Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

Genre

Horror

Director

Ronny Yu

Country

USA

Cast

Robert Englund, Ken Kirzinger, Monica Keena, Kelly Rowland, Jason Ritter, Chris Marquette, Lochlyn Munro, Katharine Isabelle, Brendan Fletcher, Zack Ward, Kyle Labine, Tom Butler, Garry Chalk, Jesse Hutch, Odessa Munroe, Chris Gauthier, Paula Shaw, Sharon Peters

Storyline

Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) and Jason Voorhees (Ken Kirzinger) return to terrorize the teenage population, but this time they are out to get each other too.

Opinion

Before remaking both the original movie starring Jason Voorhees and the one starring Freddy Krueger, someone had the brilliant idea to bring them together for a fight to the last blade. Only it wasn't a brilliant idea at all as "Freddy vs. Jason" is a boring, laughable, utterly dumb horror film that delivers no thrills whatsoever.

The storyline is just plain dumb. Freddy, who is finally dead, is no longer remembered and therefore no longer feared. Since he is fueled by fear, he has to find a way to torment and kill those kids on Elm Street so he resurrects a colleague of him, Jason. But things don't go as planned and they clash. Well, what can I say, I'm still trying to figure out how a human being with a brain could have had such a stupid idea.

But this isn't even the worst part of the film. The fact that it is not scary at all is. It is so predictable, you already know what is going to happen. There aren't even little jump scares. Nothing at all. That dialogue though, it is so bad, it's scary.

I'd love to mention the characters, but I can't even remember their names. Why even bother when they are just a bunch of stupid, stereotypical, one-dimensional teenagers? And they are likable only after they are dead - credits for that also go to the cast for doing such an awful job.

The film also features nude women - I don't know, maybe the filmmakers were trying to scare gays -, an obvious and rather pointless use of CGI, and, surprise, surprise, a good performances from Robert Englund. I'm serious, he is the only good thing about this film.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Genre

Horror

Director

Samuel Bayer

Country

USA

Cast

Rooney Mara, Jackie Earle Haley, Kyle Gallner, Katie Cassidy, Thomas Dekker, Kellan Lutz, Clancy Brown, Connie Britton, Don Robert Cass

Storyline

The spectre of Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) hunts the children of those who murdered him, stalking and killing them in their dreams.

Opinion

Oh dear god why. Why on Earth did anyone think the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" needed a remake? Or why did anyone think this thing would have made a decent horror flick? Seriously this new "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is a real and atrocious nightmare that is a tremendous slap in the face to the definition of horror movie.

Being a remake, I cannot help myself but compare the two films, starting of course from the best parts, which basically is the entire original film. One of the greatest thing about the original was the story. It was original because who would have thought of creating a child murderer that hunts people in their dreams? And that idea was at the same time terrifying. And it was actually solid, which is a lot considering the type of film it is. 

Some of the sequels have been able to do that, so it wasn't a mission impossible. This version, however, not only doesn't have a solid plot, but that tiny plot is also very incoherent. Not to mention all the plot holes they managed to fit into a single film.

The other great thing about the original was the characters. Nancy was a badass, such a strong female character and a heroine because for once instead of letting the creep kill her, she found back, and she kicked his ass. The other one is Freddy of course. I don't know how it is possible, but in 2010 the filmmakers managed to make a so less scary, and menacing Freddy. I'm not only talking about the poor characterization, but also about the goddamn awful makeup. It looks like he was wearing a rubber mask for god's sake.

And how about the CGI? It can't even compete with the original's camera work. No wonder Robert Englund didn't take part to this. Sure, he was in the awful sequels too, but this is nothing near the sequels. And don't even get me started on the cast. I'm speechless.

Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

Genre

Fantasy | Horror

Director

Wes Craven

Country

USA

Cast

Heather Langenkamp, Robert Englund, Miko Hughes, John Saxon, Tracy Middendorf, David Newsom, Fran Bennett, Wes Craven, Robert Shaye, Marianne Maddalena, Sam Rubin, Sara Risher, Claudia Haro, Matt Winston, W. Earl Brown, Lin Shaye, Nick Corri, Tuesday Knight

Storyline

It's nearing the 10th Anniversary of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and while Heather Langenkamp (Heather Langenkamp) is trying to put her nerves back together after a stalker disrupted her life, a demonic force has chosen Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) as its portal to the real world.

Opinion

Just like me (and many others), Wes Craven as well regarded the sequels to "A Nightmare on Elm Street" to be weak compared to his masterpiece. Unlike me though, he actually had the opportunity to remedy, and that's exactly what he did with "Wes Craven's New Nightmare". Maybe it is not as good as the original, but this film is a dream come true. Please forgive the pun.

Once again making the different is the story. The brilliant idea Wes Craven had, actually. Having Heather Langenkamp and Robert Englund playing themselves in a film within a film written by Craven who also is playing himself and that is writing the script at it unfolds is pure (Charlie Kaufman) genius.

I know it sounds complicated, and horrors are not supposed to have complicated storylines, but this actually works, and even though it is not the most frightening story ever, it still manages to be creepy and quite scary.

The other great thing about this film is Freddy Krueger. The previous entries had slowly transformed him into a pathetic joker that wasn't able to make you laugh even under torture, but Craven was able to give him his dignity back. Not only this Freddy is threatening but possibly he looks even more scary than he looked in the original film.

It still does have its flaws, for example the ending could have been delivered better, and the acting leaves a bit to be desired - maybe a bigger involvement of Robert Englund would have helped -, but overall this still ranks as best sequel. 

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

Genre

Horror

Director

Rachel Talalay

Country

USA

Cast

Robert Englund, Lisa Zane, Shon Greenblatt, Lezlie Deane, Breckin Meyer, Ricky Dean Logan, Yaphet Kotto, Tobe Sexton, Cassandra Rachel Frei, Lindsey Fields, Johnny Depp, Tom Arnold, Roseanne Barr, Alice Cooper

Storyline

Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) returns once again to haunt both the dreams of the last surviving teenager (Shon Greenblatt) and those of a woman (Lisa Zane) with a deep connection to him.

Opinion

If "A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child" was awful, I don't know what "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare" is. Other than a ridiculous nightmare and an unwatchable film.

Unlike the previous entry, this film actually had some potential with Freddy's backstory. It could have been good. No, it should have been good. But the filmmakers decided to throw that potential away and write instead a story that is stupid, confused and so boring it makes you wish to be the one dying instead of Freddy.

As if that wasn't enough, that thing resembling a plot moves so fast you don't have time to process what just happened that something else happens. But don't worry, it's not important, after all nothing happens but stupid killings - trying to kill someone with a cotton bud? What's next? Brushing someone's teeth to death? - and Freddy still trying so hard to be a comedian.

And just like the other times, he doesn't succeed. He is just an idiotic joker who can't pull off a single joke, and that isn't scary at all. In other words, Krueger is the film's biggest (and only) joke.

Completing this pathetic film there are utterly annoying, irritating characters that are light years away from character development, atrocious acting and horrible effects.

Basically it's a great horror. In a different, bad way though.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)

Genre

Fantasy | Horror

Director

Stephen Hopkins

Country

USA

Cast

Robert Englund, Lisa Wilcox, Beatrice Boepple, Whit Hertford, Kelly Jo Minter, Danny Hassel, Erika Anderson, Nicholas Mele, Joe Seely, Valorie Armstrong, Burr DeBenning, Clarence Felder

Storyline

Hoping to be reborn into the real world, Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) strikes through the sleeping mind of the unborn child of Alice (Lisa Wilcox), a girl that has survived Krueger's nightmares.

Opinion

After several ups and downs it looks like the series has decided to stay down and "A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child" is the proof of that. With nothing but nice special effects, the film is a really bad sequel and an insult to Wes Craven. Basically it's like a really bad dream.

Once again we have a story that follows the events of the previous film, but there's not a point in doing so because, as stupid as it gets, the plot involves Freddy using an unborn child to resurrect himself. In the process the film also tries to be an origin flick as it shows how Amanda Krueger conceived her sweet son.

In addition to having a lame, utterly ridiculous plot, "The Dream Child" manages to be extremely boring mainly because the kills are also boring, unoriginal, quite predictable and not even funny.

I know it's weird to say "funny" when talking about a horror film, but this film deserves it considering the turn the franchise seems to have taken since the previous entry. Instead of being creepy and frightening, Freddy Krueger is still making attempts at comedy, and still failing miserably. Oh, and he has learnt a new word - bitch - and he loves it so much he basically says it all film long.

The ultimate weakness of the film is the acting. While I wasn't expecting anything from the majority of the cast and they proved me right, I thought Robert Englund would have still done a good job as Freddy. Wrong, he gives a very weak performance, just like everybody else.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

Genre

Horror

Director

Renny Harlin

Country

USA

Cast

Robert Englund, Lisa Wilcox, Danny Hassel, Brooke Theiss, Andras Jones, Tuesday Knight, Toy Newkirk, Rodney Eastman, Ken Sagoes, Nicholas Mele, Brooke Bundy

Storyline

Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) returns to terrorize the dreams of the remaining Dream Warriors, as well as those of a young woman (Lisa Wilcox) who may know the way to defeat him for good.

Opinion

A lot of franchises follow a pattern, they alternate good films to awful ones, and because the first film of this franchise was great, the second was rubbish and the third was good I should have seen this coming. Instead, I was expecting a good or at least decent entry. 

Unfortuntately "A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master" is anything but good or decent. Rather is it a pointless, non scary sequel that seems more like a silly comedy than a horror.

While in "Dream Warriors" it was a good idea to reprise where the first film left so to eclipse the disastrous "Freddy's Revenge", this time is wasn't a smart move, mainly because this film doesn't even have a plot. It's just Freddy, once again come back from the dead, killing one-dimensional characters.

One of the biggest flaws is probably the filmmakers' choice to give Freddy more screen time, transforming him from the dreaded man haunting young people he was to a stupid joker. In fact, bad jokes (and terrible killings) are all that Freddy is fed with.

Another things this film is lacking is a good cast. Definitely not as good as the previous ones - which included Patricia Arquette and Laurence Fishburne -, the actors are terrible. I was wondering why Arquette didn't reprise her role, then I saw the film and understood. 

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

Genre

Horror

Director

Chuck Russell

Country

USA

Cast

Heather Langenkamp, Craig Wasson, Patricia Arquette, Robert Englund, Ken Sagoes, Rodney Eastman, Jennifer Rybin, Bradley Gregg, Ira Heiden, Laurence Fishburne, Penelope Sudrow, John Saxon, Priscilla Pointer, Clayton Landey, Brooke Bundy, Nan Martin, John Saxon

Storyline

Nancy (Heather Langenkamp), the first survivor of Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), has now grown up and become a psychiatrist specializing in dream therapy, and will try to teach a group of survivors how to control their own dreams.

Opinion

After the disappointing to say the least "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge", I wasn't expecting anything good from the franchise. Just another stupid slasher film. But I guess Freddy was so not happy about that film, and to avoid to make him even more mad, the filmmakers decided to make "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors", a film that not only is fun to watch, but it's also the sequel the original film deserves.

Once again, what make this entry so good is the story. It is quite original, gripping and the idea of setting it in a mental hospital is definitely a winner as it makes the film even more creepy. And even though it is more of a fantasy than a horror element, I really liked the way the new kids fight Freddy, which is using the special powers they have in their dreams. 

Another positive note is the characters. First of all, it's really nice to see Nancy again. She was the first to ever defeat Krueger as well as a very likable character, and she has an important role in the story. The new kids are interesting, they all get enough screen time and you can definitely feel sympathy for them. 

Chuck Russell's direction is another nice addition to the film. Sure, he's not Wes Craven but he does a quite good job and the atmosphere in the dream sequences is spot on. But truth to be told, the film could have been more scary. Actually, it isn't that frightening, there are just a few scares.

As for the acting, it isn't bad. Heather Langenkamp, Robert Englund and John Saxon all reprises their roles and are as good as they were in the first film, and among the kids there's young Patricia Arquette who does a good job in her first important role. 

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

Genre

Horror

Director

Jack Sholder

Country

USA

Cast

Mark Patton, Kim Myers, Robert Englund, Robert Rusler, Clu Gulager, Christie Clark, Marshall Bell, Melinda O. Fee, Tom McFadden, Sydney Walsh

Storyline

After moving into Nancy Thompson's old house, teenage Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton) is haunted in his dreams by Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) who is out to possess him in order to continue his murder spree in the real world.

Opinion

After watching this I know for sure that those having nightmares and being haunted by Freddy Krueger should be the filmmakers because "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge" is a terrible, terrible sequel to a great film.

Forget about the good and original story of the original film; this film doesn't even feature an actual story. I know it's a slasher, but the plot doesn't make any sense, it has plot holes as big as the Queen of Hearts' head - for example, how is it possible that someone moves in a house where bad things happened, in a street where bad things happened, and the new kid doesn't know anything about that? -, and it is not engaging. Okay, maybe the idea of Freddy possessing a human body so he can kill again is quite original in this universe, but it's not interesting as the writers may have thought.

Just like the previous film, the characters are your typical one-dimensional characters that have no idea what development is. Unlike the other film though, these characters aren't even that likable, nor they try to fight Krueger back. Or they do, just not hard enough. As for the villain, well, I feel sorry for Freddy Krueger for having to be in this mess of a film.

Another thing it has in common with the original film is the acting. It still meets the slasher-standards. Although this time the lead is awful. Mark Patton is really unwatchable. And how about Kim Myers? Was she cast only because she looks like Meryl Streep? Robert Englund still does a pretty good job as Freddy Krueger but he can't save the film.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Genre

Horror

Director

Wes Craven

Country

USA

Cast

Heather Langenkamp, Robert Englund, Johnny Depp, John Saxon, Ronee Blakley, Leslie Hoffman, Amanda Wyss, Nick Corri, Joe Unger, Charles Fleischer, Joseph Whipp, Lin Shaye

Storyline

Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) and her friends are hunted by Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a cruel serial killer who kills his victims in their dreams.

Opinion

After last year's disappointment with "Friday the 13th" - both the original film and the entire franchise -, I've finally found a horror classic that not only lives up to its reputation but that is still effective. In fact, "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is far from being a dumb slasher flick like the one I've mentioned above, rather it is a creepy, scary and amusing horror.

Why is it so good? Well, first of all the story. It is very original (and such a brilliant idea) - Wes Craven said he was inspired by true events -, interesting and features a lot of suspense and a terrific atmosphere. It sure isn't the most intelligent story you'll ever see, and there are definitely some parts of the plot that don't make a lot of sense, but still it is way better than other films of the same genre. 

Then of course there is the iconic villain, Freddy Krueger, which is arguably one of the terrifying and menacing villains of all time. He also does have a believable backstory - that would be frightening in real life as well - and as soon as his past is revealed, he gets ever more terrifying.

And then there are the characters. They are not the brightest characters ever, to be honest they are the typical slasher, one-dimensional characters characterized by the lack of any good performances, but at least you'll care for them. And finally there's a main character who fights back. And she's good too.

The acting is also slasher-standards. Heather Langenkamp does a decent job as Nancy, the girl kicking Freddy's ass, but doesn't really stand out. A young Johnny Depp shows his potential in his very first role, but the script isn't strong enough to make him shine. On the other hand there's Robert Englund, who is flawless in the role of Freddy Krueger.