Saturday, April 1, 2023


April 30, 2010 by · Leave a Comment 

Horror films are rarely shown to critics in advance. And for good reason. They’re generally not the kind of movies that can be appraised for their cinematic artistry. Warner Bros./New Line probably shouldn’t have bothered arranging pre-release press screenings for the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street either. “I stared at A Nightmare on Elm Street with weary resignation,” writes Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times. “The movie consists of a series of teenagers who are introduced, haunted by nightmares and then slashed to death by Freddy. So what?” This nightmare has been updated, in part by using computer-generated images. But A.O. Scott in the New York Times says that some of the CGI effects make “a few of the scenes that should be horrifying look silly.” And, it would seem, the crude special effects are not the movie’s sole problem. Writes Peter Howell in the Toronto Star. “There are a lot of things wrong with this remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street, not least of which is that it was made at all. Greed, not art, inspired [it],” he remarks. Jackie Earle Haley may be the better actor but critics apparently miss the original Freddy, Robert Englund. “Man, that guy knew how to have a killer good time,” says Jen Chaney in the Washington Post. And, concludes Elizabeth Weitzman in the New York Daily News: “The fan anxiety over Jackie Earle Haley replacing Robert Englund turns out to be warranted. … Englund’s unpredictable presence is definitely missed.”