web
counter
 

Another Lousy Thing We Can Blame on the Bush Administration

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (40)



8018_10804669510.jpg

Burgeoning film geeks live in an absolutely dreadful time. Hollywood has gone through a lot of creative droughts in the past (see 1984 - 1989), but it’s never been like this. Sequelitis may have began in the ’80s, but the obsession with turning a buck on preexisting properties is at its zenith. This is not even something we saw in the ’80s — there wasn’t a remake of a ’60s film every other week during that period. Avatar in a way was a “game-changer,” but in another way, it’s only hastened Hollywood’s existing spiral toward creative bankruptcy. Now instead of simply rehashing old ideas, the studios are hijacking old properties and simultaneously turning them into 3D movies.

Hollywood and the success of Transformers is not entirely to blame, however. During times of economic recession, the studios have historically become risk averse. If you’ve seen the roster of shuttered studios over the last few years, you could hardly blame them. But it’s different now. In the past, in addition to embracing (bad) high-concept ideas, studios tightened their belts: They limited film budgets. In some instances, this wasn’t even a bad thing; it forced directors and screenwriters to be creative, to make more with less.

This time around, however, they’ve taken a different approach. Instead of decreasing the size of their budgets, they seem to be making fewer films (there was a time, only a few years ago, when it wasn’t unusual for us to review three to five films every Friday, instead of one or two) and they’re repurposing old properties and taking advantage of the built in name recognition, which means fewer marketing dollars and a lower risk.

All of which is to say: The proliferation of remakes, sequels, and movies based on toys, TV shows, etc., can be blamed in large part on the recession. In turn, we can blame the recession on the lack of regulation on Wall Street and the sub-prime mortgage crisis, which we can blame on the Bush Administration.

In other words, Samuel Bayer’s awful Nightmare on Elm Street remake is George Bush’s fault.

It is awful. The new Nightmare on Elm Street is like the third page in a carbon copy triplicate — it’s the same movie, only faded, less vibrant, smudged, and hard to read. It’s completely lifeless. There’s no joy in this Nightmare. It’s dreary, glacially paced, and the characters are glum and inert. It’s as though they’ve taken the first Nightmare, given everyone involved clorazepam, and asked them to retrace the steps of the original characters, only now everything looks more like a bad Green Day video. Indeed, the saturated colors have absorbed all the energy out of everything else.

It starts with Jackie Earle Haley, who I thought would be the ideal replacement if you had to replace Robert Englund. Instead, Haley only makes you appreciate Englund even more. Haley’s Freddy looks like an enlarged sewer rat shrouded with fake skin. He’s got no spunk and he sounds like Christopher Nolan’s low-talking Batman, only less convincing. Somehow, Samuel Bayer has managed to make Jackie Earle Haley less creepy-looking onscreen than he is in real life.

The story is essentially the same as in the original: Freddy Kreuger is stalking and then killing a group of teenagers in their dreams, and those teenagers — unbeknownst to them — are connected to each other through their parents, who were part of a lynch mob that burned Freddy Krueger alive (there are a few wrinkles in his origins story, and in this version, Freddy’s origins are shown on-screen during one of the dream sequences instead of revealed to Nancy by her mother). The fangs, however, have been pulled out of the story and it’s such a soft R-rating that the studio may as well have toned it down ever so slightly for a PG-13. Moreover, most of the dream-stalking has been excised — it’s just fall asleep and you die, which is probably for the best considering how dull the rest of the film is. Unfortunately, there are only a few teenagers to be killed off, and in only one instance is the kill particularly clever or gruesome. I won’t even go into what they did — or didn’t do — to the character type originally played by Johnny Depp. Let’s just say it was very disappointing.

The good news is this: The economy is slowly recovering, and audiences — as evidenced by the relatively poor box office performance of the Friday the 13th remake and the sequel to the Halloween remake, which both have stalled sequels — are tiring of these makeovers, at least in the horror genre, which was really the first genre to almost completely turn itself over to redos. It won’t be too long now, I suspect, until studios will be forced to resort to the unthinkable: a new idea.

I hope it doesn’t hurt their wee little brains.









Jim Carrey Career Assessment | Batman's Coming, Anchorman 2 Isn't, and The Academy Award Winning Movie Trailer | Pajiba Whip-Its













Comments

In other words, Samuel Bayer’s awful Nightmare on Elm Street remake is George Bush’s fault.
This made me choke on my cupcake (yeah it's my second cupcake, shut up!)
Also, I like to blame everything that goes wrong in my life on George Bush.

Posted by: Nimue at April 30, 2010 3:07 PM

In turn, we can blame the recession on the lack of regulation on Wall Street and the sub-prime mortgage crisis, which we can blame on the Bush Administration.

The deregulations that caused this weren't exclusively Bush's fault. No doubt Bush is party to blame, as are Clinton and 80's-Bush (heh) but even then, to rest the blame of the economic collapse on any 3 men's shoulders is wildly unfair. It has been an unfortunate confluence of irresponsible decisions made over a 20 year span of time.

Unless my sense of humor has stopped working and your comment was a joke. Which is entirely possible.

Whatever. I don't care what you say on this one, I'm going to see it. I sat through Freddy VS. Jason goddammit, I can sit through this!

Posted by: superasente at April 30, 2010 3:18 PM

Moreover, most of the dream-stalking has been excised — it’s just fall asleep and you die

But... but... BUT THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE.

Posted by: Anna von Beaversmack at April 30, 2010 3:24 PM

Can you really say the last Friday the 13th was a failure. The movie had an estimated budget of $19 million and grossed $43.5 million on its opening weekend. With an overall gross in the US of almost $65 million. Even Halloween II managed to surpass it's budget on opening weekend.

Sorry, but I don't see that as a failure or a poor performance.


As for A Nightmare on Elm Street...I plan on seeing it Monday. Hopefully while school is still going on so I won't have to listen to the shitacular sound of teenagers.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at April 30, 2010 3:26 PM

YEAH BUT WHA IS THAT THAR BARACK OSAMA DOIN FER THE HOLLYWUD? ALL HE IS DUN IS THROW MA HARD EARNED DOLLARS AT DOG SPIT LIKE THA HURT LOCKER?!

THA ONLY THING THAT HURT ABOUT THAT THAR MOVIE WAS MA EYES! I DUN GO TO THE MOVIES FER PLOTS AND DIALOGGIN AND YER' MEESE ON SCENE! GIMME THA GOOD STUFF LIKE John Wayne Shoots Injuns AND White Fella Teams With Dark Fella For Funnies!

TEA PARTY 2010!

Posted by: D-Day at April 30, 2010 3:46 PM

Wow, it's been a long time. This might have had a chance to be good if they had a decent director, and some creative ability, but it's truly an achievement to make Michael Bay's worst reviewed movie, and somehow nullify Jackie Earl's creepy vibe at the same time.

Posted by: George at April 30, 2010 4:03 PM

Well crap.

My sister made this movie her birthday request, so I'm STUCK. At least I'll be springing for popcorn and cherry coke, so I'll have something to do while I'm not being creeped out.

Posted by: MadameUgly at April 30, 2010 4:07 PM

Jesus fuck! Does everything have to be about politics? Between my co-workers endless yammering about the state of the country and the constant barrage of moaning and bitching everywhere in politics I'm really wishing someone would nuke the whole fucking town. Ooops, is HS gonna steal your servers again?

Posted by: TylerDFC at April 30, 2010 4:11 PM

I think I'll go rent the original Nightmare 1-3 and have a better time of it...and think back fondly on the 80s.

Posted by: Fredo at April 30, 2010 5:03 PM

As it stands, I've never seen any of the Nightmare On Elm Street movies from start to finish. Odd for a child of the 80s. I won't be starting with this one.

However, I have been repeatedly watching Dreamscape on cable, as that has been airing lately.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at April 30, 2010 5:21 PM

"Another Lousy Thing We Can Blame on the Bush Administration"

yes, I much prefer the Shaven Administration.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at April 30, 2010 5:30 PM

I'd have already seen this today if I wasn't sicker than I've been in a long time. Good to see the film has exceeded my expectations. I thought it would be unwatchable, but it's merely horrid, instead.

I remember showing a production still of the new Freddy make-up to my brother and telling him it looked like a burned lab animal. I'm glad I'm not the only one making that connection.

Posted by: Robert at April 30, 2010 5:48 PM

Wow, a liberl site blaming Bush about something. I would have thought Gay Fish was writing this review due to the random finger pointing but the absense of CAPS blows that theory out of the water.

I blame illegal immigrants.

Posted by: the EPA at April 30, 2010 5:59 PM

I always thought these remakes were stupid pieces of shit (granted, I prejudged, I haven't seen any of them). But, mainly, I was never into the originals all that much. However, I saw every single Freddy movie (except Freddy vs. Jason). I began to think about that after the remake was announced, and realized that most of those were horrible (funny Freddy is fucking stupid). Anyway, I thought these remakes were stupid, and then they announced this one. I was immediately excited, and suddenly understood why people went to see these remakes. However, my excitement was diminished after I saw the new Freddy face, and especially after seeing longer trailers. I kept thinking that the saturated colors really reminded of a late 90s film (like Final Destination) or something, which surprised and disappointed me. Last night my girlfriend asked me if I was going to see this, and my response was a resounding "meh".

I might watch it if a friend had it on DVD, but I think I'll just avoid giving the studios the impression that this is a good idea. Not that it can't be done, but just that it isn't easy.

Posted by: pissant at April 30, 2010 6:32 PM

Hollywood has gone through a lot of creative droughts in the past (see 1984 - 1989)

Dustin, I appreciate that watching this movie took its toll on your grey matter, and it's Friday afternoon and you're already into your cups, but seriously:

Haven't we covered this ground before? Do I really need to list all the cinematic accomplishments of the middle 80s? What's the length limit on comments?

Posted by: MM at April 30, 2010 6:40 PM

It's amazing that someone can't even make an offhanded comment about the former President without people getting their fucking panties in a twist. I'm as political as anyone, guys, so please take it from me when I implore you to unclench your assholes.

Posted by: Kobie at April 30, 2010 6:47 PM

I don't talk about politics unless I'm uber drunk so I can sound just like the rest of those jackasses. I will challenge your assertion that Hollywood was in a creative drought in 1984. Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop, Gremlins, The Karate Kid, and the original Nightmare were all released along with other movies which still stand up in comparison today.

Posted by: Klempenski at April 30, 2010 7:10 PM

Mortgage crisis = Dodd & Frank. Not exactly the Bush Administration. If you're gonna bitch, bitch correctly.

Sad to hear this film blows. I was really looking forward to Jackie Earle Haley....

Posted by: malren at April 30, 2010 8:29 PM

I won’t even go into what they did — or didn’t do — to the character type originally played by Johnny Depp. Let’s just say it was very disappointing.

SPOILER ALERT, I guess - so are you saying that he didn't get eaten by a mattress? Because that's the only part of the original I remember.

Posted by: Jen K at April 30, 2010 10:10 PM

Just saw it. I want to thank everyone who said it was the worst thing ever, because when it turned out to be...I don't know...mediocre..I felt like I dodged a bullet.

Posted by: laredo at April 30, 2010 10:37 PM

Just got back from seeing this crapfest. Dammit, I had such high hopes, not least because I lurve Jackie Earle Haley. Rowles is right: all of the weirdly joyous, sinister jollity that the original Freddy Kruger embodied has been leached out of the remake, leaving a airless, dull husk.

Haley was miscast, IMO. He does creepy beautifully (Rorschach was just about the only decent thing about Watchmen), but Freddy Kruger as played by Robert Englund had a certain sinuous physicality that Haley simply doesn't have in the remake. Throughout the film, I kept thinking about the many scenes in the original movies in which Freddy runs, saunters, slithers, and in the fourth movie -- Dream Warriors, I think it was called -- balanced airily on the tops of church pews as he fought the heroine towards the end of the movie. Haley isn't given much of a chance to do much more than kill teenagers as gruesomely as possible. What's more, most of the actors cast as teenagers were taller and brawnier than Haley (including the women -- !), and seeing Haley's wispy physique tossing much larger kiddies against walls was too ludicrous to take seriously. Oddly, he had a far more potent physical presence in Watchmen; I'm thinking it was the trench coat.

And Haley wasn't the first or the last of the problems. There are no female actors in this film with the goofy charm of Heather Langenkamp, nor any half as beautiful as she. All of the actors playing teens phone in their performances, including Kellan Lutz, whiling away the time in a tiny role that I imagine is paying the bills between Twilights. And what the hell was the marvelous Clancy Brown doing in this film in a minor, throwaway role? Now he would have been a magnificent Freddy ...

Posted by: PDamian at April 30, 2010 10:40 PM

Uh...the original is streaming on Netflix...just sayin'.

I've been drinkin', see ya tomorrow.

Hey, if I pass out while watching A Nightmare on Elm Street will I die? Let's find out.

Posted by: pissant at May 1, 2010 12:10 AM

DarthCorleone, I freakin' love Dreamscape, for it is the shit. Baby-faced Dennis Quaid fighting snake monsters in the apocalyptic dreams of the president? Sign me up.

Posted by: Salieri2 at May 1, 2010 12:35 AM

Hey, if I pass out while watching A Nightmare on Elm Street will I die? Let's find out.

Good luck!

Posted by: MM at May 1, 2010 12:50 AM

Do your homework. The Clinton administration is responsible for the sub-prime mortgage debacle - not Bush.

Posted by: Learn Your Political History at May 1, 2010 3:02 AM

I'm seeing a constant suggestion here of George Bush as a good choice for the film. Really? If an actor as trained as Jackie Earle Haley couldn't pull off Freddy, what makes you think a man with no acting training would do any better? We would need Ronald Reagan or better, and he's dead. Honestly, kids today with their wacky horror film casting fantasies.

Posted by: Robert at May 1, 2010 8:28 AM

Good luck!

Still here!

Unfortunately, the sequel isn't on Instant Queue. I think that one is quite possibly the most bizarre. It really doesn't fit with any of the others, but it presents an interesting idea...I think. It's been a while.

Huh, only 26 comments so far, really?

Posted by: pissant at May 1, 2010 8:59 AM

I blame everything on George Washington (might as well go right to the source). Cocksucker owned slaves and was a key component in an entirely unnecessary war ...

Ooops! Excuse me, it's time for high tea. I hope there are some crumpets left.
---
Oh damn, there I go trying to be funny on Saturday again, when it doesn't count. *deep breath* pace yourself, man, save it for when it matters.

Posted by: , at May 1, 2010 10:08 AM

"It won’t be too long now, I suspect, until studios will be forced to resort to the unthinkable: a new idea."
Talk about living in a dream world...

Posted by: Brett at May 1, 2010 12:05 PM

If you're gonna watch Freddy, then watch 1,3, and 4. The second one is so horrible and stupid, avoid it at all costs. I'd have to re-watch New Nightmare, as I hated that one when it came out. 1 and 3 are the best. Nancy is a girl that did her homework and said fuck off to being scared. I still am full of girl pride when she builds the booby traps.

I loved Haley in Watchmen and Little Children, on paper it did seem like it would work, but Englund is still around and Freddy is now and will always be his character. Every review I've read, including the NYT review pins the movie's failure on his absence.

Other comments:

They waste Clancy Brown. Fuckers, why do they always do that !?! If they remake Higlander, my hope is that they keep Queen and Brown. Brown's not looking bad these days, he's such a big guy it's hard no to be intimidating. He could still own that role.

The worst reviewed Bay movie, wow, that is really saying something.

Posted by: Mebe at May 1, 2010 2:59 PM

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean, ok, realistically I didn't think it was going to be good. Let's say mediocre. I thought it was going to be a mediocre horror remake that would be launched to semi campy GREATNESS because of the awesome force of Jackie Earle Haley. To hear that he can't even say save this (and maybe even doomed it himself with his lackluster take on Freddy) is frustratingly depressing.

Posted by: citizen_cris at May 1, 2010 4:18 PM

I know right!?! you'd think that haley would be the best part, but apparently he makes Freddy boring.

Also Dustin as much as I love blaming Bush for everything, the financial bullshit is a direct result of Clinton repealing Glass-Steagall. The fact that Obama hasn't pushed to fix it, makes me wonder if all of that campaigning for him was a waste of time. :(

Either way, fuck you Michael Bay. The end.

Posted by: Mebe at May 1, 2010 4:39 PM

Congress repealed Glass-Steagall -- Clinton signed on in part because he was in fact a corporatist above all, but also because it's difficult to veto a bill that passed 90-8 and 362-57.

Posted by: sansho1 at May 1, 2010 8:05 PM

Good point.

Posted by: Mebe at May 2, 2010 12:43 AM

Well, I was tricked by the trailer into seeing this movie. And I wouldn't call it awful...just mediocre horror film. Yet...Horror is the worst genre of movies and a good horror film is mediocre at best meaning a mediocre horror film is awful. Oh wait, you were right...this was awful.

Favorite part in the movie: Freddy throws a girl out of a car and a man behind me screams "Oh damn, that's GANGSTA!"

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at May 2, 2010 1:59 AM

NOES isn't just George Bush's fault. Like the death of little baby Jesus, it's all our faults. For we have sinned against the banking system, sought false profits and envied our neighbours credit rating. Or something.
Basically Platinum Dunes (sounds like a sequel to Golden Showers, to me) will remake everything until we stop emptying our pockets for them. The gnashing and wailing of teeth we greet these things with does not stop us paying up. We might kid ourselves that we want a change of direction, but the truth is we want the same thing over and over again. NOES spawned 6 sequels (8 if you count Jason goes to hell and Freddy V Jason)and a TV series. None of them really improved on the first one. Really, we've seen enough and yet even minor changes in remakes annoy us. TCM is one of my favourite ever films, in a lot of ways a work of art. I watched the remake. It was so terrible I rant about at least once a month and I still watched the prequel! Will I watch NOES. Of course. Will I like it. Not a chance. That's why we get remakes of perfectly good films.

Posted by: gd.smith at May 3, 2010 6:07 AM

Movie remakes are hardly anything new. A few examples: 1996 - 101 Dalmations (live action remake), 1982 - Cat People (Original - 1942), 1998 - Dr. Dolittle (original - 1967), 1993 - Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (Original - 1958), 1997 - The Cat and the Canary (Original - 1927). That doesn't even scratch the surface of pre-2000 remakes.

So no, remakes didn't start appearing after Bush; it's just more noticable because they're taking on movies that are well-known to our generation.

I do agree that this remake in particular is *horrid.*

Posted by: Video at May 3, 2010 7:16 PM

Blame Congress for the recession. And then blame yourself for Congress. And then we can all blame Trojans® for you.

Posted by: Trojan Man at May 4, 2010 7:06 AM

Pffftttt.....get off it you morons. It was a tongue in cheek joke about the guy who so brillantly choked on a pretzel while watching the Super Bowl.

Yeah, this movie was absolutely awful. I had never really thought of Freddy as a sexually-driven perv. Englund was creepy and cool. Haley was boring, weak, and pathetic.

Posted by: Meagan at May 5, 2010 11:12 PM

@ Meagan, Freddy was originally supposed to be a child molester but they changed it to child murderer.

I love the original Nightmares but I also liked this movie. I honestly don't see the reason for all this hate.

Posted by: blahblah at May 6, 2010 4:59 AM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time