a step further with Freddy's development (in a way), but coming up with something truly firghtening and original. It's not only one of the best Freddy flicks of all time, I'd argue it's one of the best horror movies of all time, in concept alone. The film features Heather Langenkamp ("Nancy" from the original and 'Dream Warriors') living her celebrity life in L.A., complete with the concept of a stalker she once had. She and her husband, special effects wiz, Chase Porter (David Newsom) have a son, Dylan (Miko Hughes), and live a happy, albeit moderately stressful Hollywood lifestyle. One night, Heather has a nightmare about a new and improved Freddy glove going haywire and attacking Chase and other crew members, and just like the 'Elm Street' concept, Chase does end up with a cut on his hand that matches what Heather saw in her dream. To make matters even more crazy, the family encounters a fair share of quakes, which Heather believes are contributing to her nightmares as well. Due to her busy life, Heather often leaves Dylan in the care of her friend, Julie (Tracy Middendorf), who ends up playing a pretty great homage to the original film, but I won't spoil anything here. She (and Heather) start noticing Dylan having a few of his own nightmares about an entity who seems to be trying to get into their reality, held at bay by Dylan's stuffed T-rex he keeps at the end of his bed. And from ther, things just get weirder. Heather soon gets called by New Line Cinemas to meet with producer Bob Shaye and get invited to return to a new 'Elm Street' film as Nancy to give Freddy fans the sendoff they deserve. It turns out, however, that Dylan's nightmares and the new 'Nightmare on Elm Street' film Wes Craven is writing are interlinked, and an ancient evil is using the image of a much scarier Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) to come through to everyone's reality. This falls into the concept of being able to give something so much power that something dangerous can cross over into reality, conceptually predating things like "Slender Man." I will say that if you've come here for the gore, you might be a little disappointed. It's there, but the kills are few, as it's a horror movie that relies a little more on psychology. I can also admit that, at times, it can be a little slow moving at times, but when it picks up, it really picks up... like 'Titanic', but with claws! Really though, my criticisms are few and far between with this one. I didn't love it at first, but over the years, it has really grown on me, and is just further evidence that sometimes you need to give things another chance. I really appreciate what Wes Craven did with this. He still uses the idea of fear making Freddy stronger, except that here, it's the image of Freddy that comes through to reality. In many ways, it's reminiscent of the concept of a tulpa, leading me to think that much like with the original film, Craven learned a thing or two about something from reality that would make his fantasy film much scarier, and I must say, it worked here as well. It's a bit of a convoluted concept, and I may not have explained things with a lot of sense, but I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is one horror flick I can highly recommend to horror fans, whether they follow the Freddy franchise or not. 5/5  This is where it all started for me, at the tender age of 9. While my peers were already knee-deep into the horror genre, I was still pretty freaked out by this Krueger character and the overall concept. I knew enough about Freddy back then to be able to tell you that he was a creepy, ugly dude with claws on his hand he liked to use to kill people while they were dreaming. I'm not sure what scared me worse, his looks or the concept of being helpless against him while dreaming.
One of my most nostalgic horror memories begins one day after, of all things, church, back when we were giving it a shot. Afterwards, some friends we attended church with, my brother and I sat down to check this out, and it would be the first real R-rated horror movie I ever saw. I made it through, but I must admit that the concept of getting viciously slaughtered in my dreams while being tortured by some creep got deep inside my head that night, and I had a hell of a time trying to sleep. And that is just part of why to this day, Freddy is my favourite horror icon. He represents my first real scare. This one picks up ten years down the line from 'Dream Child', and the Elm Street children have either left town or have been killed by Freddy's constant returns. The last youth of the town, known throughout the movie as a John Doe (Shon Greenblatt), is manipulated by Freddy and led past the borders of Springwood. Freddy's intention is unknown at this point, but is eventually revealed in the film. Eventually John is found wandering around with severe amnesia and taken to a youth centre, where he is put under the care of psychologist Maggie Burroughs (Lisa Zane). When John tells Maggie about a dream he has involving Springwood, it coincides with dreams she's been having, so she takes him back to Springwood find some answers as to who he is, as he can't remember. Stowing away in the van, however, are tough girl Tracy (Lezlie Deane), stoner Spencer (Breckin Meyer) and smartass Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan); other kids from the youth center. While Maggie sends the stowaways back with the van, she and John take a look around town for answers to what their dreams are telling them. All the while, the town is nothing but lonely and crazy adults, taking heavy inspiration from 'Twin Peaks' and featuring celebrity cameos like Roseanne Barr and Tom Arnold. Eventually, Maggie and Johns search leads them to Freddy Krueger and a mildly interesting if somewhat predictable plot twist. Meanwhile, Tracy, Spencer and Carlos find themselves at 1428 Elm Street so that we can get some proper Freddy nightmare hunting in the movie. To the film's credit, the nightmares this group has tend to be pretty cool, putting in some effort to make things somewhat otherworldly. The whole film has an eerily creepy but often funny tone to it, sticks to some old traditions like group dreaming, and gets pretty creative in trying out new things for the era, like Freddy's "Power Glove". Aside from just looking cool, it offers up several fitting celebrity cameos, some familiar (like Johnny Depp) and some just because they feel right (like Alice Cooper playing Freddy's father). Iggy Pop closes the film with his song "Why Was I Born?" complete with a cool music video loaded with classic 'Elm Street' clips, which is a cool way to cap things off, and if I'm brutally honest, I still have fun with this movie. But make no mistake! Despite my praise, I do mean it when I say this is a guilty pleasure of mine at this point. It's not at all what I'd call a good movie, or even one of the better 'Elm Street' titles. If I'm going to criticize it, things like bad writing, bad acting, plot holes and closing the franchise with one of the weakest of the 'Elm Street' titles are things that cannot go overlooked. I hold it close to my heart because it was my first horror movie, Freddy became my favourite horror villain, and it's a lot of fun to go back and enjoy wondering how it could have possibly freaked me out as much as it once did. So my praise for it is very personal. But I can still say that this is one of the more easily skippable titles for the average fan. This is one that I'd consider "so bad, it's good", but one will have to judge for themselves. The most important thing to keep in mind while watching is just to try to have a good time with it. 2/5  In 1989, 'The Dream Child' was released to the weakest box office numbers the Freddy franchise has really seen yet. While it still did okay, it wasn't exactly a "number one" among the fans like its two predecessors. It seemed abundantly clear that Freddy was a fast-burn character for the time. While Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers have legacies dating back several years prior to '89, Freddy was just 5 years old. It probably didn't help by tackling the sensitive subject matter it did.
In reality, the teen girls who were following along with this series were a little older now, and some very real things were coming into play like pregnancy and all that surrounds it. Writer Leslie Bohem wanted to do something scary aimed towards women, and thus the idea of the "Dream Child" was born. As though the idea behind accidental teen (or young adult) pregnancy wasn't scary enough, she mixed in the concept of a strange man trying to take a child away from his mother, combined with themes of possession. While today, the idea may be sort of intriguing, back then it added a serious note to what was known to be a fun horror romp by this point. 'Dream Warriors' and 'The Dream Master' were thrill rides with cool effects, memorable settings, and likeable characters with Freddy really coming into his own as the James Bond of slasher horror with his signature swagger and one-liners. But with 'The Dream Child', there always seemed to be a little something missing, that I could never quite put my finger on. Upon a few further watches of it, what I really landed on was the combination of the threat of Freddy invading peoples dreams being too directed at Alice (Lisa Wilcox), making her unborn baby boy his protégé, and the fact that it can get just plain confusing. Taking place a year after the events of 'The Dream Master', Alice and Dan (Danny Hassel) have become a couple. Alice starts getting subtle hints that something is amiss in her dreams, and before long she finds herself face-to-face with Freddy once again. As Freddy's return has Alice genuinely confused, she soon discovers that the window for his return is through her new, unborn baby. Furthering the lore a little bit, it turns out Freddy can also manipulate reality around our new set of heroes through the dreams of the ever-sleeping unborn. But if that's too confusing, at least some of the kills are cool. Some of the controversy behind this title has to do with pregnancy and sensitive subject matter like abortion. Even with Freddy trying to transform her child into a thing of evil, Alice is determined to keep her baby, which I see as a reference to a mother's constant attempt to steer her child in the right direction as opposed to letting the evils of society take his mind over, Freddy representing those evils. If you read deep enough into it, you might also see Freddy as a would-be abusive father, so some of the fear in this could come from bringing a child into a hostile environment. It kinda sucks that we had to go from the fun of the previous two films to what could be considered the horror representation of an after school special. This all sort of brings me back to 'Freddy's Revenge' as well in that it plays with ideas of possessing the unborn baby to have some access to the real world (or at least that's what I took from it). Again, I just can't wrap my head around why Freddy ever would want access to the real world when he has such a cool and useful (for his purposes) superpower. I can give the film some credit for its creativity and trying something different, but it's a far cry from how enjoyable the last two films were, and I would have personally preferred the rules of dreaming to be simpler than what they established in this. While some of the nightmare sequences here are decent, nothing particularly stands out either. If given the option between 'Freddy's Revenge' and this, I would still choose this, as I can appreciate a decent enough amount of what happens. But part of me feels like it's a chapter not quite meant for me and my tastes when it comes to the series. While I can respect it for what it is, I still see it as a massive dip from the previous two as the fun facto seems to have been sucked out of it, save a few of Freddy's one-liners. It's passable, but definitely not my favourite of the batch. 3/5  'Dream Warriors' was a complete success, and would remain the overall fan favourite for decades to come (apart, of course, from the original). However, if it ever had any competition for style, it would probably be 'The Dream Master'. The best way I've heard it put was from Robert Englund himself - it's "The MTV Nightmare". While its predecessor certainly laid the groundwork, 'The Dream Master' was the film responsible for plastering his face all over merchandise, surprisingly suitable for all ages.
Being released in August of 1988, I had just turned 6, and I can still remember the hype surrounding Freddy Krueger. Back then, my generation was just allowed to get into R-rated horror at an early age. It didn't include me, but it didn't need to in order for me to know exactly who Freddy Krueger was, or just about anyone else associated with slasher films of the time. Watching horror flicks in our childhood was just a cool thing to do, and I might even suggest younger people ate this stuff up more than the adults it was actually made for. But, with that said, this is also pretty much where Freddy totally peaked. Just about everything that followed (save 'New Nightmare') would receive heavier criticism from both fans and critics alike. The true beginning of the end would start with a late-night TV show called 'Freddy's Nightmares'; an attempt to use Freddy's popularity in order to cash in on the TV-viewing audience. It was essentially a 'Tales from the Crypt'-style show with Freddy (still played by Englund) in place of the Crypt Keeper and had little to nothing to do with 'Elm Street' except for its first episode and maybe a few others scattered across the series. But it just goes to show you how 'Elm Street' had become a sort of horror juggernaut. Things kick off here with the return of a re-cast Kristen Parker (Tuesday Knight) from the previous film, who starts experiencing nightmares again. Before she knows it, she and the remaining "Dream Warriors" end up facing off against Freddy once again. When they begin to struggle against the dream demon, Kristin is able to use her dream power from the last film to pull newcomer, Alice (Lisa Wilcox) into her dream to help. Here, Alice comes to realize that her dream power is the ability to absorb and use her friends' powers. It's not long before Alice rises to the occasion and brings the fight to Freddy, herself, establishing a heroine very much worthy of following in Nancy Thompson's determined footsteps. Speaking on a personal level, I tend to regard this as one of the more fascinating titles of the series. There's a lot I don't like about it, but what I do like about it outweighs any real criticisms I have for it. While there's something in here I won't spoil that almost suggests 'Dream Warriors' was pointless, the dialogue is largely cheesy and the acting is a bit cringe-worthy, I have to give the film credit for some original dream sequences, kills within these dream sequences, Freddy's super-fun one-liners, and just the pure imagination director Renny Harlin puts into things here. It's just as fun of a ride for me as 'Dream Warriors' was, but 'Dream Warriors' is still, altogether, the better Freddy flick just by being scarier. Having said that, I can say that my appreciation for this movie comes from more of the style than the substance, and that doesn't exactly sound like a positive thing. But when you're talking about something like 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', and are seeking the fun side of it, this is a great place to go! Of the 'Elm Street' movies, this is the first in the series I'd consider one of my guilty pleasures. Heck, I even dig the song 'Running from this Nightmare' by Tuesday Knight. It's no 'Dream Warriors' (apologies for not posting the video in the previous review), but each of these songs is a solid setup for their associated movie, letting you know what it is you're in for; 'Dream Warriors' is a bit more metal, 'Dream Master', a bit more pop. If you're someone looking to get into these films and what they're all about while at their best I would probably recommend the original, 'Dream Warriors' and 'The Dream Master' as a very solid back-to-back-to-back viewing. While there are other titles in the series to see, it feels like those are the three that best capture the spirit of the series while having a solid, overarching story that carries through them. While this is one Freddy title that is often criticized, I sincerely feel like it gets a much worse rap than it deserves. It may be a bit of a guilty pleasure as it's so cringe at some points, but hell, that's half the fun of this series! 4/5  While 'Freddy's Revenge' has a place in the series, it's my humble opinion that if there was ever a true sequel to 'A Nightmare on Elm Street,' it's absolutely 'Dream Warriors.' It's hands down my favourite of the series (aside from the original) for many reasons. In fact, I'd consider it the other quintessential Freddy flick of the franchise. To put it plainly, this is where the franchise transforms into a mainstream attraction and starts to get really fun while maintaining a solid sense of horror.
We have a few legends behind the wheel to thank, starting with the original creator, Wes Craven, coming in to do some writing. Wes is joined here by Bruce Wagner and Frank Darabont, who we all now associate with his work on 'The Walking Dead' and many other now-famous titles. This would all be capped off with co-writer and director Chuck Russel, who would go on to direct 1987's 'The Blob,' but perhaps most famously, 'The Mask'; a Jim Carrey fan favourite. That balance of horror, comedy and drama negotiated between these four filmmakers comes through here. Despite apparent high tensions on the set, the final product became the best 'Elm Street' could get. This was essentially the beginning of the pop culture icon Freddy became, and much closer to the Freddy one would imagine as an outsider. This was the first time Freddy really got into the one-liners; the first time the dreams were really given a much more surreal atmosphere; the first time we see Freddy's ability to shapeshift; the first time group dreaming was implemented in the series (long before 'Inception'); the first time a metal band did a specific theme for an 'Elm Street' film (and 'Dream Warriors' remains a personal favourite, despite how cheesy it may come across). The list goes on. For yours truly, I also see this as the best story of the original six. Much of that concerns the idea that it uniquely tackles mental health. The movie's brilliance illustrates just how scary a place like a psychiatric hospital can be and how scary a place like your own mind can be. It tackles a few serious things here with Freddy's dark sense of humour while still maintaining that they're issues not to be taken lightly. That's hard to do, but the film makes it work. Freddy uses the mental health of these kids to his advantage, and that's a terrifying thought, but keep in mind that it's called 'Dream Warriors' for a reason. It all starts with the nightmares of Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette), who builds a model of Nancy Thompson's now iconic house (that house would become a character just as popular as Freddy himself) in her spare time. One horrible night, as Freddy (Robert Englund) manipulates her dreams, he leads Kristen to her bathroom, where an incident has her sent to Westin Hills Psychiatric Hospital. Here, Kristen meets several other kids who seemingly share the same bad nightmares featuring the same creepy guy. While they all maintain that the next time they sleep could be their last, the doctors and nurses maintain that their nightmares are much deeper than some burnt-faced slasher trying to off them all one by one. Enter Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), who comes to save the day, so to speak, as she has spent the last few years earning an education to become a therapist and dream researcher. Nancy immediately realizes that the kids dream of Freddy, her old nemesis, back to pick up where he left off. Through Kristen, however, Nancy discovers that the group can use dream powers to help them fight against the dream demon. That's where the movie really shines. For as dark and potentially triggering as some of this stuff could be, the importance of it is that it reminds those who suffer that they're not alone and not helpless. I've always found this concept effective in fuelling Freddy's methods. It really shows how he can get deep inside your head and truly use fear against his victims, especially since here, their individual fears are largely shown to be what placed them in the hospital in the first place. As a horror concept, that is terrifying. But I also love how the film makes a small army from these kids, each with a dream superpower. While 'Dream Warriors' may be a cheesy title to get through, it's cheesy in all the right ways and well-balanced with some truly frightening sequences. Hands down, this is one of my all-time favourite horror movies, let alone 'Elm Street' movies. 5/5  While I can say that this is probably my least-liked Freddy Flick, one should know that my dislike of it does not come from any of its now-famous subtexts. I'm also not planning on going too deeply into all of that, as I can't really say anything about it that fans don't already know. To keep it short and to the point, this ends up being a story of Freddy attempting to possess someone and that fear of possession being representative of fears of homosexuality and becoming something society wasn't ready to accept.
To add to the pile, this came out in '85, which was an era of a very AIDS-aware America. So Freddy's possessive ways, in this chapter, represent the fear of not being able to control who you are and the fears surrounding that within a society that wouldn't fully understand. We have come a long way since 1985, and this has since become a bit of a cult film for some. But no one gives it a better voice than male scream queen Mark Patton in his documentary 'Scream, Queen!, My Nightmare on Elm Street,' where he talks about how the film affected his life as a now-out gay man. It comes recommended highly by yours truly! Patton plays a young man named Jesse who, along with his family, moves into Nancy Thompson's house several years after the first film's events. As Jesse starts having terrible nightmares, he soon finds himself up against Freddy (Robert Englund), who wants to use Jesse's body as his vessel for coming back to life and wreaking havoc on the town of Springwood once more. He gets help from his friend Lisa (Kim Myers), who likes him and wants to help him with whatever bothers him. But most, including his family and school jock Ron Grady (Robert Rusler), think he's off his nut. The rest is basically subtext. With all of the context here, I do have a certain admiration for it just being what it is, and I'm not here to take away anyone's enjoyment of what could be considered a somewhat clever film. But dammit, I have beef with this movie that I cannot deny, and it ends up being the weakest film of the franchise because of it. Put simply, it breaks all the rules of the universe Wes Craven established in the first film; namely, Freddy can only exist in the dream world unless someone happens to pull him out of it. Yet this involves Freddy trying very hard to get out into the real world using possession. On top of that is just the question of "why?" Why would Freddy want to become real and enter the real world to tear people up when he has the incredible superpower of being able to invade someone's dreams and get them there completely defenceless against their worst fears that he can control? Maybe it's just a me thing, but honestly, I never could wrap my head around that idea. It's like Superman wanting to take away his ability to fly or something. Poor Wes Craven never signed any documentation to make Freddy officially "his," so writer David Chaskin devised an idea of his own for this one, willy-nilly. While I may not like it for my own reasons, I am glad this film has found some footing as an interesting cult classic among various communities. I just think rearranging rules (that are never revisited, by the way) was a mistake, and it's not what I'd call a good film at all in the context of the entire collection of Freddy flicks. But I can give it a touch of leeway, being only the second film, and no one really knew what would happen with Freddy after that first film. And while I do consider it weak, I can still sit through it as a bad movie and have fun with things like the visual of a cereal called "Fu Man Chews" or Jesse doing his beautifully cringe-worthy "pop star dance" in his room. However, at the end of the day, I strongly feel that the bad outweighs the good, even if this does have one of the coolest practical effects of the whole series (Freddy ripping his way out of Jesse during a nightmare). It's an interesting balance, to say the least. I can commend it for many things but dislike it for many others. I'm not sure I've ever seen a film take so many steps forward while taking so many steps back, and ultimately, it leads me to conclude that to get the most out of this, one needs to explore behind the scenes once finished. Otherwise, you're just stuck with a weak Freddy flick. 2/5  Long ago, in a town not too far away, our family attended church with another family who were friends with my parents for a short time. One day in late Spring/early Summer of 1991 (going by its VHS release date), the kids of this family, my brother, and I checked out 'Freddy's Dead' after church (which is kinda interesting). This marked my first horror movie, and Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) was my first real exposure to one of the several 80s pop culture horror icons. And being 9 at the time, he was effective.
I've said it in several reviews before, but I was not good with handling horror like a lot of my peers could, so even a movie as corny as 'Freddy's Dead' got to me in a big way at the time. However, as time passed, and with certain things parodying it over the years like 'The Simpsons' and even 'Tiny Toon Adventures,' I eventually overcame my silly fears. I became ultimately curious about all the horror I missed over the years. But it had to start with Freddy's series because he was the one I was most curious about, especially since he was my introduction to the genre as a whole... even if 'Freddy's Dead' is more of a comedy. The film starts with Tina Gray (Amanda Wyss) having a nightmare about a gross-looking dude in a dirty red and green sweater who wears a set of finger knives on a glove and a funky fedora. When she awakens from the nightmare, she finds four slash marks on her nightgown, which is our first indication that something crazy is happening. It actually kinda hits the ground running weirdly. Home alone the following night, she invites her friend Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and Nancy's boyfriend, Glen Lantz (the great Johnny Depp in his debut role), to spend the night. Tina's boyfriend, Rod Lane (Jsu Garcia), eventually crashes the party. But here, it's revealed that the group (at least Nancy and Tina, although it hints at Glen and Rod) also dreams of the same creepy character. It's not long before Freddy makes his first kill of this great series. While the adults of Springwood, CA (eventually retconned to Springwood, OH) try to use a whole lot of rationality when it comes to the mysterious deaths of a few teens in town, Nancy knows there's something much more sinister and mysterious at work, attacking them in their dreams, whether it makes any rational sense or not. I'll be the first to admit that anyone watching this with fresh eyes today might have difficulty latching on due to bad dialogue, cheesy acting, and all-around confusion about how things work in Freddy's dream world. But there is a bigger picture to it all in that it not only provides an allegory about listening to your children (or whoever else) when something is troubling them, even if it sounds outlandish. Further analysis of the film has unveiled a lot of symbolism about growing up, puberty, and all the horror that comes with that. The term "violation" comes up a lot, the ultimate violation being someone who can get to you through your dreams while you're completely defenceless to stop him. While that's all well and good, and I understand where it all comes from, this movie has an added element that stands out about facing one's fear that resonates with me more than anything else. That's mostly because that's what I did when I first watched this. I was mentally going head to head with a horror icon that scared the crap out of me in what was probably his tamest film, but actually seeing him at his scariest. I soon became absolutely fascinated by this movie because of my budding interest in film and the added interest in dreams and how they work (I've always been fascinated by dreams). Over time, this has become a significant nostalgic link for me, as it marks the time I went from dipping my toes into horror to fully submerging myself in the genre. It has since become one of my favourite films of all time and is my favourite horror film due to what it represents for me in facing my fears and essentially opening the door to the genre for me (although an edited-for-TV 'Exorcist' did a lot to unlock that door). And to solidify it as my "favourite," is a mind-blowing factoid that this is all taken from a true story about people mysteriously dying in their sleep for unknown reasons. So, next time your kid comes running to you about a horrible nightmare, listen and be supportive because you never know what it was they went through. 5/5 |
RSS Feed