Where Craven images succeed excessively

Rating: 5/10 (8 August 2008)

This review leads to my interpretation of the whole story. Some major plot points are detailed. However, if you know little or nothing of the film, then read no further because this review may spoil the ending, such as it is, for you. See the film, then come back another time, perhaps?
But first: I think we all know what is meant by the term 'chop-socky', a term that references physics-defying martial arts films from Hong Kong.
Nightmare is a film that I put under the heading of 'chop-sicky' and a film that I deliberately avoided when first released, simply because I wasn't too interested in another specimen of what many call a horror movie, but which is in fact a terror-fantasy or a fantasy-terror, if you like. Chop-sicky just seems more appropriate to me...
{For real horror, however, start with House of Wax (1953), then on to Psycho (1960) of course, then Peeping Tom (1960), perhaps The Shining (1980), Blue Velvet (1986), definitely Cronenberg's Dead Ringers (1988), don't miss Lost Highway (1997) and  if you can stomach it  Audition (1999), my own choice as the piece-de-resistance of horror movies. There're many others of course.}
There are already some excellent retellings of the Nightmare story here. So, I'll mention it only briefly: Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) was a serial child killer who was murdered by angry parents years prior. Now, he resurrects in the dreams of some of the children of those murderous parents because Freddy now seeks revenge by killing their children. Hence, the plot traces how Freddy serially eliminates Tina (Amanda Wyss), Rod (Nick Corri), and Glen (Johnny Depp), the first and the last in particularly over-the-top (pun intended) gory scenes. The plot continues with Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) setting out to confront and defeat Freddy, while her father, Lt. Thompson (John Saxon) and her mother, Marge (Ronee Blakely) try to keep her from any harm.
Now, if you buy that as a viable story, then you've bought into a fantasy where anything goes. Which is precisely what director Wes Craven wants when he has Tina torn to shreds on the ceiling by Freddy's unseen hands; when he has Freddy's knife-encrusted hand appear between Nancy's legs while she's in the bath; when a hole opens up under Glen in bed, and he's sucked down, minced up and then squirted back in a fountain of blood; when Nancy runs through the dark streets pursued by Freddy, but she eludes him, but only just; when Nancy, in class at school, appears to hallucinate about Freddy; when Nancy is trapped inside her home with Freddy and nobody outside, particularly her dad and the cops across the road, will respond to her frantic cries and gesticulations for help; and when Nancy descends down to the basement (oh, my, all alone again) to then wander through a labyrinth to finally defeat the nightmare of Freddy Krueger...
All pure fantasy, of course. But, all dreams are fantasies, of one kind or another, with nightmares the worst kind. And this one is heavy with sexual symbolism, but not so far from some of the nightmares that some people have in real life, perhaps. So, does Nancy really defeat her nightmare? In this movie, she doesn't because, the story  the whole caboodle, from opening to closing scene - is revealed as Nancy's own nightmare that is still in progress  thus easily allowing the continuation of Freddy's rampaging in the sequel. In short, we're inside Nancy's head from the get-go. So, good night and good luck, Nancy, continue with your nightmare... and so also you, dear viewer, says Craven.
Now, whether the resolution of this nightmare (with all the subsequent Freddy Krueger films) ultimately turns on fantasy or reality, I don't know. Frankly, I don't care because having finally seen this one, I'm quite sure that all the sequels are worse. With few exceptions, sequels do tend to go that way, don't they?
Having said that, there's no doubt that Wes Craven (with a less than stellar cast) did a great job with the visuals, the special effects, makeup and editing. Sure, typical slasher stuff, but still technically very good and with great shock effect for the unwary. John Saxon plodded, competently, through the story as he does, usually; Heather Langenkamp overacted and was just too shrill, in my opinion; Johnny Depp was a welcome addition in this, his first movie (and the real reason I finally decided to see this film); and Robert Englund has, arguably, become a legend, but for all the wrong reasons, I think. The stand-out act, however, must go to Amanda Wyss (Tina) with the death sequence on the ceiling {over the top  get it?  and yes, a direct steal from Friedkin's The Exorcist (1973) when the devil raises Regan (Linda Blair) up to the ceiling} that is graphically and bloodily shocking, while also technically quite fascinating.
What's that old saying? Yeah - the greatest flattery is copying! Craven, here with buckets of blood, obviously had barrels of laughs making this movie.
To sum up, I guess I'd say that, as the first of the series, Nightmare is worth seeing  just so that you can say that you've seen it.
Not recommended for kids twelve or less.