Official Noes Remake Review Thread!

[🪦 mpetrie ●]

Curious... how could we make a Nightmare on Elm Street truly scary once again? The concept is old and tired, the character is already well known, etc etc etc. Does anyone have any ideas as to how ANOES film could be made to truly be scary again?

[🪦 JOEY ●]

Question...If this were called "A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 8" or so, and Robert Englund played Freddy, and the film was pretty much the same, minus the lead named Nancy, would it still be getting all of the hate?

[🪦 dean7879 ●]

<!--quoteo(post=361385:date=May 11 2010, 12:30 AM:name=knifegloves.com)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (knifegloves.com @ May 11 2010, 12:30 AM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=361385\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecCurious... how could we make a Nightmare on Elm Street truly scary once again? The concept is old and tired, the character is already well known, etc etc etc. Does anyone have any ideas as to how ANOES film could be made to truly be scary again?<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndpersonally i wouldn't even try to make another elm street movie. But........If there really has to be more, then it COULD be easy to make the movies scary again. All it takes is time and thought. A good script and a good director who knows how to create suspence.People were asking after the last few Elm Street movies ''Gee, Freddy and the series has become a joke, how can they make it scary again.Answer?........Wes Cravens New Nightmare. He kept things simple and didn't rely on cheap scares. Although the concept is old and tired , they could still make the series scary if only they weren't so lazy. i mean why hire a dodgy director? why use lots of cgi? why use lots of crappy jump scares?The remake could of been very good if some thought had gone into some of the scenes.<!--quoteo(post=361386:date=May 11 2010, 12:34 AM:name=Drifting Turd)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (Drifting Turd @ May 11 2010, 12:34 AM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=361386\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecQuestion...If this were called "A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 8" or so, and Robert Englund played Freddy, and the film was pretty much the same, minus the lead named Nancy, would it still be getting all of the hate?<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndYes probably if it were in the same mold as part 5 and 6. I pretty much hate the Nightmare part 5 and Freddy's dead because they are truly rubbish.

[🪦 carter1010 ●]

Good questions both Knivegloves and Drifting Turd. I read both these posts and just had to respond to both these questions. To make Nightmare scary you have to do what Wes did in the first one. He once said that a to be a scary film you have to be scared of the director and where he is taking you. For the remake, I was never afraid for what the director would or would not show me. Rob Zombie has that ability as does Takashi Miike. There are others as well, but in my opinion these directors start a film off and leave you concerned for how far it may go. Scary, maybe not, disturbing, shocking, yes. Tie that in with a bit of what paranormal activity did as far as genuine suspense and not giving every thing away in the first few minutes and you may have something. It takes a lot of work for something to be truly scary. The only films that actually scared me are the Exorcist, Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity, Sixth Sense, the 4th Kind, and I am sure there are others but there is a pattern to what scares me. None of these films show you much and let your mind play on things a bit more. The fact that we all know Freddy and know the story makes it that much more difficult to pull off something new and exciting. And the director of the remake failed on both those counts if you ask me. As for if it would be solid sequel if you put Robert in and changed the story a bit I would have to say that even if JEH played the role, you removed nancy and changed the story a bit it would have been the best sequel ever. The problem is as a reboot, it didn't do enough to say I am different, unpredictable and as menacing as Freddy could be. I picture Freddy as the culmination of every sick child molester and serial killer on the planet except he also has super powers. Something so evil its beyond comprehension. That is what I want to see onscreen. Match that up with a hero that is as helpless as freddy is evil but has a relentless drive to persevere and you may have something. Make me uncomfortable. Make my stomach hurt and make me feel like I need to wash after the film.

[🪦 JOEY ●]

<!--quoteo(post=361389:date=May 10 2010, 07:46 PM:name=dean7879)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (dean7879 @ May 10 2010, 07:46 PM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=361389\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecYes probably if it were in the same mold as part 5 and 6. I pretty much hate the Nightmare part 5 and Freddy's dead because they are truly rubbish.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndIndeed, it doesn't get worse than FREDDY'S DEAD, with part 5 following close behind.I know Freddy was starting to become a funny man with part 3 and more so with the next 3 sequels, but I loved the heck outta part 4. I dug the creepy look to the Elm Street house from 3 and 4. Freddy just got rediculous with 5 and 6. It was refreshing for me to see a more serious/darker Freddy with this remake.

[🪦 Megatron ●]

well im 2 weeks late but i gave this movie a shot.......after viewing the film and despite what the critics had to say, the film was pretty good...not as good as the original but i eliminated the thought of having viewed the original and just watched the remake as if it was a original movie...the pacing of the movie wasn't that bad although i wished that they went into more depth and given each of the teenagers a better introduction to freddy in their dreams......Kris's introduction was done well but i wished that more time was given to nancy and the rest of the teenagers so it would keep us interested in what will happen to the teenagers....the film was too straight forward and i could already tell who was going to die or not....the dream atmosphere was a little flat but i guess the makers wanted a realistic approach of what's reality and what's not...a big part that was missing in the film was the glove's origins but hey, that are what sequels are for right?....finally, as far as JEH's performance as freddy goes, he did a good job......very creepy and CREEPY!! he has every trait of a child molester killer that you do not want to see in your dreams....BUT the final scenes between nancy and him was a little soap opera-ish..they should've kept freddy's dialogue at a minimum............overall despite its flaws, good film..not GREAT but good........8.0 for me..................................

[🪦 DarklyScanner ●]

This film was boring for a simple reason. Well, besides Robert Englund not playing Freddy. That's just stupid in its own way. But the remake's problem was too chicken Sheep to go into Freddy's backstory. Freddy by far has the most interesting backstory of any of the horror icons he's apart of. If they considered only part 1 and 3 canon, it could have been perfect. But the problem is that this remake was too afraid to go all the way. If they really wanted to make Freddy scary, they should have shown what the old films never could. Don't just show us one flashback scene and a short montage. It didn't do enough to make anyone afraid of Freddy. And the whole idea that everyone of those kids had amnesia was mind boggling dumb. It's already enough that they're asking you to believe Freddy exists and is real... but they're asking us to believe all these kids don't remember anything at all on top of it? Not even one of them?! It was dumb. It could have worked with maybe two of them, but not all of them. That was way too convenient. The emo kid should have been the one who remembered but nobody ever believed. It would have at least made him more interesting. Have him be a kid who moved away and is back and stirs up all the memories of Freddy and that's what's bringing him back through their nightmares. But I guess that would have been too much to handle. Slash and dice, slash and dice. I consider this one closer to Nightmare on Elm Street 2 than the first or any of the rest. At least 4, 5, and 6 knew they were trying to be funny about it. Making fun of those movies for making Freddy a jokester is redundant. This one was just boring. At least Part 2 was funny because it was so gay. This one is a nice glass of warm milk without even a Chips Ahoy.

[🪦 puckface ●]

I'm still baffled as to why so many people would want Robert to return for a r-e-m-a-k-e . The whole point of a r-e-m-a-k-e is to start fresh, retell the story, and do so with different actors and or characters all together.It'd be like remaking Ferris Bueller's Day Off and asking Matthew Broderick to return as the 17 year old rebel, school skipping teenager. It just wouldn't work.

[🪦 DrenTheLiar ●]

<!--quoteo(post=362460:date=May 15 2010, 10:34 AM:name=puckface)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (puckface @ May 15 2010, 10:34 AM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362460\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecI'm still baffled as to why so many people would want Robert to return for a r-e-m-a-k-e . The whole point of a r-e-m-a-k-e is to start fresh, retell the story, and do so with different actors and or characters all together.It'd be like remaking Ferris Bueller's Day Off and asking Matthew Broderick to return as the 17 year old rebel, school skipping teenager. It just wouldn't work.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndPrecisely!And a horror movie is a horror movie and while it may not be scary to us (because we are so numb to all the scares) it'll more than likely make a ton of general audiences crap their pants.

[🪦 DarklyScanner ●]

<!--quoteo(post=362460:date=May 15 2010, 07:34 AM:name=puckface)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (puckface @ May 15 2010, 07:34 AM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362460\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecI'm still baffled as to why so many people would want Robert to return for a r-e-m-a-k-e . The whole point of a r-e-m-a-k-e is to start fresh, retell the story, and do so with different actors and or characters all together.It'd be like remaking Ferris Bueller's Day Off and asking Matthew Broderick to return as the 17 year old rebel, school skipping teenager. It just wouldn't work.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndMy comment wasn't even suggesting that Englund should have played the remake Freddy. I was pointing out how dumb it is to have somebody else play a role so iconic when Englund is alive and well. It's not the same as a random stunt man playing that guy with the Shape or Jason. Freddy and Englund are synonymous because he created the character along with Wes Craven. Jackie Earle Hayley is only 13 years younger than Englund. So age has NOTHING to do with the argument. Your comparison is flat out terrible as I'm not saying Englund should play a teenager, but a role where he's in prosthetic makeup where age makes no difference. If anything, it's obvious I'm saying the remake was pointless, which it is.But again, seeing as you clearly are terrible at reading posts and writing internet sarcasm, I'd say you probably missed the point since you only looked at one sentence of my entire review and just decided to nitpick on something I clearly wrote in jest. But that's okay. I forgive you.