New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mel O&#039;Drama" data-source="post: 439233" data-attributes="member: 23">Forty two years on, I've now finally got around to watching... A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) <img src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmarqueeposter.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fposters%2F1-nightmare-on-elm-street-uk-double-crown-1984%2F1-nightmare-on-elm-street-uk-double-crown-1984-01-851x1200.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b2b97db9a316cb251331c391073d30166cdf253dc9ec892a3aada2aec5b772e8" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="width: 591px" /> Considering I have never sat through a single film in this series, I feel I knew an awful lot about this film beforehand. From its premise to its protagonist and his backstory to its final girl. There are even some key scenes lodged in my memory banks, presumably from out of context clips.As mentioned above,  Freddy Krueger was considered the screen villain among my peers... at least that's what I gleaned from their discussions. I would never have been allowed to watch an 18-rated film (as it was then, though the BBFC downgraded it to a 15 less than two years ago), and I had no interest in seeking out horror anyway as I was already that nervous kid with the overactive imagination.Even when I belatedly became interested in horror, the Nightmare franchise simply didn't appeal; its premise,  its antagonist and its scenarios seeming too fantastical and "out there" for my tastes. Still, though, I know that the original film is widely regarded as a classic ("but the rest sucked").There's lots to please. Fred Krueger (he's not yet Freddy) is kept in the shadows - figuratively and literally - for much of the story, his identity and motives unclear... until they are. It does a nice job of creating the myth around its boogeyman, without giving too much away (the sequels, I'm sure, came to lean too heavily into "giving the audience what they want" by having everything too visible and open). There's a purity here, and the idea of this character is a creepy one. That seems to be this film's thing. The scares come from its creepy visuals which are disturbing at times, appropriately enough for nightmares. There are a few jump scares, but they don't resonate nor hit as hard as the imagery of Tina's body being dragged around in a body bag while moving unnaturally, or the trail of flaming footsteps leading from the cellar to the second storey.I confess to feeling disappointed after hearing the young character's names in the opening scenes as it dawned on me that the girl in the opening scene wasn't Nancy. I found Tina more interesting, though I also like that for anyone viewing without knowledge, it seemed Tina might be the film's protagonist before she was quickly killed off. When I realised which character was Nancy I wasn't thrilled at the prospect of her being our key heroine. I suppose she's an interesting choice in that she's neither a stunner nor a geek. She's just an average girl, which I suppose is the point. But for a character who has been frequently cited as an icon, it's underwhelming to say the least.Unlike the teenagers in films such as Halloween or Scream, Langenkamp does actually convince as a fifteen year old. This adds to the film's power for its increased threat, but it also makes the film feel more exploitative due to a number of shots in which there is partial nudity, as well as that sexualised visual in the bath with Krueger's glove rising from between her thighs (perhaps this is deliberate, with the resulting uncomfortable feeling reinforcing the film's horror, even if the discomfort is for different reasons). Yes, the character is resourceful, but overall I didn't find her very engaging and I thought the actress's performance was sometimes overly mannered and borderline hammy at times. I suspect I might be in a minority on this, and that's fine with me.Of course I knew Johnny Depp was making his film debut here (and I'm sure I've seen a clip of his character's death). It's apparent he's inexperienced here, but my god - is he photogenic. The camera loves him and it's clear he was meant to be in front of one.It's actually quite difficult to comment on Robert Englund's performance. Fred Krueger is memorable and mysterious at the same time, and it's thanks to a combination of his performance and the cinematography. It's clear he's willing to go ugly and isn't there to be liked, and he has the added challenge of not hiding behind a mask (well, he's covered in burn makeup, but one can still make out his features). It's hard to imagine anyone else in the role, but it's intriguing to see David Warner was set to play the role before a scheduling conflict. That could have been interesting, even if I suspect it would have been a very different interpretation of the character.Despite his notably long career, John Saxon is best known to me from the genre film Black Christmas a decade before this, so he fitted in very naturally for me. Lin Shaye has a small role but does good things with it (despite having little to do, her teacher role feels more important than it otherwise would be).With Universal's Colonial Street having an "Elm Street", I had convinced myself that this film was shot there. Even as I watched last night, I found myself wondering if Nancy's home was later extended and used as the Van de Kamp home in Desperate Housewives (which could have been appropriate given Marge Thompson's fixed Stepford grin and evident violent tendencies). But no... I was climbing up the wrong elm. One has nothing to do with another.The ending was slightly surprising. Kind of "have your cake and eat it. Then have it again".  It seems very progressive for its time.I'm not really bothered about watching most of the sequels, but Wes Craven's New Nightmare is on my radar since - from what I know - it breathed new life into the tired horror genre with its meta elements and references to earlier films, something for which the more commercially successful Scream would quickly take the glory.</blockquote>

Verification: Who played JR Ewing?