A Nightmare On Elm Street

Wes Craven’s classic A Nightmare On Elm Street is the latest from the horror canon to be updated with more visceral effects and a greater degree of violence. If the original wave of horror films (contemporaneous with the ‘video nasties’ of the 1980s) caused moral outrage, this harsher version is a reminder of how much more desensitised we have become; it will not raise any eyebrows for its content.

Making horror films has become like shooting fish in a barrel of late; scaring teenagers is easy enough, and now there are generations of them who have never seen the original slasher movies, who expect (in the wake of the torture-porn genre; Saw, Hostel, etc) to be exposed to a cinema experience that is largely physical. This reworking does not disappoint.

We all know the story, and it is a devastatingly simple one: Freddy Krueger’s dream demon is able cross the boundaries of sleep and wakefulness, meaning that the powerful imagery of their nightmares has material consequences for the somnolent teens. The film-makers are able to capitalise on the seamless boundary between reality and dreaming to plunge viewers quickly into danger and fear. The result is a jolt-a-minute shock-fest, with extra knife-scraping sound effects to further ramp up the sensory assault each time Freddy appears.

Although the original is respected, there are some departures. 2010’s version opens with a graphic sequence of an adolescent cutting open his throat, and the theme of Krueger’s gruesome child abuse is now more explicitly explored (not least in the affectedly creepy opening titles). In Craven’s original, the melty faced villain had been a killer - now he is a full blown paedophile, and the titular nightmares are a re-emergence of our teens’ repressed trauma. This places the film at the edge of one of horror’s great taboos; in an excessive sequence near the end, lead characters Quentin and Nancy encounter pictures of her being sexually abused as a child. The audience’s hatred for Krueger is already established (this is a villain with absolutely no charm), but now he becomes firmly placed as a legitimate target for their no less violent vengeance.

This film is essentially a crass money spinner: cynical and rather drab. If there is an idea under the surface, it seems to be a powerful defence of the death penalty. Krueger was killed once for his deviance and this film’s events represent his second execution! The ending (ripe for a sequel of course) suggests it will not be the last. You'll already know if this kind of film appeals - if not, then don’t bother.



Released in UK cinemas on 7th May 2010.

Reviewed by Huw Green.