Hello everyone. How's everyone's week going? Things going okay here. Little chaotic but nothing too far from the course for this time of the year. Seems like every year round this time is chaotic. Last time we talked about Freddy's Revenge, a film that one could consider to be a cult classic now. It gave a bit of a more sinister take on Freddy Krueger. And of course, it was a big hit.
After that point, it was a bit of a no brainer that we wouldn't be seeing the last of Freddy. I mean it was New Line Cinema's cash cow. Plus the audiences were still turning up for it. So if it's going to make money, why not keep the ball rolling with it? That was kind of the general consensus with the movie studios and their views on the horror genre at that time. At that point, we had gotten six Fridays at that point? When it released in 1987, Freddy was the only one of the top three horror icons to have a film in the theater. Jason Lives had been released in '86 and then Michael wouldn't return till '88.
It was also at this point that New Line was trying to distance itself at the time from Freddy's Revenge. In my opinion, that was something that was extremely unfortunate. Since Nancy was able to return in Dream Warriors, it would have been a fitting place for Mark Patton's Jesse to return as well. Instead, they chose to attempt to sweep the film under the rug due to the fan reaction at the time. In order to try and expand the world of Elm Street, New Line tapped Wes Craven to return. They had been hoping that he'd return to write and direct the film. Wes signed on to co-write the film alongside Bruce Wagner. What New Line Cinema received was something a bit darker and horror-centric than what we initially received in the final product.
I mean in the very beginning of this script, we see a baby Freddy emerging from a pregnant woman. Hmm...I wonder if it's something that would ever be featured later on in the series. Nah, probably not. But something that Craven and Wagner were on to was the idea of showing more of an effect Freddy has on the children of the world as it featured multiple missing children posters. Again, it was something that kind of makes sense in the long run of the franchise now as it seems like New Line picked some aspects out for other installments. One of the biggest things I noticed is that Nancy was front and center at the heart of the story. It definitely felt more of a continuation of the original film. It's really an intriguing read that if you wish to seek it out, you can find it available on the internet.
When New Line's offer to direct was rejected, they moved on from Craven and Wagner. They brought in Frank Darabont and Chuck Russell to deliver a film. The pair worked on the script while Russell would ultimately be the director of the piece. When New Line was delivered the final version, I'm assuming they were happy with what they received. While Craven and Wagner were a different take on the material, this new version was a bit lighter. It was something that played up the 'dream' aspects of Elm Street while also bringing a bit more humor to it. It's something that felt more like an event or a horror blockbuster film, if you will. It was an entertaining fun ride.
This was one of my most watched installments while I was growing up. I enjoyed the film a lot. It's one that I can always turn on and be entertained. It brought a lighter, humorous tone to the film series. I think one of the largest reasons that the film works so much is its cast. Everybody is fantastic. Englund again kills it as Krueger. This is the time where we begin to get the Freddy we are more used with his one liners. He's still savage but with more of a smile on his face. Heather Langenkamp returns as Nancy. It's always great seeing her back. Honestly, I could go on further listing off the cast because it's pretty stacked. I mean Laurence Fishburne and Patricia Arquette. That was the beauty of 80s horror - seeing actors and actresses that'd become big in their early roles.
Everything was a bit more inventive with the way that Freddy was portrayed and what he was doing in the dreams. That was a bit of a step up from the previous two films. But as the more out-there it got, the creepier Freddy gets. I mean come on, he lifts a girl and smashes her into a tv because she wants to be an actress. Or OD-ing someone that's recovering from use of drugs. That's all pretty savage. Oh, then there's the Freddy-worm. We'll call it that. It's a worm. Nothing suggestive or in subtext there whatsoever.
Over the years, my opinion of the film has changed a little bit. I still enjoy it a lot, mind you. I just find myself wondering what it would have been like if we would have gotten that initial Craven and Wagner script. Honestly, it'd be interesting if they were to do a Dream Warriors reboot - let's get the horror version of it. Give us something new and different with Freddy. That's something that I really just find myself saying a lot. Let's do something new. The Elm Street remake could have been very solid. It was setting itself up to be different and establishing an idea of 'What if Freddy was innocent? What if the parents had murdered an innocent man for something their children had said?'. But then they didn't double down on things and instead chickened out. This version feels a little like the studio was playing it a bit safe. And Nancy doesn't feel entirely as integral to the film as in the original draft. They did expand the lore of the world though with the introduction of Amanda Krueger and him being the son of 1,000 Maniacs. At this point, I tend to gravitate more towards the next installment if I want a fun Elm Street movie.
Rating: 3.75 out of 5.
Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
No comments:
Post a Comment