.
.
.

Thursday, August 16, 2018

Nightmare on Elm Street, A (1984)

... aka: Les griffes de la nuit (Claws of the Night)
... aka: Nightmare
... aka: Nightmare - Dal profondo della notte (Nightmare - From the Depths of the Night)
... aka: Nightmare - Mörderische Träume (Nightmare - Murderous Dreams)
... aka: Pesadilla en la calle del infierno (Nightmare on Hell Street)
... aka: Terror på Elm Street (Terror on Elm Street)

Directed by:
Wes Craven

Tina Gray (Amanda Wyss) runs through a dimly-lit school hallway. Something's not quite right as there's also a sheep (?) walking around. The sound of metal scraping against metal is heard. She ventures into a boiler room by a lit furnace and, finally, someone jumps up from behind her and grabs her. She then wakes in bed covered in sweat. Ah. Relax. It's only a nightmare. Well, except for the part about her nightgown being torn right where the dream assailant had grabbed her. That's odd. Her mother, woken by the commotion, recommends she cut her nails. The following day at school, Tina's worn out from lack of sleep. She mentions the terrible recurring dream that's been keeping her up at night to her best friend, Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), and Nancy's boyfriend, Glen Lantz ("introducing" Johnny Depp). It turns out Nancy's also been having bad nightmares but can't remember all of the details. We typically don't remember much about our dreams, do we? Glen doesn't seem to want to even discuss it, so we can assume he's been having the same bad dreams, too.

Later that night, Tina invites Nancy over for a sleepover. Her mother has run off to Vegas for the weekend with her boyfriend and Tina's scared to be alone. Glen sneaks over, as does Tina's sort-of boyfriend Rod Lane ("Nick Corri" / Jsu Garcia). The more Tina describes her nightmare, the more Nancy remembers about her own, and the two have been having a very similar dream about the same exact man... A mysterious, scary man cloaked in shadow but wearing a dingy red and green sweater and armed with a glove of razor-sharp fingernails. "More like finger-knives," clarifies Nancy. Before going to bed, Rod makes mention that he too has been having nightmares. That's four for four if you're keeping score.






The sound of rustling outside of Tina's window wakes her up. She finds the window cracked as if someone's thrown rocks at it and then hears someone whispering her name. Going outside to investigate she encounters the nightmare man again, this time his arms outstretched to an inhuman length. He's behind her. Then he's in front of her. He laughs as he cuts off his own fingers. Next thing she knows he's on top of her slicing away. Tina doesn't wake up this time. The struggle with the nightmare man in her nightmare finds her being dragged up the wall to the ceiling and then across the ceiling by an invisible force. She then comes crashing down onto her bed in a shower of blood. Dead.

Witnessing Tina being killed, Rod (who already has a bad reputation around town) panics and flees the scene. A manhunt is issued for his arrest and he's finally located and put behind bars. But Nancy, who's now one of the supernatural psycho's primary targets, knows better. As all of her friends get picked off one-by-one, and with the adults not believing her and instead assuming she's losing her mind, Nancy starts guzzling caffeinated beverages and popping "Stay Awake" pills while devising a survivalist plan to save herself.






There's a good reason I haven't mentioned you-know-who's name yet and that's to give you an idea what audiences back in 1984 must have experienced. Through the first half of the movie, the name is not even uttered. People didn't go to theaters in droves to watch a heavily-promoted "Freddy movie," they went to see the horror film that everyone was talking about. Nowadays, everyone knows Freddy (called just "Fred" here) Krueger (Robert Englund); his face, his sweater, his hat, his sick-o sense of humor and most especially his special homemade glove with a blade extending from each finger. Most people are even familiar with his entire back story. A cruel and sadistic murderer of "over 20 children" during his human existence, Freddy managed to skirt the law due to an improperly filled-out search warrant but then was hunted down and torched by a mob of angry parents. Now a vengeful dream-slayer, he exacts his revenge by terrorizing and murdering the children of his killers in their dreams... and takes great pleasure in doing so! Two of the people who helped put him down were police lieutenant Donald Thompson (John Saxon) and his estranged wife Marge (Ronee Blakley), Nancy's parents.






Putting aside much of the junk that followed, the original Elm Street deserves a lot of credit for not only being a well-crafted horror film but also for effectively punching up the tired post-Halloween slash-n-hack movie formula. The clever premise working inside the anything-goes landscape of dreams affords writer / director Craven (who based this on some odd real-life occurrences he'd read about) and his crew the opportunity to go to weird, disorienting, sometimes even surreal places, yet they never alienate the audience in doing so. As a result, both the slasher faithful and those wanting something a bit more inventive and imaginative can all walk away happy.






Craven's screenplay was completed years before the film started shooting. After it was shopped around and passed over by most of the major studios, New Line Cinema finally decided to bite. For New Line, a company whose place in the entertainment industry was hardly cemented at that point thanks to the less-than-spectacular performance of their debut effort (the slasher ALONE IN THE DARK), this was a make it or break it investment of a couple million dollars. Despite receiving a lukewarm reception from critics of the day, Elm Street not only didn't break the studio, it was such a runaway hit that it practically made the studio. And its increasingly more-lucrative offspring would buoy them over other ups and downs throughout the 80s and beyond.






Enduring weeks of lengthy (three-hour-long) sessions in a makeup chair in order to play Freddy proved very worthwhile for Englund, who'd already spent ten years slogging away in Hollywood without making much of a ripple. After dozens of supporting roles in films and TV shows, Englund finally had a signature role under his belt. The character would make him a household name, ushered him into headlining lead roles and turned him into the most popular horror movie star since Lee, Cushing and Price. Because the more comedic later sequels played up the carnage for laughs, it's sometimes easy to forget just how intimidating, perverse, mysterious and creepy Englund's Freddy is in this original film. The character is never center stage nor overexposed and even when he is on screen he's usually kept in the dark. His infrequent lines are seldom played for cheap laughs either as we would see in the later films.






After this pulled in an impressive 25 million in U.S. box office, a sequel immediately went into production. Though it was financially successful (even more so than the first), A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 2: FREDDY'S REVENGE (1985) faced backlash for partially ditching the rules set down in the original. Fan favorite A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3: DREAM WARRIORS (1987) helped develop the Freddy joker persona as most know it today. With each victim he claimed, often in an amusing or absurd way, Freddy was never without a snappy one-liner and the series continued down this path for the rest of its duration. By the time the fourth film was released, Freddy was at the height of his popularity, every genre magazine's cover boy, mass merchandised and the recipient of his own syndicated TV series, Freddy's Nightmares.




The success of this franchise from 1984 to 1988 caused major Freddy fatigue by the end of the decade. None of the subsequent follow-ups: the dreary A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989), the awful Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991; released with a 3D "Freddy-Vision" gimmick) and the surprisingly clever but financially disappointing New Nightmare (1994), could match the box office magic of the first four. A break was in order, and a break the series got.

After laying dormant for about a decade, and now with a little help from another genre titan, the series rebounded with the spin-off Freddy vs. Jason (2003), which brought in an impressive 80 million dollars. An obligatory remake directed by Samuel Bayer was released in 2010 but was roundly rejected by most series fans. Not only was it filled with lame attempts at jump scares and God awful CGI effects, but Englund himself was replaced for the first time ever by Jackie Earl Haley and given a new, "more realistic" make-up design.




Producer Robert Shaye's voice can be heard as news and radio announcers. His sister Lin Shaye (who would become a horror icon herself in the decades to come) plays a school teacher in one scene. The cast also includes Joe Unger as a policeman, Charles Fleischer (who went on to voice Roger Rabbit) as a doctor and Craven's former wife Mimi Craven as a nurse. The score is from Charles Bernstein, who also did the music for Craven's Deadly Friend (1986). Craven allowed Bob Shaye and Sean S. Cunningham to direct a couple of individual scenes themselves to save some time.

★★1/2

14 comments:

spookyx3 said...

after the NEVER SLEEP AGAIN doc i intended to go through the series again, but...

The Bloody Pit of Horror said...

They were all on Hulu a few months back for like one month so I re-watched and got pictures while I still could. Unfortunately, after watching the first four they were removed the very day I was planning to watch Part 5 so I didn't have a chance to do that one. I think I'm going to do a review for No More Mr. Nice Guy from the Freddy's Nightmares series instead for the time being.

spookyx3 said...

had a great time. almost from the jump you can see why this became the phenomenon it did. for years i read people disparaging langenkamp's acting in this installment -- works for me. excellent score. not the dream stuff, but some of the actual death scenes (as morbid as this sounds) don't _quite_ hit the spot, and i think i might be with englund on not liking krueger running after the kids. (he mentioned that during promo for #2; wonder if they "fixed" it in #3?) he's better when frightening people remotely, lurking in shadows, changing into something else, appearing out of nowhere... 7/10.

The Bloody Pit of Horror said...

Feel exactly the same way. I had it rated at 3 stars prior to this rewatch and appreciated it so much more this time out than I had in the past. Also Langenkamp isn't bad at all. In fact, she was much worse in Part 3!

spookyx3 said...

langenkamp's next two projects: co-lead in SUBURBAN BEAT, a cozy crime-comedy pilot, also with patty austin, shelley fabares & dee wallace. heather played a prudish housewife (she uses "H-E double hockey sticks" unironically). not surprised it didn't get picked up. then the zz-top music video for "sleeping bag" where they're obviously playing with the NOES imagery.

The Bloody Pit of Horror said...

She seemed to actively avoid being in horror films for the longest time (aside from the Elm Streets) and you know she had to have a lot of offers she passed on back then.

I thought her acting improved quite a bit by the time she was in New Nightmare but then I saw her again in The Butterfly Room (2012) and she wasn't very good in it (thankfully Barbara Steele WAS great and kept the whole thing watchable). I've not seen anything more recent than that. Looks like she'd appearing in more horror flicks again.

spookyx3 said...

maybe down to wes' direction, then -- she wasn't so hot in SUBURBAN BEAT either, and that came right after her good work on the first ELM STREET. another major role was in TV, JUST THE TEN OF US, although late '80s shot-on-tape family sitcoms probably aren't the place to be looking for good performances necessarily... brooke theiss (debbie in NOES 4) also starred in that.

i'll throw BUTTERFLY ROOM onto the watchlist. latest thing i tried was DON'T GO TO SLEEP from 2016, a (short, free) NOES fan-film she narrates, set between parts 1&3.

The Bloody Pit of Horror said...

I liked The Butterfly Room, though it seems to be hit or miss with viewers. I'm a big fan of Steele so that helped my enjoyment tremendously. Either way you get an all star horror cast if nothing else (Steele, Langenkamp, Ray Wise, James Karen, Adrienne King, P.J. Soles, Camille Keaton...)

Also, JoAnn Willette from JTTOU had a small role in Part 2. She is also shown briefly in Mark Patton's new documentary.

spookyx3 said...

should be DON'T FALL ASLEEP (2016); that's what i get for not checking first.

> Mark Patton's new documentary.

oh, i was waiting for that to come out!

The Bloody Pit of Horror said...

It's a Shudder exclusive. I basically got Shudder for a few months just so I could check it, Horror Noire, One Cut of the Dead and Daniel Isn't Real out, though they have lots of other pretty good stuff on there so, granted they shuffle their library around enough, I may actually keep it for awhile!

HAFanForever said...

I definitely consider Gremlins and A Nightmare on Elm Street the best horror films of 1984, while those pieces of shit Silent Night, Deadly Night AND They're Playing with Fire are the worst of the year! I will never NOT rant about how much I hate They're Playing with Fire and the Diane character in it! 😠😡🤬

Now I want to make myself clear that my rants about said film have nothing to do with you, so I'm not expressing any rage towards you and I'm certainly not criticizing or shaming you for your review of it. It's just that I absolutely abhor Diane because her actions and behaviors throughout the movie come off as hypocritical, greedy, selfish, manipulative, and immoral in just about every way you can imagine, especially because everything she does are major violations to the ethics and codes of her profession, which put her in a very bad light and don't make her a good person at all. I would most definitely describe Diane with three different "D" words: dishonest, deceptive, and DISGUSTING!!! 🤢🤮 Not only do I wish her affair with Jay had been exposed by the university and she would be fired from her job while he could get suspended or expelled; I REALLY wish she had been killed by Bird because she did NOT deserve the Stevens fortune after all the dishonesty she committed to get it. I mean, when she brings Jay his new car at the end, her face lacks any feeling of care, concern, or remorse that their affair led to the deaths of Michael, Cynthia, and other innocent bystanders. She doesn't appear to feel bad at all that she lied and cheated in order to get money that she never truly deserved in the first place. I mean, how can you call Diane a heroic lead character in this film since everything she did just shows the exact opposite? No, They're Playing with Fire is a stupid movie with contemptible lead characters and their morally questionable actions, and it just makes me so livid that they get away with it and "live happily ever after"!!! 😡😡😡 They deserved to be punished, not rewarded, and I'll never not rage about the movie if someone brought it up in conversation.

Now I'm actually shocked that Nightmare received positive feedback from critics because it has graphically violent and gory moments just like Friday does, and that film was critically panned for those very reasons! What's your take or opinion on why Nightmare was far better received by critics than Friday?

And have you seen the 2010 remake? I saw it when it first came out, and it was from that film that I learned that its concept of Freddy being a child molester prior to being killed was actually the original idea for the character for the 1984 movie. However, there was a highly publicized number of child molestation cases going on in California when the film was in production, and Wes Craven didn't want to be accused of exploiting those events, so he rewrote Freddy as a serial child killer instead. In my honest opinion, the idea of Freddy being a child molester and passing himself off as a friendly, harmless gardener is more frightening, because he was evil from the very beginning and pretended to be someone he wasn't just to earn the trust of these innocent children.

The Bloody Pit of Horror said...

I think Danning herself hated the movie and it's easy to see why!

You know, I looked back through some of my more mainstream movie review books and a lot of the critics actually gave the original NOES a middling review. They didn't HATE it and (some) recognized it was more imaginative that other films in its category but they didn't think it was anything special either. I think the movie gained more respect over time but not all of the initial reviews were good. Roger Ebert, for instance, only gave a positive review to one movie in the series: New Nightmare. Leonard Maltin originally gave it just 1 1/2 out of 4 but then changed his rating to 2 1/2 later.

Another 1984 genre film you may want to try if you haven't see it is The Company of Wolves. It has a werewolf theme but it isn't a gore / exploitation movie.

I did see the remake and thought it was awful! I also don't like the child molester idea really and am glad Craven scrapped it. I think getting rid of that worked better for the series as a whole because having a pedophile running around spouting one-liners while killing teens would give those movies a REALLY unsavory flavor. Not that being a child killer isn't bad enough already! lol

HAFanForever said...

Do you think Sybil hated the movie for the morally questionable actions Diane commits as I stated here? I can't help but wonder if Eric did as well...although on the film's IMDb page, it mentions that in an interview, Sybil said something along the lines of Diane Stevens being the best performance of her career. I think she did say something like "best performance" or "most interesting"; it definitely wasn't "favorite role". Although I also can't help but wonder if both of them hated the movie further because their differing views on the nude and sex scenes made it impossible for them to get along.

I actually do have some additional stuff I wanted to tell you about the film, including extra words and thoughts I never specifically mentioned before, so I'm working on leaving a new comment on that movie review right now. But I also gotta ask: what do you think of all that I said there about Diane and her actions in that comment's second paragraph? I wanted to be as thorough as I could, and I know I said some of those same words before, but I just want to drive the point home what reasons I believe makes this film so detestable with a VERY UN-heroic lead character, and despite being a horror movie, my reasons for hating They're Playing with Fire have NOTHING to do with the scary scenes!!! 😠😤😡

Yeah, I get why you dislike the child molester concept with Freddy. Would you say that idea makes him a more frightening character in some ways than the original Freddy? Even though this is a bad film, it's not the worst I've ever seen, and Jackie Earl Haley did give a frightening performance as Freddy. I even watched the alternate ending, where he shows his appearance prior to being burned. In this pre-burned form, he shows Nancy his truly dark, evil, menacing, sadistic nature, which we didn't see in him on screen with the children before his death.

The Bloody Pit of Horror said...

In a 1986 interview with Roger Ebert she said ""I made a movie called 'Playing with Fire,' catering to the young audience. I was a high-school teacher who seduced my student as part of a murder plot. I thought it would pay my bills while we worked on what we really wanted to do. The picture played one week. I called the exhibitors. They said it opened great and then it died. They said the audience came to see me kick ass, and they were disappointed."

So it appears she did it mostly for the money, or at least used to claim such. Surprised she now considers it a good role, especially since she told interviewer Jeff Cramer in 2012 that "it's not a great movie".

You can read that interview here:
https://jeffcramer.blogspot.com/2012/05/very-candid-conversation-with-sybil.html


I actually think Freddy being more ambiguous and mysterious worked best in the earlier films. When they started delving more into his backstory, origins, etc. is when I felt the character lost all of his mystique / scary qualities. It just got silly after awhile with him being a child killer then some kind of demon then the "bastard son of 1000 maniacs" then a child molester, etc.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...