Jackie Earle Haley (The Watchmen) is slated to play Freddy Krueger and the decision looks to be firm.
I have to ask though, is a redo really necessary?
With Rob Zombie's retelling of Halloween, some scenes are lifted whole from the original done in 1978. Even if it legitimately pays homage, what's the point? Is it really worth watching it again? And not quite as well done? John Carpenter is good director who has created a particular tone for the character and film. Given, Rob Zombie is a good director in his own right, judging from House of 1000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects, but he just doesn't seem to fit the right "mold" for Halloween.
On the flip side, I haven't watched the new Friday the 13th, but I've actually read some decent reviews.
Getting back to Nightmare on Elm Street, even if the new movie turns out to be good, aren't we all suckers for watching the same movie again and paying for it? The franchise practically made Robert Edlund, and it's easy to see why. Other than the series, who remembers his role in Phantom of the Opera? (come on, someone please...)
Mind you, I don't have too much doubt that it might at least be half good, given Hollywood's fascination with evil and villainy. Every decent film, with rare exception, has an incredible antagonist but on notable occasions a film will study a villain to such a degree it becomes glorification. And if so, horror film franchises definitely tops the bill.
If so, are we oft to blame for watching and rooting for them? Or is Hollywood so fascinated with them they keep recycling the same material? In any damn case, I think I will go watch the new Nightmare on Elm Street movie anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment