Wes Craven's New Nightmare
3.5/4
Starring: Heather Langenkamp, Miko Hughes, Tracy Middendorf, David Newsom, Wes Craven, Robert Englund
Rated R for Explicit Horror Violence and Gore, and for Language
In many ways, this is a superior film to the original "Nightmare on Elm Street." It's better scripted, edited and the special effects aren't as cheesy. It's also much, much more ambitious. In fact, it's a lot like "The Lego Movie" in the sense that I wanted to keep watching to see where Wes Craven would take it.
The film takes place ten years after the original was filmed. Heather Langenkamp (as herself) is dividing her time as an actress with being a mother to Dylan (Hughes). She's married to Chase (Newsom), a special effects artist. But weird things are going on. There are lots of earthquakes, Heather is dealing with a stalker, and Dylan is acting weird. It's not just her. Robert Englund is painting strange pictures and Wes Craven is having nightmares (which he pores into a script that he's writing, which is the new "Nightmare on Elm Street" movie). Apparently, when they made the first film, they allowed a demonic entity a way into our world. And the only way to keep him at bay is to make more movies. Now, Wes thinks he's figured out a way to defeat him once and for all, but he needs Heather to play Nancy one last time.
"A Nightmare on Elm Street" dealt with the line between fantasy and reality. "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" takes it a step further. For example, where is the line between the actor and the character? Or if Freddy is an entity that has crossed into our world, then how is Wes going to be able to stop him with writing? Everything is so blurred that we don't know what's going to happen or where Craven is going to take us. This makes the film a refreshing and creepy experience.
How can I discuss the acting since the actors are playing themselves? I will say that Langenkamp is great, and ditto for Miko Hughes. I also liked Tracy Mittendorf, who plays Dylan's nanny Julie. David Newsom and Robert Englund are stiff, but in the case of Englund, maybe that's how he is in real life.
This is a superbly constructed movie. It makes itself up as it goes along, yes, but that's okay here. Craven knows what he's doing, and there are rules of what can and cannot happen. The story follows its own logic.
But Craven doesn't forget about the scares. There are some truly creepy sequences in this film. The body count is pretty low (and the gore level is even lower...apart from one mildly gruesome scene, it's relatively bloodless). Not so much in what happens (although there are some great set pieces), but in the general atmosphere. Craven does an expert job of putting us on edge merely by establishing the setting.
Apart from a few minor missteps on the script level (a few more lines here and there would have cleared up a few things), this is almost a 4/4. Fans of the franchise shouldn't miss this one. Nor, for that matter, anyone who enjoys adventurous movies and great storytelling (note: it would be helpful to watch the first film, but it's not essential).
Starring: Heather Langenkamp, Miko Hughes, Tracy Middendorf, David Newsom, Wes Craven, Robert Englund
Rated R for Explicit Horror Violence and Gore, and for Language
In many ways, this is a superior film to the original "Nightmare on Elm Street." It's better scripted, edited and the special effects aren't as cheesy. It's also much, much more ambitious. In fact, it's a lot like "The Lego Movie" in the sense that I wanted to keep watching to see where Wes Craven would take it.
The film takes place ten years after the original was filmed. Heather Langenkamp (as herself) is dividing her time as an actress with being a mother to Dylan (Hughes). She's married to Chase (Newsom), a special effects artist. But weird things are going on. There are lots of earthquakes, Heather is dealing with a stalker, and Dylan is acting weird. It's not just her. Robert Englund is painting strange pictures and Wes Craven is having nightmares (which he pores into a script that he's writing, which is the new "Nightmare on Elm Street" movie). Apparently, when they made the first film, they allowed a demonic entity a way into our world. And the only way to keep him at bay is to make more movies. Now, Wes thinks he's figured out a way to defeat him once and for all, but he needs Heather to play Nancy one last time.
"A Nightmare on Elm Street" dealt with the line between fantasy and reality. "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" takes it a step further. For example, where is the line between the actor and the character? Or if Freddy is an entity that has crossed into our world, then how is Wes going to be able to stop him with writing? Everything is so blurred that we don't know what's going to happen or where Craven is going to take us. This makes the film a refreshing and creepy experience.
How can I discuss the acting since the actors are playing themselves? I will say that Langenkamp is great, and ditto for Miko Hughes. I also liked Tracy Mittendorf, who plays Dylan's nanny Julie. David Newsom and Robert Englund are stiff, but in the case of Englund, maybe that's how he is in real life.
This is a superbly constructed movie. It makes itself up as it goes along, yes, but that's okay here. Craven knows what he's doing, and there are rules of what can and cannot happen. The story follows its own logic.
But Craven doesn't forget about the scares. There are some truly creepy sequences in this film. The body count is pretty low (and the gore level is even lower...apart from one mildly gruesome scene, it's relatively bloodless). Not so much in what happens (although there are some great set pieces), but in the general atmosphere. Craven does an expert job of putting us on edge merely by establishing the setting.
Apart from a few minor missteps on the script level (a few more lines here and there would have cleared up a few things), this is almost a 4/4. Fans of the franchise shouldn't miss this one. Nor, for that matter, anyone who enjoys adventurous movies and great storytelling (note: it would be helpful to watch the first film, but it's not essential).
Comments
Post a Comment