A Nightmare on Elm Street Rankings

He’s the boogeyman of your dreams- but which one cuts the deepest? 

9. Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare

At the bottom (top?) of the list goes the worst of the lowest tier of the Nightmare franchise. Lazy to the point of incoherence, and packed with unintentional comedy, left turns, and bizarre cameos such as the return of Johnny Depp as a character named Oprah Noodlemantra, the strengths of the franchise (sinister boogeyman, the hypnotically odd rhythms of the dream world, likable teen characters) are swapped for a film that seems more interested in promoting 3-d gimmickry than in sending Freddy off into the good night. Regardless of whether this was actually the last film in the franchise (it wasn’t), even a guy as mean as Freddy deserved a better send off.

8. A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child

Dream Child’s story features survivors Alice and Dan, last seen fighting Freddy in The Dream Master, as they go about having a baby. Because it’s a Nightmare film, Freddy has other ideas and wants to possess the baby to manifest himself in the real world. One of the less successful tendencies in the series is the trope of Freddy trying to come over to the real world. Freddy’s strengths and hypnotic fear over others is at its strongest in the dream world, and it’s when the series (which isn’t called Nightmare for nothing) is at its strongest. The film has some strengths in continuity of returning characters (the supportive relationship between Alice and her father is rare for a franchise that essentially either ignores or despises parents), there are some secondary characters who are more than just teenage fodder, and there are a couple of interesting Freddy encounters. But Dream Child is something closer to a David Lynch film (not a compliment), in its logic- or lack thereof. Watching Freddy try to convince a 5 year old (who hasn’t actually been born yet) why it would be a good idea to be born as him is a head scratcher, and similar to every other horror franchise, Freddy’s backstory (or rather his mother’s) isn’t that interesting. The film also misses the kinetic explosiveness of pt.4’s Renny Harlin for the action scenes, but it’s the confusing execution that ranks this installment where it lies.

7. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge

The first film in this list to possess a goofy coherence, and the most interesting film of the series. Mind you, that point of interest is not in its story about Freddy trying to possess male teenager Jesse so that he can roam about freely in the real world for victims- but for its rampant homophobia. For decades, writer David Chaskin claimed that any allusions regarding the film’s gay subtext were purely coincidental (which the film’s star, Mark Patton, himself gay, denied), however in 2010 Chaskin finally confessed that homophobia of the era in which he wrote the film (1985) did impact the story. Truth bomb ignited, this is a film about a young man who seems very confused about his relationship with his girlfriend, Lisa, and would rather spend time with his best friend, Ron (which Lisa guilts him about). Eventually, after some scenes of a gym teacher wearing a leather vest being whipped, a monster comes out of the closet Jesse to wreak havoc on society, and the only thing that can save the world is Jesse and Lisa’s love for each other. In a climate leaning more towards political correctness and tolerance, it’s problematic. Although the film’s trio of protagonists were an acting upgrade from the original film, the film itself was rushed into production after the original’s success, and Freddy can be borderline comical when seen in the real world. The film’s attempts to ape films like Carrie fall flat and feel cheap. The film’s most lasting legacy in the Nightmare mythology may be that all the things that made it unique were never replicated again, which is saying something for a slasher franchise that towards the end of its heyday was running on fumes.

6. Freddy vs. Jason

Entering into the middle tier of the franchise, after 7 Nightmare on Elm Street films, and 10 Friday the 13 films, it was pretty clear that there existed a market for a team up of the sadistic nightmare imagery of Freddy Krueger with the straight ahead hillbilly macabre of Jason Voorhees. But be careful what you wish for- similar to Freddy tricking Jason into reanimation before realizing Jason wants all the teenagers for himself, viewers have to reconcile that watching a quipping maniac endlessly shank an unkillable zombie hick to aggro guitar riffs isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. The ultimate dork fantasy concept brings into focus a lack of anyone not existing in a paranormal state actually being that interesting, and while it’s somewhat fun to watch Freddy toy with my least favourite horror villain of all time, the thrills (and glow stick covered rapists at corn field raves) run out of steam pretty quick.

5. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

Featuring the best art direction and action sequences of the franchise, director Renny Harlin (later of Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger fame) made what some refer to as the MTV version of Nightmare. Main character Alice (along with supportive boyfriend and father), finds that she has the power to absorb deceased character’s abilities in the dream world, leading to an empowering “Final Girl” showdown with Freddy (after perhaps the first horror movie suiting up montage). The film also features the best bloodless nightmare concept in the franchise, that of a time loop that characters can’t escape when trying to rescue their vulnerable friends- villain Robert Englund even claimed it was his favourite scene in the series. But from the moment Freddy is brought back to life by a dog named Jason’s fiery urine, right to the end credits where Freddy raps, this is a very silly film. Continuing the theme introduced in Dream Warriors of Freddy dispatching his victims according to their fears, for better or worse this has the most high school vibes of the franchise, and Dream Master was the first sign that the studio’s concept of Freddy was starting to grow stale.

4. A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

New Line decided to reboot the franchise, following the majority of the first film’s plot with new actors and a slicker look. In some ways, it’s an improvement. Better when it comes to how Freddy sounds (think nightmare James Maynard Keenan in full out Puscifer mode), and Rooney Mara in the iconic role of Nancy is a serious upgrade over Heather Langenkamp’s previous trio of protestations. But despite more updated effects, slicker doesn’t mean better- and the decision to make Freddy’s burnt face more medically accurate leads to an aesthetic that resembles Grig from The Last Starfighter. The film’s attempts to be more scientific regarding explaining sleep deprivation couldn’t change the fact that the film can’t overpower the original’s shadowy and awkward grubbiness- leading to the feeling that it’s already been done before. And the decision to change the storyline to the film’s protagonists actually being Freddy’s real world victims, means the film ignores the questions that arise when the protagonists have to account for childhoods their misguided parents have tried to erase, and non existent memories that they somehow have fully repressed. It’s an odd choice that compounds an uninspired film, and it serves as a forceful reminder of why the mysterious original is so special in the first place.

3. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

Entering into the top tier of the franchise, Dream Warriors features a wealth of talent. Wisely disregarding the pratfalls suffered from the “pray the gay away” first sequel of the series, it returns to the foundations set forth in the original. Introducing future Oscar Best Actress winner Patricia Arquette, who’s character of Kristen has the ability to pull people into her dreams, she ends up in a psychiatric hospital with other nightmare suffering teens (and a kind orderly by the name of Larry Fishburne). Series hero Heather Langenkamp returns as Nancy, this time as a dream psychologist, and the group bands together in combatting Freddy to develop abilities that they may not have in the real world, but can use in the dream world. While the film amps up its protagonists’ powers, the same can be said for Freddy, who introduces the nasty idea of dispatching his victims according to their worst fears- sometimes with a quip. Depending on your point of view, it really is the best sequel in the franchise (New Nightmare isn’t so much a sequel as a reimagining of the original). Dream Warriors returns to the original film’s context, and expands upon its ideas and characters while introducing new ones (some of them you really cheer for). To be honest, the only thing keeping it from being higher up on the list, is the story wrestles with if it wants to promote either Freddy, the star of a slasher movie (this is the first film in which he starts to lose his quiet menace in favour of becoming a stand up comedian), or its protagonists, who for a horror film have an unusual amount of character definition and camaraderie. It leads to some truly sad and defeatist deaths, almost a type of poor man’s Game of Thrones. That, and the return of some atrocious acting (this is also the first film in the franchise to feature a Bill Maher lookalike, but not the last for those of you interested in drinking games), and clumsy direction by Chuck Russell, is what keeps this installment from essentially being The Breakfast Club meets a hybrid of The Matrix and Inception. It could have been that solid- perhaps if Dream Master’s director Renny Harlin had made it instead?

2. Wes Craven’s New Nightmare

Taking place in the “real world”, Wes Craven’s reimagining of the Nightmare on Elm Street creates a meta film that seeks to reestablish Freddy Krueger’s mythology, re positioning Freddy from merely a character existing in a series of fictional horror films, into an evil that seeks to manifest itself in reality. Frustrated with the franchise’s increasingly incoherent attempts (see the list above) to play up Freddy’s hammy tendencies while dumbing down the Elm Street mythos, Craven had a number of the franchise’s more iconic actors play themselves, from series hero Heather Langenkamp, ultra villain regular Robert Englund, to New Line producer Robert Shayes, and of course Craven himself. Upping the meta factor, Craven’s character even checks in periodically throughout the film to update the characters about his progress on the script that we are currently watching. While the meta proves interesting, there are 2 new wrinkles. Freddy is given a makeover, looking more sinister and organic, while keeping the quipping to a minimum, which is welcome after so much high key stand up comedy in previous films. The other, is a welcome character addition to Heather’s fictional character of herself- that of her as a wife and mother. As mentioned before, when it comes to protecting their children, the adults depicted in the series typically range from indifferent to just destructive, so to watch Langenkamp confront what doesn’t feel is possible, and try to not be a co-conspirator to the villain’s attempts on her family is a welcome development. The film’s special effects can come across as modest, but the spark of inspiration in scenes involving phenomenon such as zero gravity, so vital in the original film, comes through. The original’s LOL dialogue at times can also return, dampening the fun, and by the film’s conclusion, the reality of fighting Freddy in some boiler room from hell had become a fantastic slog, but New Nightmare is a welcome addition to a overworked franchise. While the film did not do well at the box office, it would come to serve as the blueprint for Craven’s other successful horror franchise, the ultra meta Scream. A mostly rousing return to form who’s impact would be skewered afterwards by a low concept smash up and uninspired reboot.

1. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Writer/Director Wes Craven had already made some interesting horror films (Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, and Swamp Thing), but his idea of an updated take on the boogeyman, one that exclusively torments and dispatches teenagers from the Id realm of the unconscious, took the slasher sub-genre of the horror world by storm. Awash in that sensory feeling of a nightmare that is both familiar but foreign, viewers could connect with its teenage characters’ alienation from uncaring adults before showing them something all too mystifying in its dream state logic. Packed with iconic images to permanently reside in the shadow realm of the collective unconscious, the movie’s modest budget and special effects serve as a strength (innovative and effective), contributing to the film’s awkward, sinister, and mystifying dream paralysis. Operating out of the shadows, the iconic character of Freddy is introduced. Understanding that less is more, Freddy cuts an angular figure, and taunts and pokes fun- but he never jokes. He’s instrumental in creating environments that cause his victims to fear him, giving him power, and enabling his revenge on the teenagers of Elm Street. Freddy’s foil is also introduced, in the form of Nancy Thompson, who is brave and resourceful in facing her tormentor who wants to take everything from her, in short a great “Final Girl”. What isn’t great is some of the acting, and the movie’s ending (tacked on by a greedy studio) just plain sucks. But it’s a classic for a reason, and the copious amounts of sequels rubber stamped after the fact can’t change that.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

2010’s A Nightmare on Elm Street, directed by Samuel Bayer.

Starring Jackie Earle Haley, Rooney Mara, Kyle Gallner, Katie Cassidy, Thomas Dekker, Kellan Lutz, Clancy Brown, and Connie Britton.

What is it about?

The teenagers of Springwood, Ohio, are having unsettling dreams about a dream figure, a horribly burnt man, clad in a fedora and sporting a glove of razor blades. A group of American youth, Nancy (Rooney Mara), Kyle (Quentin Smith), Kris (Katie Cassidy), and Jesse (Thomas Dekker), try to support one another in understanding and combatting what they come to know as Freddy Krueger. Freddy has a mean streak, and also has an ace up his sleeve- he comes for you when you are at your most vulnerable, asleep in the dream world. Nancy’s mom, Gwen (Connie Britton), and Kyle’s father, Alan (Clancy Brown) are skeptical at first, but come to believe that Freddy is the stuff that nightmares are made of. Will the group survive Freddy’s efforts to make them sleep eternally?

Why is it worth seeing?

After a series of diminishing returns for the Nightmare franchise (and no movies since 2003’s underwhelming Freddy vs Jason), nobody really asked for a reboot of Wes Craven’s 1984 slasher classic. Still, given the original’s modest beginnings (which I argue are a strength), one could hope for a glossier and smoother take on the original’s material.


First and foremost, is the villain in the fedora, Christmas sweater, and bladed glove- and of course acidic wit. With Jackie Earle Haley stepping in Robert Englund’s place, after his take on Rorshach in Watchmen, there was a lot of potential in portraying the mocking villain. Haley and the film’s sound effect technicians do a great job of making Freddy’s ominous taunts resonate, a type of nightmare James Maynard Keenan in full out Puscifer mode. But as for his look, there seems to be a direction to make his facial burns more realistic- leading to an outcome of him resembling Grig from The Last Starfighter. It’s regrettable, as a large portion of Freddy’s flashbulb memories in a mind’s eye involves him not looking something akin to a turtle. Rooney Mara, as the iconic teenager Nancy who has to combat a serious boogeyman, is a serious upgrade over three time Nightmare participant Heather Langenkamp, and the main group of teens are mostly relatable.


As for the film’s story, the script veers away from the original’s tale of teens suffering for their parent’s transgressions. Instead, it veers into the territory that the teens themselves were abused by Freddy when they were children. It’s a regrettable choice, that a film that wants to show off its scientific mojo in the form of mild awareness of the effects of sleep deprivation on the mind, pays zero acknowledgement to how each and every one of the characters has so completely repressed their memories- while not noticing that their parents have tried to eliminate all evidence that their spawn used to be children at all. It’s a leap that can’t be bought realistically- and was actually a factoid that Wes Craven skirted when writing the original- depicting Freddy as a child murderer rather than molester, as Craven was trying to avoid being too close to a news cycle covering actual child molestation at the time.


Other than those changes, this is a film that largely runs on auto pilot, climbing the ghastly scaffolding already explored in the original. Even when given a chance to erase the original’s cynical ending, it whiffs. Straight from the generic opening credits, it replicates a movie renowned for its originality, and takes away a key feature of that very film that it’s trying to copy. It wastes an upgraded cast of teens, further cheapens an iconic horror villain, and generally waves its gloved hand at a mythology that is constantly under siege by Hollywood. Maybe Steven Siegel could try the role next?

Rating:
3/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Freddy vs Jason

2003’s Freddy vs Jason, written and directed by Ronny Yu.

Starring Robert Englund, Ken Kirzinger, Monica Keena, Jason Ritter, Kelly Rowland, Chris Marquette, Garry Chalk, Lochlyn Munro, Brendan Fletcher, and Kyle Labine.

What is it about?

Nightmare on Elm Street horror icon Freddy Krueger lies forgotten in hell, with no way to terrorize the teenagers of Springwood, Ohio, in their dreams anymore. Eager to get back in on the action, he recruits fellow horror icon Jason Voorhees (from the Friday the 13^th series) to increase the level of terror amongst teens so that Freddy can resurrect himself again. The only problem with Freddy’s plan, is that Jason proves himself so effective at eliminating teens that there could be no one left for Freddy once it’s all said and done. Freddy has to figure out how to un-create the monster he’s resurrected, a task easier said than done when Jason may be as un-killable as Freddy is unquenchable.

Why is it worth seeing?

After 7 Nightmare on Elm Street films, and 10 Friday the 13^th films, it was pretty clear that there existed a market for combining the sadistic nightmare imagery of Freddy Krueger with the straight ahead hillbilly macabre of Jason Voorhees. It turns out that the meeting of the 2 minds actually sat in development hell for years, before finally coming to multiplexes in 2003. I’m not sure why, as the material practically writes itself. For anyone who ever wanted to watch these 2 titans bang and clash against each other’s grisly bodies, the film delivers.

After a great deal of screen time previously devoted to demented figures killing teenagers, we ought to know what to expect by now. Freddy, ever the consummate showman, twisted and allegorical in the psychological tormenting of his victims, finds new prey to torture. His lack of satisfaction in his obscene body count in movies past speaks to a greater need that his franchise could never explain. But even the briefest of exposition regarding Freddy’s motivations is a Ph.D thesis in comparison to the hollowness that is Jason Voorhees’ backstory. His alleged invincibility is his most captivating feature- making for a rotten dude about as interesting as a dull machete. At least the script by Damien Shannon and Mark Swift understands that Jason is just as vulnerable in his Freddy controlled dreams as anyone else is, leading (briefly) to the most interesting exchanges of the movie- before ping pong game sounds are inserted for maximum comedic effect.


If only there were some characters to keep the 2 killers company. Bringing back the hungry horror titans requires plenty of fresh meat, and the perfectly bland assortment of non descript teens (dependably played by actors well past voting age) comes in handy for a film needing a moderate body count. Like any slasher film, it recognizes that you wouldn’t want to make anybody here too captivating, as well… see you later. Director Ronny Yu (who knows a little something about romance after his, Bride of Chucky), brings some pretty uninspiring sequences, preferring to cover up the lack of inspiration with green and especially blue lenses. Other than an iconic dock scene (with just one of the titular characters), he relies heavily on lightning strobe lights, and jump scares to try to jolt people awake who could be forgiven for snoozing while waiting for the main event to show up. When it finally does, it delivers- in a way that never could satisfy any more than Graeme Revell’s aggro guitar crunch score could. It’s likely the most inspirational thing about the film is that it didn’t inspire a host of sequels- getting laughed at for watching it once is enough.

Rating:
2.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Wes Craven’s New Nightmare

1994’s Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, written and directed by Wes Craven.

Starring Heather Langenkamp, Miko Hughes, David Newsom, Robert Englund, Tracy Middendorf, Wes Craven, Sarah Risher, Robert Shaye, John Saxon, and Tuesday Knight.

What is it about?

Set in the real world where the A Nightmare On Elm Street series is just a bunch of horror movies, New Nightmare stars Heather Langenkamp, as the actress who played Nancy Thompson in the original movie (and pt.3), who has been having nightmares about the movie character of Freddy Krueger. Heather’s husband, Chase (David Newsom), and their son, Dylan (Miko Hughes), also suffer from visions of the demented killer with the razor sharp glove. Nancy reaches out to original members of the cast (Robert Englund, Wes Craven, John Saxon) for help, but the only solution may be for life to imitate art as she plays Nancy one last time in an effort to take down Freddy for good.

Why is it worth seeing?

New Nightmare exists as an outlier to the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, connected but existing in a different universe, a welcoming feature. Despite possessing a unique and compelling feature of the slasher sub genre of horror, after 6 movies the franchise had grown increasingly stale and cynical, cranked out year after year to diminishing returns. By the release of Freddy’s Dead, pretty much all anyone could ask for was that whomever came up with the title was being honest. While Freddy does come back, it’s not to the original’s iconic setting of 1428 Elm Street of Springwood, Ohio- it’s here (specifically Los Angeles), in the real world.


One of the drawbacks of the previous sequels was the continual insistence on Freddy trying to manifest himself outside of the dream realm. It took away from the series strongest mythology, in Freddy’s strengths, his mastery of the unconscious, and the movies’ sharing with us that feeling his victims’ felt- that lack of control and logic while they underwent vulnerable Rapid Eye Movements. It’s the stuff of obscure madness. But writer/director Wes Craven, who created the series in the first place, has a new goal in mind- that Freddy, the antagonist of the fictional series (who after so many films had practically become a wise cracking protagonist), could leave the fictional world of film to instead inhabit reality. Craven, ever the mad scientist/auteur, creates a meta film in which he even plays himself, the writer/director of the series, who is finishing the script to the film we are watching as we watch it. It’s a clever (by half) trick, and its self aware musings would later serve as a blueprint for his other successful horror franchise, the ultra meta Scream.


Blessed with notoriety (Freddy Krueger is one of the most iconic horror villains of all time) and a (decent) budget, Craven sought to give his gloved maniac a makeover, and it works for the menacing boogeyman (although I’m in the camp that Freddy works best in the shadows with modest means of cutting up the competition). Another welcome wrinkle is how Heather isn’t just portraying the typical demographic of Nightmare films, that of teenagers, but is a wife and mother who has to try to defeat the series’ typically mocking portrayal of adults as hedonistic parents who suck at parenting. Her efforts to defend her son while she understands just what is affecting him pulls you in. So does the franchise’s return to zero gravity nightmares.


But the series continues to lose its way in how to combat Freddy- is the dude a manifestation of dream logic, or not? The number of ways to dispatch of him (before he inevitably returns again), are almost as numerous as his victims, and it makes one pine for the original’s depiction of a specter who could be ceased once the victim stopped believing in being a victim. It was empowering stuff, that required potential victims to not buy into what their senses were telling them while in an agitated state (powered by the ultimate agitator). Once the meta hijinks are explained there’s not really much to go over (much like the previous sequels’ habits of resurrecting Freddy with tricks like flaming dog urine), and some of the weaknesses in previous films persist (laugh out loud bad dialogue, bad acting, and bizarre situations- such as a psychiatric nurse who seems to believe she has the power to place children in foster care so they can be psychiatrically assessed). That, and effects that seem a little too ambitious for the team that is creating them, diminish our favourite Fedora clad monster.


Self aware and polished almost as sharp as the franchise icon’s razor fingers, once the clever premise is established we have no place to go but to where the franchise already has many times in the past. After a while, it all starts to feel like a nightmare.

Rating:
3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Freddy’s Dead, The Final Nightmare

1991’s Freddy’s Dead, The Final Nightmare, directed by Rachel Talalay.

Starring Lisa Zane, Robert Englund. Shon Greenblatt, Lezlie Deane, Ricky Dean Logan, Breckin Meyer, Yaphett Kotto, Tom Arnold, Roseanne Barr, and Johnny Depp.

What is it about?

Set many years after the events of the last Nightmare On Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, the town of Springwood, Ohio now is practically extinct from teenagers, with Freddy Kreuger (Robert Englund) killing all of them off. The town’s sole teenager, John Doe (Shon Greenblatt), after being hunted by Freddy, suffers amnesia, and is taken to a shelter for at risk youth. Dr. Maggie Burroughs (Lisa Zane) takes John, as well as teens Spencer (Breckin Meyer), Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan), and Tracy (Lezlie Deane), on a trip to Springwood to try to cure his amnesia. Eventually Freddy shows up, and it is revealed that there are family ties involved- will any of Freddy’s spawn be able to make concrete the film’s title?

Why is it worth seeing?

After 5 films of various degrees of quality, Freddy’s Dead knows exactly which side of the fence it resides on- the lame one. Virtually impossible to remember after viewing, its most remarkable feature is its naked attempt to revitalize cheap 3-d gimmickry. It’s also a hilarious movie- unintentionally. It accidentally switches protagonists- not Freddy, the real star who is the disfigured face of a franchise running on fumes who according to the title is going to die, but a character so anonymous he’s named John Doe accidentally is replaced by a different person as the film painstakingly chugs along. Its odd, but you’d be forgiven for not noticing since you were probably sleeping. You’d only be so lucky if Freddy would come for you.

The character of  Freddy has been morphing from a menacing figure in the shadows to a talk show-like comedian since Dream Warriors (pt.3 for those keeping score), but by this point even he seems bored with trying to find creative and innovative ways to eliminate his indifferent subjects. They’re frustrated- and he’s uninterested. Is there any wonder the audience feels the same way? Even the spunky aspects are hacked to pieces- not by Freddy’s iconic claws but by an inert screenplay.


The key to a successful horror franchise is rules. They exist to give us a framework for relating to unknown territory and tropes hitherto undiscovered. So what to make of how Freddie continues to kill in his victim’s sleep, but then erases people’s histories in the real world? Clearly the franchise is going in a different direction based off of the official computer typing noises being entered at the start of the movie- Freddy as a data manager. He’ll delete you if you’re not careful!


Full of odd cameos (Oprah Noodlemantra?) and forgettable characters (Bill Maher’s child?) making stupid decisions, it’s tough to care about a movie that cares so little about itself. It’s not often you want to get a therapist for Hollywood executives- but they can afford it when they’re laughing all the way to the bank.

Rating:1.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child

1989’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, directed by Stephen Hopkins.

Starring Lisa Wilcox, Robert Englund, Kelly Jo Minter, Erika Anderson, Danny Hassel, Nicholas Mele, and Beatrice Boepple.

What is it about?

Set 1 year after the events of the last Nightmare, survivors Alice (Lisa Wilcox) and Dan (Danny Hassel) become pregnant. Alice begins to have nightmares about the baby being born as Freddy Krueger, as Freddy hatches a plan to leave the dream world and manifest himself in the real one. Will Alice be able to use her maternal instincts to avoid losing custody of her child to a demonic monster?

Why is it worth seeing?

Dream Child represents the bottom tier of the A Nightmare on Elm Street series, a low point that actually may not be the lowest point of the series- a low water mark indicating New Line Cinema’s intentions for the franchise. Its lack of quality in terms of story, coherence, and overall cynicism makes it a clumsy and confusing slog. Of all the sins in cinemaland, perhaps the most egregious is making 90 minute films that feel like they drag. Some strengths working for it is the return of Dream Master’s protagonists, played by Lisa Wilcox and Danny Hassel (as well Nicholas Mele), fans of Freddy will not be disappointed by some of his creative choices in taking care of his favourite demographic group, and there’s even a (rather weak) argument that this film tries to tackle both maternal and pro choice themes. But, oh boy, is this a chore.


With a script by Leslie Bohem, it’s hard to say if they fully decided to embrace the dream logic of auteur David Lynch- but it definitely starts to feel like something out of Lost Highway, as the movie shifts in and out of consciousness and struggles to follow any of the rules that the previous 4 movies (generously) set out. I’d like to say that concretely trying to map out the story would energize (or at least motivate to complete) one’s viewing of the film, but it is just so unabashedly bat shit lazy that it’s frustrating- if you’re actually still watching.


Similar to the previous film, the character of Alice and a few of her friends make protagonists worth cheering on, and her relationship with her father (fighting through sobriety) is a nice touch. So is Robert Englund playing multiple roles, giving some exposure to him displaying more depth. But as viewers struggle to understand what is going on before launching into another Freddy kill sequence (now completely out of the shadows and auditioning for Open Mic night), it only reinforces that less is more and Freddy is always more potent as a shadowy dream figure who is always the next sleep away… Although I’m not sure, I think at one point Freddy tries to convince a young child (who hasn’t actually been born yet) why becoming him is the bees’ knees. It’s clear that Freddy, who can be memorably iconic at times, is a poor salesman, and needs to work on convincing unborn children in the dream world why giving up their life/future life to become him in reality is such a great proposition. Maybe get into multi level marketing instead?


Some of the effects are compliment worthy (there’s a memorably horrific motorcycle/human fusion, and a comic book metaphor that works), but others are just plain embarrassing. The director, Stephen Hopkins, has openly talked about not enjoying his time on the film, citing its issues due to not enough budget and the MPAA cutting some of the movie’s more graphic scenes, and it makes a little sense (Hopkins would give a far more solid showing later on Predator 2). In showing things such as a Escher-esque steps sequence, it displays the studio’s preference for showcasing effects work and a continuing insistence that Freddy, and not the more human teenagers combating him, are the star of the series. If that’s the case, hopefully the guy doesn’t get a talk show- he’d probably get cut.

Rating:

2/5

Trailer: Click Here.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

1988’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, directed by Renny Harlin.

Starring Lisa Wilcox, Robert Englund, Tuesday Knight, Ken Sagoes, Rodney Eastman, Danny Hassel, Andras Jones, Brooke Thiess, and Toy Newkirk.

What is it about?

A year after the events of Dream Warriors, Kristin (now played by Lisa Wilcox),  Kincaid (Ken Sagoes), and Joey (Rodney Eastman) are out of the psychiatric ward and back into high school with fellow friends Alice (Tuesday Night), Rick (Andras Jones), Debbie (Brooke Thiess), and Sheila (Toy Newkirk). Happy to focus on non fatal pursuits such as adolescent dramas, the group begins to dream again about Freddy Krueger. As in the past film, the characters have dream abilities, and further concentrate their powers to fight the iconic gloved maniac of the dream world. Will any of them survive Freddy’s attempts to rid Elm Street of teenagers?

Why is it worth seeing?

Fans of the Nightmare series’ focus on the dream world’s fantastic horror of a disfigured icon Freddy Krueger stalking his teenage prey will check it out, and Dream Warriors enthusiasts in particular will tune in to see if the previous sequel’s unusually high quality continues- and find that it doesn’t. Despite recruiting future action maestro Renny Harlin to direct (leading to what is likely the most kinetic of the Nightmare franchise’s films), Dream Master drops the series back around the tier that Freddy’s Dead inhabits.


There are strengths present. As in the previous film, Freddy remains as clever and sadistic as ever, always ready with a sharp quip, and to produce fatalities that continue its predecessor’s tendency to eliminate prey based off of their respective fears. He’s a long way from the quietly menacing figure in the first film. In the introduction of the character Alice, another “Final Girl” whom after a long period of trial and error, really boasts impressive moxie in facing her fears and using her abilities. Even more encouraging, is the relationship between her and her father (Nicholas Mele)- the series’ first positive portrayal of a parent (who in the past were typically portrayed at best as buffoons, and at worst sometimes the reason their teenagers suffer), which at times can be sweet. And Harlin makes scenes that really jump and explode, in a “dry” run to crowd pleasing entertainments such as Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger.


But Master is the first (but certainly not the last) Elm Street entry that feels as if it’s on auto pilot, merely riding a vehicle through an amusement park on grooves already established by previous films. The film’s choice to snuff out returning characters from previous installments (combined with Patricia Arquette choosing to not return to her role of Kristen), shows a level of cynicism that only increases the generic feeling of the installment. Master has been labeled as the “MTV video” of the series, but I feel like there needs to be a distinction made to that comment- it’s for the MTV video generation. It’s the most “high school” film of the series (which is saying something for a series exclusively about teenagers), with a group of kids actually hanging out at high school, going about their lives- before the wind machines start blowing fabric through long hallways of shadowy blue tinted scenes. Things get, creative. From Freddy showing his love for people pizza toppings, to animated numbers dancing around the screen, all it needs is Meatloaf declaring his manifesto for love while helicopters buzz behind him in slow motion. But there’s nowhere really to go- just how many times can we return to Freddy’s boiler room? It says a lot that the most effective nightmare sequence in the film is bloodless and has no fatalities, just an unlimited loop. But from the second a dog named Jason (ha ha?) urinates fire to bring Freddy back to life (he needs nitrogen people!), things feel arbitrary, or at least contractually studio obligated. It undermines the potency of the film’s final church scene, which is as empowering as it gets (after a comical “suiting up” montage- likely the first in horror movie history?). It all sets up a pattern of a franchise that can’t stop getting in its own way- maybe some dream therapy is in order.

Rating:

2.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

1987’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, directed by Chuck Russell.

Starring Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Patricia Arquette, Ken Sagoes, Jennifer Rubin, Ira Heidman, Rodney Eastman, Lawrence Fishburne, Bradley Gregg, Penelope Sudrow, and Robert Englund.

What is it about?

6 years after the events of the original Nightmare, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp), returns, working in a psychiatric hospital for teens. Overseen by Dr. Neil Gordon (Craig Wasson), she tries to convince him that the teens in the ward aren’t merely having bad dreams, but are actually being stalked by paranormal boogeyman of the nightmare realm, Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). The ward’s clients include Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette), who has the ability to pull people into her dreams, Kincaid (Ken Sagoes), Joey (Rodney Eastman), Taryn (Jennifer Rubin), and Will (Ira Heidman). Learning that the group has special powers to fight back against Freddy in the dream world, they set up to have their final encounter with the slasher icon.

Why is it worth seeing?

For fans of the original film, Dream Warriors is a return to form, paying homage to the first film while developing the story further. After the second film’s abandonment of the dream world mythology that was introduced in creator Wes Craven’s opening chapter, a significant portion of this film takes place in the dream world, and ups the ante in both its protagonists’ abilities and its antagonist’s personality.


Unfortunately, a return to the roots of the original also means the return of actress Heather Langenkamp. As stated before, the character of Nancy is a well suited “Final Girl”, quick with her wits, brave, and able to bring people together- but her prominence is a problem since she is the worst actor in the series (so far). Once contrasted with the second film’s performances of the perfunctory (but also weird) triangle of Mark Patton, Kim Myers, and Robert Rusler, it’s daunting how underwhelming Langenkamp can be with her line readings. The art department’s decision to “age” Nancy, in the form of a single grey stripe in her hair, does her no favours. As well, the return of John Saxon’s sheriff (now taking to the bottle after the first film’s baffling death of his wife), as well as the milquetoast introduction of Bill Maher Craig Wasson, is also DOA. Stacking the deck against them, is the welcome screen introduction of future Best Actress Oscar winner Patricia Arquette, not to mention a kind orderly who used to go by the name of Larry Fishburne. They expertly bring into focus the film’s shaky fulcrum with which to sink into the film’s more fantastic concepts.


Somewhere in the script, penned by the quartet of Wes Craven, Bruce Wagner, Frank Darabont, and Chuck Russell, lies incredibly potent potential. It expands upon the mythology of the series’ dream world, in the introduction of the mental institution’s teen characters learning how to synch up in their dreams and even lucidly dream- granting them abilities they don’t have in reality. This development also pairs up with a refreshingly dynamic group of characters who have interesting and defined personalities, a welcome addition not typically seen in slasher films where typically economy is maximized, at least until it’s killing time. It’s inspiring stuff- until it isn’t. The fact that this exists first and foremost as a slasher film means that scenes of characters being empowered are quickly undercut by Freddy’s druthers. After his introduction in the original, Freddy has also developed, both more as a sadist, and as a stand up comedian. The former development is welcome, bringing forth some genuinely nauseating and fearful conclusions to some of the vulnerable characters’ arcs, but the latter add-on cheapens the experience, hammering all subtlety in favour of sound bites that play well on trailers and to the cheap seats. It’s the focus on these things that make a predecessor of ideas resembling a mash up of The Breakfast Club meets The Matrix not go as far as it could. It’s disappointing, because it really has the legs to do such and does so intermittently at best.


You can see it in the opening credits, a tantalizingly ripe with metaphor construction, of therapeutic potential for people who dream of only nightmares, as well as in further scenes of characters navigating the dream world of a maniac. But Russell is no gifted film maker, and scenes of great potential are squandered, frustratingly close to greatness. His production, filled with onset tension, lacked a vision that lesser films’ in the series’ directors possessed. The same goes for the script, in that it struggles to maintain a balance between letting its beloved characters heal and fight together, and allowing its resident maniac to free range on the Jungian inspired fear of teenagers.


All of the pomp and circumstance pairs with a set design and vibe that can’t replicate the grubby awkwardness of the original, and struggles to advance the originals’ story as any good sequel can do. Content more to turn the volume up on its villain (and the cruelty in which he dispatches his victims), while also lazily introducing an oddly religious wrinkle (don’t want to alienate the church going crowd), it feels perverse that such an outlier to the slasher film pantheon could at times also feel so rote, but especially considering its exciting potential, so soon in the series run.

Rating:

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2- Freddy’s Revenge

1985’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 2- Freddy’s Revenge, directed by Jack Sholder.

Starring Mark Patton, Kim Myers, Robert Rusler, Clu Gulager, Sydney Walsh, Hope Lange, Marshall Bell, Melinda O. Fee, Tom McFadden, and Robert Englund.

What is it about?

Set 5 years after the events of the original A Nightmare on Elm Street, young Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton) is having nightmares about Freddy Kreuger, a disfigured man with razor blades on his fingers, who wants to possess Jesse’s body so he can transition from the dream world to reality. With his girlfriend, Lisa (Kim Myers), and friend, Ron (Robert Rusler), the 3 of them group together to fight Freddy and try to make sure their nightmare doesn’t become everybody’s.

Why is it worth seeing?

Audiences responded to Wes Craven’s original essay on what a boogeyman who comes after you in your sleep would look and sound like- the stuff of nightmares. After the success of pt. 1, Freddy’s Revenge was rushed into production- the first sign being the redundant title (Freddy’s character has always existed to exert revenge on the children of the parents who murdered him after he murdered… Never mind). Working with a larger budget, it features a more expansive approach, and wields a number of influences on its sleeve- neither thing necessarily an improvement to what would become a lengthy series.


The trio of Patton, Myers, and Rusler, give the sequel something the original never could- decent acting. While there are no Academy Award snubs, it puts some of the modest charms of the previous film’s “Final Girl” firmly in its rear view window. The results are the film feels more grounded, having relatable protagonists. It’s also smoother, with the more established Christopher Young taking over composing duties from choppy Charles Bernstein’s efforts of the original. Another thing it features that the original didn’t- is a gay/homoerotic subtext. Always present, but never concretely explained or fleshed out, the character of Jesse (or is it writer David Chaskin, who has a complicated history in explaining the film’s motivations?) clearly has some conflicted feelings to explore- but not until this whole demonic possession/I just killed my friends while possessed thing, is worked out. While the film’s underlying repression may have been a reaction to events such as the AIDS epidemic and society’s feelings on gay culture at the time, it’s an interesting thing to trojan horse into a film lacking a Final Girl (“You go, uh… boy”). What’s even more interesting is the conclusion I was forced to come to after both watching the film and reflecting for a few seconds- that the character of Jesse has a gay monster hiding inside of him, and no matter how hard he tries, he can’t control it. Once the monster is out, it will run around society and wreak untold havoc on innocent citizens. In other words, it’s as awful as it is homophobic. It also leads to the most memorably gross coming out scene in movie history.


Smoother production and secret gay agenda established, it’s unfortunate how little the rest of the film offers. Likely the result of the production’s rushed timeframe, is the overall plot involving Freddy trying to manifest himself in reality. While it makes sense to put Freddy’s physicality in reality when you’re doodling on a cocktail napkin during a fevered Hollywood pitch session, the strength of the Nightmare series is always in its nocturnal settings of strange unconscious dreamscapes- and being helpless to seeing others go through that in reality. Capturing that hopeless feeling of running around in circles while a threat runs for you, the second film offers a strange dynamic in which Freddy running around in public feels more than a little like an unemployed thespian sprinting around a murder mystery party. Despite Freddy maintaining his somewhat omnipotent paranormal powers, it leaves for little scene inspiration beyond what Brian De Palma did so much better in the pivotal scene of Carrie. The lack of inspiration goes double for the film’s conclusion, where apparently, love can conquer all. Filled with hilariously ineffective props and a bizarre Alien reference, pt.2 feels smoother than the original but does far less, and the film’s success guarantees a sequel. No word on its gender or sexuality politics at this point.

Rating:

2.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

1984’s A Nightmare on Elm Street, written and directed by Wes Craven.

Starring Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Ronee Blakely, Johnny Depp, Jsu Garcia, Amanda Wyss, and Robert Englund.

What is it about?

Teenagers in Springwood, Ohio, are having unsettling dreams about a dream figure, a horribly burnt man, clad in a fedora and sporting a glove of razor blades. A quartet of American youth, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp), Glen (Johnny Depp), Tina (Ronee Blakely), and Rod (Jsu Garcia), try to support one another in understanding and combatting what they come to know as Fred Krueger. Fred has a mean streak, and also has an ace up his sleeve- he comes for you when you are at your most vulnerable, when you’re asleep in the dream world. Nancy’s dad, Lieutenant Thompson (John Saxon), and mother, Marge (Ronee Blakely) are skeptical at first, but come to believe that Krueger, is the stuff that nightmares are made of. Will the group survive Krueger’s efforts to make them sleep eternally?

Why is it worth seeing?

Hollywood has worshipped its monsters for as long as tinseltown has been around. Primal creatures such as Nosferatu, the Mummy, and Frankenstein’s Monster, eventually evolved into the 1970/80’s phenomenon of horror’s sub genre of slasher films. While the often exploitative era had its share of faddish and non memorable efforts, it also produced a gaggle of 2.0 monstars- Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, Pinhead, Leatherface… and (eventually come to be known as) Freddy Krueger, the starring Nightmare antagonist, he of the razor sharp wit (not to mention finger blades).


With his gloved entry into the franchise slasher sweepstakes, Writer/Director Wes Craven came relatively late to the party (there were already multiple Friday the 13^th and Halloween films already in existence), but he brought a refreshing level of originality to an already saturated sub genre. His unique story, of a boogeyman who comes for you in your sleep. sought to transform the standardized plateau of monsters stalking horny teenagers, into something new again. Awash in that sensory feeling of a nightmare that is both familiar but foreign, viewers could connect with its teenage characters’ alienation from uncaring adults before showing them something all too mystifying in its dream state logic.


That mysterious something, as shown in the grungy opening credits, is the disfigured figure of Fred Krueger. While he cuts a menacing figure, angular in body and fedora clad in head wear, what makes him stand out is that he is not content to merely eliminate his victims. Rather, he toys with them, feeding on their fear to thrive and grow in power. His sadism, coupled with matter of fact taunting, makes for an appropriately iconic and charismatic figure- the stuff franchises are made of. Actor Robert Englund, hardly an imposing figure, makes for a more agile and character filled monster than the typical wrestling behemoths seen behind the masks of most slasher films. But Fred(dy) isn’t the only franchise figure introduced here. Every respectable horror franchise has its “Final Girl”, and here we meet actor Heather Langenkamp. Her character of Nancy, as far as the screenplay is concerned, goes farther than most horror film stars do, credible as being terrified and confused by the horror she is living through, while still being able to go on the offensive, as competing against Fred(dy) demands. It’s just a shame that Langenkamp isn’t up to the task. She’s not alone though- other than its disfigured antagonist, the actors portrayed here generally have no business campaigning for an Best Actor Oscar nomination (although Johnny Depp has a memorable debut, as well as a final scene for the ages). Watching a cast of adults (Langenkamp herself was 19 when making this) pretend (poorly) to be teenagers, alongside adults pretending to be adults (John Saxon’s portrayal of the beleaguered sheriff almost veers into camp), can feel like a nightmare. That, and a script that betrays teenagers as people not really that interesting, speak to the commonplace struggles of the slasher sub-genre- that is, characters whom you are tempted to root for their demise.


Craven’s creation of a mythological dream realm creature is helped along by some impressively organic (and gross) practical effects. From Fred(dy)’s head poking through a wall, to a glove in the bathtub, to a geyser erupting out of a bed, to a zero gravity struggle, it all combines to reinforce that while the realm of the dream world is a scary place, what is even more memory searing is watching a person go through that scary place while you’re stuck helpless in reality. While the film has a reported budget of $1.8 million, it is a very dark, crude, and almost diagonal when it could just go straight-ahead experience. Speaking of straight ahead, something that robs the film of a good ending is the studio’s insistence on what stayed in the final cut. Craven’s original ending, where we learn of how much influence the belief in Fred(dy) actually carries, was followed by a bizarre but clearly intended for a sequel conclusion that is something more reminiscent of Monty Python than a horror franchise. But that’s the thing about Hollywood- they’re living in a dream world, and sometimes we are lucky enough to meet dream warriors who can buck the system for a limited time.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Short Term 12

2013’s Short Term 12, written and directed by Destin Daniel Cretton.

Starring Brie Larson, Kaitlyn Dever, LaKeith Stanfield, Rami Malek, John Gallagher Jr, Stephanie Beatriz, and Melora Walters.

What is it about?

Short Term 12 is a film about a group of dedicated group home staff, working at a secured residential care facility, and the at-risk teenagers living there through placement by child protection social workers. Team Leader Grace (Brie Larson) leads the squad, with her staff team of Mason (John Gallagher Jr), Jessica (Stephanie Beatriz), and newcomer Nate (Rami Malek). They have their hands full with their clients, some about to “age out” like Marcus (LaKeith Stanfield), and spunky new intake, Jayden (Kaitlyn Dever). While their work provides its challenges, Grace and Mason are going through a tumultuous time in their personal lives as a couple, moving past their respective pasts as adults who themselves were abused as children. Will the centre hold?

Why is it worth seeing?

Group Care is a tranche of the Social Work/Care industry that involves temporarily taking in children from their home environment, and placing them in a facility with paid staff. It’s an intense field, with tremendous amounts of employer need (lots of staff needed for facilities that operate 24 hours a day), and even more heart required, to serve clients who are going through all sorts of trauma, while still having to go through the already fraught life of being a teenager. In other words, it’s not easy. The only thing almost as challenging as the work, is explaining it to somebody who’s never done it before. In terms of showing the prickly and warm world of residential care, the cinematic world is essentially a desert, a completely parched environment awash in ignorance as to how it works. I still remember the hilariously misguided dismissal group care received in 1993’s Benny and June, where a character’s living situation was discussed in horror, at the prospect of them living in a group home. Short Term 12, one of those films where I’m upset it took me so long to get to, explains better than anything I’ve seen, what the job, not necessarily looks like- but feels like. The camaraderie, the unexpected joy, the adrenaline, the buzz of doing one’s life’s work.

Just what sorts of characters does the job attract? Short supposes it’s those with the most to give- not literally of course, as that would logically be people who didn’t start off with a bum hand in the poker game of life, those children who weren’t abused and grew up into adulthood as adjusted as can be. Instead, it’s the lot of us whom have something inside of us, a never ending toxin, that rarely seems able to be poured out of our bodies unless it’s in the process of helping those that we recognize as having that same poison. Why else work bizarre, unpredictable, and inconsistent hours in order to help those in crisis? Why else come to work every day prepared to take verbal and physical abuse, to watch children hurt each other and themselves? It requires a soul grafted of steel. It’s the perfect milieu for actors giving it their all- naturalistic, histrionic, calm, hysterical. The work of Larson, of Stanfield, and Dever, deliver memorable and biting scenes that are difficult to detach from the hippocampus. You try to, as a character questions if childhood injuries are visible in their freshly shaved head… Same with the monologue about 2 aquatic friends that is one of the saddest things one can ever hear.


Of course, one of the potential challenges with people who have so much incentive to do good, to help others in peril, is a lack of boundaries. We see it in Grace and Mason’s relationship, in which they bubble through teens’ drama, wobbling between professional and adult friend, and then go home to work through their own dramas. It can be a strength of course, making for an excellent way to build relationships with clients- until it’s not. Cretton’s script, regarding some of the decisions that the staff members make in response to their client’s crises, might make for drama, but if doctors can’t make house calls probably group home staff shouldn’t either? Things start to take a rather bizarre turn when a character breaks into one of their client’s parent’s houses. It’s the sort of thing that might connect with clients- but also can get you arrested in real life. That, and other story apexes here run like clockwork- 45 minutes in, everything in crisis, and all ready to be tidied up at the 90^th minute. It’s a fault that takes away from the film’s overall aspects, but rarely takes away from the emotion of these chaotically enmeshed people so expertly portrayed. While the film making gears are painfully obvious, when they whir together they make beautiful music.

Rating:

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.