One, two, Freddy’s coming for you…

Just hearing the start of this little tune is enough to send chills down anyone’s spine. Without a doubt, one of -- if not the -- most infamous killers in the pantheon of the horror genre is Freddy Krueger. When Wes Craven brought this menace to life (in no small part thanks to Robert Englund) back in 1984, he invigorated a stale genre and helped build New Line into a successful studio. And while the character, the franchise and even the studio were eventually beaten to death, the legacy of the original A Nightmare on Elm Street has continued to live on.

After the development and initial success of the remake of Friday the 13th last year, it was fairly obvious that a similar treatment of Nightmare would eventually show up. And while Friday was a rather lovingly made homage of ridiculous cheese based around the first handful of films in that series, Nightmare sticks entirely to being a remake/reimagining of the original film. Nancy (Rooney Mara) and her friends are all being plagued by nightmares involving a creepy burn victim named Freddy (Jackie Earle Haley) who has a habit of waving around a rather sadistic looking glove with blades on the fingers. The bodies begin to pile up, and they quickly realize they need to avoid falling asleep or they may die too.

Right from the opening credits and prologue sequence, I knew the film was going to take itself much too seriously. While Friday was played mainly for laughs and seemed rather keenly aware of its ridiculously goofy brethren, this film often seems to forget the fun packed into some of the original Nightmare films. Even in its most ludicrous sequences, the film plays itself out straight-faced and dead serious. Sure, there are plenty of intentionally funny moments, but the cast (outside of Earle Haley) never seem able to waver into showcasing anything even remotely humorous. They just stare, frown, scream and freak out on cue, and have no other visible forms of expression. I doubt the filmmakers really hoped the audience would laugh at how unintentionally hilarious some of the more deliberately serious moments become, but there is no possible way to not find yourself laughing at how laborious some scenes feel.

These scenes are not helped by the fact that there is virtually zero charisma from any of the actors on screen. Sure, audiences flock to movies like Nightmare because they want to see the silly teenagers get butchered and killed in increasingly violent fashion. But for a film that seems to pride itself on how serious it is, I found almost every character was devoid of personality or any reason to even attempt caring about them. We felt for Heather Langenkamp and her struggle to stay alive in the original film. Here, I could care less for any of these characters. Even the parents (played by Connie Britton and a sadly underused Clancy Brown) seem to be stretching to their limits to make their characters matter in the grand scheme of things. I was not expecting depth and development, but I was expecting some form of tangible reason for not wishing all of these kids were brutally murdered rather quickly. Sadly, the filmmakers did not feel the same way.

The film’s visuals fare a little better, but not by much. Many scenes from the original Nightmare pop up in the remake, and the majority of them work quite well. They do not necessarily look or feel original, but they do a decent job working as a credit to the work done previously. But some of the more inventive elements just look half-assed, and the use of CGI seems a bit excessive in some instances. Obviously, the original film did not have the benefit of being able to use the more advanced effects filmmakers can use today. But then what is the excuse for at least one of the redone scenes to look even more fake than it did in 1984? Not every scene is plagued by bad CGI, but the ones that are look and feel cheaply thrown together. I was not originally disappointed by the effects, but looking back, they could have done so much more with them. They feel too basic, too confined, not stretched to the limits of one’s imagination and one’s dreams.

I already pointed out that the film stays within the limits of redoing the first Nightmare, and not plodding its way into the subsequent sequels for usable material. And -- unfortunately -- this stems into an inability for the filmmakers to really make the visuals their own. They are not terrible and totally wasted, but they could have been much stronger. Though I did dig hearing a few of the same musical cues from the original film being replayed here. That was a great touch on first-time director Samuel Bayer’s part, as was the lack of an idiotic 3D element to the film. I can only pray the proposed sequel does not actually go into that direction, as is planned.

Another element I surprisingly enjoyed was the small hint of backstory they gave Freddy. We are never really given a complete background on the character in any one of the franchise’s eight films (merely pieces we had to connect ourselves), but here he is given a small but substantial history. And while other remakes like Friday, Halloween and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre humanized and made us feel for the monsters at the heart of each film, we never lose sight of how sick and deranged a character Freddy Krueger is. We only end up feeling more disgusted. Thankfully, the film does not dwell on the origins of the character, but I did enjoy what writers Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer did with him, and how he ties back to the main cast of teenagers. It was a nice touch, and one I was thankful did not ruin or alter the audience’s perception of the Freddy and his actions.

But the real only reason anyone should watch the film is for Earle Haley’s interpretation of Freddy. Englund was, is, and always will be Freddy Krueger. He is unable to shake being synonymous with the character, and it is doubtful he will ever play another quite as engaging or as beloved. Comeback kid Earle Haley, a master at playing the bizarre and the creepy, is the only working actor I can think of that could even come close to making a somewhat watchable performance in comparison. And while he does not quite surpass Englund’s masterful performance as the vicious killer, he puts his own creepy and terrifying mark on the character. He plays him as both horrifying and hilarious all in one breath. The voice is a bit too close to Rorschach, but his threatening and eerie tone is more than enough to be scary. His awesome performance is only complimented by his repulsively vile makeup that makes the character actually look like a burn victim. The man is terrifying enough without makeup; adding it only makes him worse. He is the only consistently great element in the film, and is the only one who appears to be having any fun with their role. He makes it worth the price of admission alone.

A Nightmare on Elm Street is not a good remake, but it is not quite all bad either. Anyone expecting to see the original Craven classic will sadly be disappointed when they leave. That film was not incredibly great either, but it had all of the right elements to make it the legendary movie it eventually became (outside of the thrown together finale). This remake, on the other hand, just feels like a missed opportunity for greatness. It has a few of the right elements in play, and an incredibly awesome lead in Earle Haley, but the movie just falls apart under its own weight. It is decent, but merely just. It was enjoyable to watch in a theatre with a big audience, but I doubt it will have any replayability when it comes to DVD and Blu-ray in its unrated form later this summer.

But it is a worthwhile watch for anyone interested in Earle Haley’s take on the classic character. I just wish the movie was as much fun as he seems to be having playing the part.

-- David Baldwin