_0.jpg)
.jpg)
This is a not-so-favorable script review from Moviehole that was removed from their site then republished by Retro Slashers.
"And so it comes to pass that one of mine, and “Hollywood Movie Star” Clint Morris’ favorite 80’s horror flicks “A Nightmare On Elm Street” is about to be remade…. I mean, first & foremost, the recent “Friday the 13th” is a prime example of why you shouldn’t insist on rehashing a true classic horror film - so… yeah, look, I’ll be brutally honest, I’ve just finished reading the script for the new “Nightmare”, and to say it’s horrible wouldn’t be fair, because it’s not - unfortunately what it is happens to be a typical “Platinum Dunes” film - a watered down teen slasher film that ultimately wipes it’s feet on the original superior story / movie, and will no doubt be instantly forgettable.
The draft I read is presumably the finished shooting script, by Eric Heisserer dated January 14th and is of course “based” on the original Wes Craven film. Basically, the cannon fodder is introduced at a party in the beginning, and instantly screams out “Fuck me this is going to be an awful raping of your memories”, introducing Quentin, Kris, Dean, Jesse & our hero, Nancy (described as “18, petite, approaching goth”… for fuck’s sake why not just go the whole hog and describe her as a whining emo kid).
Anyhow, it’s not long before our first young teen meets their end as:
Four parallel slashes RIP through Dean’s shirt, as if by
an invisible bladed weapon –
His eyes snap open and he stares right at Kris, half whispering
a warning as his last words:
DEAN
He’s back –
He falls backward off the ledge –
Wow - an invisible bladed weapon you say - hmm, I WONDER WHAT THE FUCK THAT COULD BE? Dude, you’re writing “A Nightmare On Elm Street”… The party scene that opens the film is actually a pretty good indicator of throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks - we’re introduced to some mind numbingly boring characters that you will not care about, or remember two seconds after walking out of the cinema, and of course, as the young kids would do, instead of banging each other stupid - they’re holding “Guitar Hero” competitions.
Aw, Hell - anyway, in case you needed a refresher on what type of instrument Freddy uses, here’s another choice moment from a few pages later:
TIGHT ON A BURNED HAND
with bone exposed at the knuckle, as it reaches for
something among the spilled tools…
THE GLOVE.
Like a gardening glove, but with a set of razor-sharp
blades welded onto the back of the hand.
Well bugger me, that’s quite descriptive isn’t it? So, it’s like a gardening glove with blades on it……Let me ask you, why not just attach a screen grab of Robert Englund from the first flick with a big arrow pointing at his hand and a note that says “Oi! This thing here - that’s what it should look like!” - y’know, like, ummmmm. FREDDY’S FUCKING GLOVE THAT HE WORE IN EVERY FUCKING MOVIE! Even if the heads over at Platinum Dunes are all to young to remember the original film, I’m sure they were all pimply faced teenagers when “Freddy Vs. Jason” came out, oh… 6 years or so ago, so I’m pretty sure the detailed description might not be ultimately necessary.
Now the somewhat good part that I was enjoying in the script up until around page 17 is that whenever Freddy was mentioned, it was that “in the shadows” type Freddy that was so kick-ass in the original flick, so I figured - OK, sounds like they are at least going to stay somewhat true to the “scary as all bollocks” Krueger that we all loved, but then of course as another unfortunate teen almost meets their demise in a classroom (complete with a stick figure chalk drawing with red lines down the front of it on the blackboard which Mr. Krueger must have quickly nutted out with all the talent of a four year old), Freddy utters his second line of the film:
FREDDY
Time for a new lesson
Oh joy, how wonderful that they’ve decided to move straight to “Dream Master” Freddy, he of the wonderful one liners and oh so subtle double entendres - but at least they’re still keeping up with the not quite in focus monster angle….., but believe me when I say that the one liners just keep on coming…
Look, ultimately, Heisserer’s script reads like common stock Fan Fiction - if this was coming out under any other title, it would instantly be dismissed as a “D Grade” knock off of “Nightmare” - I can pretty confidently say that this is not going to make for a memorable film, apart from now every time you reach for the original, you’re going to instinctively also remember that they made a crappy version of it 25 years later - the story & characters are incredibly weak - there’s no need for the investigation and drunken confessions of how Freddy became who he is from the original film necessary here, because in this version, Freddy insists on telling each and every teen he tries to slaughter exactly who he was, and why he’s doing it - and the change they’ve made in his back-story is just…. well, it’s boring - in fact, over the course of the 109 page draft, the only scene that truly stands out reads as an almost shot for shot retread of Tina’s death in the original film - hell, even our “Heroine” Nancy doesn’t really have anything to do until halfway through the film from the look of things.
So, short & sweet - this will absolutely fall in line with the other Platinum Dunes films like “TCM”, “Amityville Horror” & “Friday The 13th” - it’s going to cash in on the name, stock it with every CW star under the sun and piss off every person who loved the original - the only saving grace I can say is currently in place here is that Jackie Earle Haley will no doubt fit the Freddy character very well as he recently did with Rorschach in “Watchmen” - but good grief it would be a nice thing for them to cut out all the zingers."
im only a kid that saw the a nightmare on elmstreet nuber one on youtube it made me stay up all night im still not that scared of freddy kouger any more jason is friday the thirteenth is good but its kinda better then a nightmare on elmstreet 1 if freddy could be that good on freddy vs jason in jasons dream it could of been better but if the drowning part never happend in the dream freddy wouldnt have a aponet and freddy would just only have to kill the kids then its all done becase freddy stores his fear and uses it to kill in freddy vs jason but like in the nightmares if your dead in the dream your dead in real life no worreys right x__x ok its not : ( x__x
I'm on bandwagon to bash the bashers.
A look at a script in it's early phases is, at best, fodder for a sidenote on a page of Entertainment Weekly. The idea that a movie can be judged awesome or terrible so accurately by script alone is ignorance given power. There are exceptions to be sure (did anyone double read a quote about toads and lightning before shooting?), but it's in the direction and acting that will decide whether or not "Time for a new lesson" inspires sarcastic laughter (a la NOES 5/6) or terror. If you're looking for so much mood on paper without watching first, get a novel and quit whining. Scripts and storyboards aren't the big picture or we'd be buying tickets at the library. Moving on...
Whining about a reimagining made appropriate to modern times is weak enough to be annoying, just unfortunate. I agree that modern references involved in a modern reimagining is appropriate. If the movie was intended to be a true remake (in this age, a 'period piece'), I'm sure the cast and set would be modified to emulate the mid 80's along with plot, but PD is just moving the backbone story up a generation. Valid points are made about the universialism of cell phones and computers in 2009. Children have them. Besides, curiousity before the opening of the 2010 film will only drive rentals and sales of the original (everybody wins) while promoting healthy discussions about their similarities/differences WHICH can only be done after watching the movies. I mean, seriously. Shouldn't these reviewers be comparing the script to the original's script (including revisions) and not the finished product?
To further defend a reimagined version, i also agree with the notient that the story be drawn out a little, might give us some time to get into the characters a little better. although i personally loved that OG Nancy learns about Krueger's origin via drunk mom, "Mommy killed him"! (finding out that your parents killed the killer who's trying to kill you, from their drunken stupors, always adds a sinister intimacy to the history of the grand affair). But an investigation into your own past, after being initiated by another victim, has its merits. On a side note, i've heard complaints in some reviews that characters 'learn' that they'd been victimized by Freddy as children. victims not remembering molestation (memory repression) is not uncommon and viewing might make this more feasible than on script. On a similar note, I appriciate that the supposed original intent for (pre-burned) Freddy's character is being utilized; hysteria in nationwide molestations during the time gave Craven respectable pause not to take his character in that direction. From a writing POV- it's a nice nod to Craven although I'm sure more conservative thinkers will be right in detesting that anyone should go there at all (as molestation is a serious and disgusting event). If you don't like it, don't see it.
I do however agree with some complaints about potential type-casting. Even with subtle hints to architype, the teen characters in the first film felt like everyday kids. Mainstream cinema in general (in these days) fails to produce realistic teen characters (maybe using 20 somethings to do it is the wrong direction). I hope that the base descriptions for the characters are fleshed out by the actors and production. I personally root for the lesser known actors; fresh faces help freshen the film (how about looking for people who've really never performed on screen, though?) . We'll see.
As for not seeing it... I'm certain most pre-screening protestors will end up seeing the film (as they should). So called 'purists' (i'm a devoted fan) should take the blinders off and give the film a chance to rest on its own laurels (regardless of how many or few we may think there are). This is an opportunity. Would anyone oppose re-makes of the later films if they were nudged slighly back to the dark, silent type that gave many of us our first real nightmares? Why continue on the downward slope from pure villain to slapstick anti-hero that shot J. Voorhees around like a pinball? "Awww....tilt!" No offense, Freddy's a solid entertainer, but shouldn't be a clown. Not that i didn't love Funny Freddy, he should be feared to absolution.
Robert Englund is, and always will be, my first (g)love (couldn't help it). The fact that he alone carried the character so well, for so long, is testament to a great actor who deserves every credit. His loyal fans, including myself, were by his side during his tenure (which may not be over, you never know!) but Jackie Earl Haley deserves a chance to show us how he feels in burned skin. If anyone saw him in Little Children (the role I personally believe first attracted the casting crew to him), he's already familiar with being the 'creep in the neighborhood', in lighter terms. Through that role, Haley has some experience in how to display a man to keep away from kids. Haley's role in Watchmen merely sweetens the deal (his Rorshach was the best performance of the film without doubt, but it was the best character in the graphic novel anyways). The grimace in his face is complimented by a sharp, thin face: he's got a natural look for fear. Might I further remind that for anyone who said that the later films stripped Krueger's glove of its luster must also allow that Englund was the hand in that glove. Stop comparing burn scars and let Haley wear the glove. I trust his acting skills to give Englund's cumulative Freddy a run.
In closing, This is an excellent opportunity to show new watchers what Freddy was like for us our first time, but they deserve it on their own terms, in their own time, and a reboot might keep the dream from dying (we all knows what happens then).
Naysayers who haven't seen the film waste energy and time basically saying "they shouldn't have done this!". If your taste is so refined that only the first films will do (camp and all), stock up on extra copies of the originals and don't see it. But don't bad mouth what you can't explain either. Nighty night!
I think a lot of people wants to know as much as they can about this movie, but, let´s get real. Until we watch it, then we´ll know if it´s good or not. You can read something and find it boring or weak, but when you see it in the big screen you go: Wow, that´s ok, not as lame as I thought. I´ve seen so many horror films, and sometimes I say: that part really scared me! and someone else goes: What? That´s the most boring movie I´ve ever seen! And there are other movies I was falling sleep while watching, and my friends were like: That´s the scariest scene I´ve seen. So basically, Freddy Krueger is an icon, and yes, it will be tuff to over come the original, but... i think we should wait until we watch it before saying: it´s gonna suck!
I´ve read messages from people complaining ´bout the movie in attemp to be modern, makes reference to cel phones, guitar hero, computers, etc. And that it is some how unnecessary. I don´t agree. Infact, if I see a modern horror movie where the victim has to go to their house´s phone or to some public phonebooth I would laugh, everyone has a cell phone now. Bad reception is more realistic. I think the original movie was great, its one of my favorites, but I don´t think any current horror movie can take aside the fact that most people now spend time in their computers, and technology, it has a huge impact in our lives, it would´n´t be realistic if these things were not mentioned.
So my point is, get over it! We had our chance, we enjoyed the first movie and fell in love with the characters. If we see a remake, maybe we won´t feel the same way, but maybe this new generation of people who has grown with different concepts and ideas will. People who see NOES movies and laughs and think they are so lame, or so old or not scary at all. Maybe this is their chance to experience a similar story adapted to their times. And I think I am an adaptable person, so I don't care, and I actually enjoy more a remake of the original movie, I can´t wait to see a scary freddy krueger, than seen another Freddy Krueguer dressed as a nurse, a witch, a super hero, a waiter, a motorcicle, a baby, etc. Freddy became ironic and funny, sarcastic. But the scary part ends with his make up, and in the first one I really believed he was s psycho searching for blood and enjoying the mind games he provided his victims through their dreams. That got lost in the sequels, I hope they bring that back. That´s all I am waiting for to see, a really scary Freddy Krueger, without all the circus surronding him.
this guy is a total fuckin dick
give them a fuckin chance to make the movie at least ya fuckin asshole
stop bitching and get a life or shut the fuck up and enjoy there giving you something to talk about dick
It's pathetic that folks with the writing "skill "on display in the above Moviehole/Retro Slashers post are allowed to write "script reviews ". I've read this four times now, and my mind is reeling. This guy's angry because the script calls for the movie to tease and slow-reveal the glove, rather than just assuming that everyone in the audience already knows everything about Freddy? He considers "Time for a new lesson" a campy one-liner, on par with Krueger doing a JAWS shtick in Part 4 or riding a broomstick in Part 6? He assumes that the "approaching goth" lead will be an emo whiner (without, of course, presenting any evidence to support this)? Above all, he makes the utterly moronic assumption that a script he somehow got a hold of MONTHS before casting was complete or filming even began was the final shooting draft? His lack of understanding of the filmmaking process rivals his inability to express himself in writing in a coherent, literate way.
Equally pathetic is the fact that there are folks out there who just can't wait to swallow negativity and reactionary drivel like this so-called "script review", accepting it as both gospel truth and a sure sign that the NOES remake is doomed. Honestly, people, this guy can barely write a complete sentence. How is he qualified to criticize a professional screenwriter for what is obviously an early draft of a script that will undergo countless revisions before the material makes it to the screen? And with so little of the draft actually discussed in any detail in this article, how can anyone reading the "review" be certain whether it's as bad as he claims or he's just a bitter fanboy who wasn't going to like the movie no matter what?
We've been through this before, folks. It's a remake of a classic horror film, featuring a new actor in a role made famous by someone else. I suppose it would be logical to assume that it won't work, had it not been done so well all the way back in 1957 with CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, or '58 with HORROR OF DRACULA. Just relax, for crying out loud!
This review has nothing to do with Retroslashers they just republished it after it was pulled from Moviehole.
Everything here was written - complete crap! The first part, of course, was good, but it was removed 25 years ago, now it looks not very much, and not the best in franchize "Nightmare on Elm Street". Nancy was a terrible character, and I was happy when she was killed in the third part. Let it bet "18, petite, approaching goth ", but did not blunt a good girl. Let the louse and the script, otherwise you will not be meaningless in the remake. If it will turn out well - we say:" hmm? It's awesome ", if not -" It's fucking bullshit "and forget about the film ...
Why remake a classic if they're not even going to try to do it well. I think the idiots who make movies just ran out of new ideas, so they are just butchering old ideas.