We saw A Nightmare On Elm Street on Friday night and, uh...well it depends on how you look at it.

I've had time to think, and I wouldn't classify it as "terrible." There wasn't much imagination and there certainly were some blown opportunities, but that's always the case with these remakes -- especially in the eyes of those who grew up loving the originals. There comes a point when we have to realize that these movies aren't really made for "us," but rather a new generation of moviegoers who know the basics, know the story, and in this case, know Freddy, but who aren't so obsessed that they'll go into theaters ready to pounce on anything that could have been better.

I'm trying to be fair. We were in a packed house, and everyone was having a great time. They reacted to the scares and kills. They turned bad dialogue into unintentional comedy. They laughed at Freddy -- but in a good way. They cheered when a scene called for them to.

So, when I read critics' reviews, filled with stuff like "by the numbers" and "soulless" and blah blah blah, part of me wants to join in. But another part of me understands that that's all these movies ever were, and largely, it's all they're meant to be.

If nothing else, I thought it was miles ahead of the Friday the 13th remake.

Lest anyone mistake this as a outright positive review from a NOES diehard, NO. There were problems. The scare tactics too often relied on simple "boo" tactics, and the only kill scenes that seemed "energetic" were the ones they aped from the original films. Go back to one of the earlier movies, let's say Dream Child, and you're looking at some pretty clever ways to kill off teenagers. That was missing here. For the most part, this "slasher" film was pretty literal.

As for Jackie Earle Haley's Freddy Krueger, he did what he could, but if you were of the mind that Robert Englund should have continued on in the role, Haley isn't going to do much to change your opinion. Freddy belongs to Englund, and nobody will ever do it better. Knowing that, there should've been a bigger effort from all involved to make this particular incarnation distinct from Englund's.

Diehards may not be too fond of Freddy's origin story as told here. Without spoiling, the movie leaves little to the imagination as it relates to what Freddy was and did during his human life. Some will cry "TMI," but I didn't mind it. It was one of the few parts of the film that really showed some balls. Despite the "R" rating, this is still a mass-consumption popcorn movie, and they could've been more safe and "abstract" about who Freddy was before becoming the monster. Here, that's actually the scariest part of the film. Plus, it makes the conflict between Freddy and his would-be victims a hell of a lot more personal than it's been in the past. The more I think about it, the more it seems to work.

I was underwhelmed when we left the theater, but my expectations were unreasonable. Let's be objective. If you're not a militant purist, it's not so bad, and it's better than most of the slasher remakes that it will inevitably be compared to. Great movie? No. Impressive franchise reset? Nah. Worth seeing? Why not?

Posted by Matt on 05/03/2010. E-mail me!