Image via WikipediaWith Halloween approaching, what time would be better than to have a look at one of the most popular horror movie franchises of all time. I was way under the legal age when I first saw one of the worst installments of the series, "A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge", and was mildly disappointed. The whole build-up had been too much. School friends had told me it was the scariest horror they had ever seen and to this day I see reviews written saying pretty much the same thing. Of course, they weren't talking about this particular part - although some had seen the sequel and had just got carried away by the impact of the original. I borrowed my VHS copy off one of those adults who let's kids borrow that sort of stuff. In fact, I saw most of my first B movies off this guy. The whole taboo and decadence of the experience was enhanced by the stink of Raffles cigarettes that always seemed to cling the cases.Anyway, the experience was enough for me to want to see Part 3, which was where the original writer/director Wes Craven lent a collaborative hand again. The result was a fantasy adventure decorated with horror elements. It was like a much better version of "Dreamscape" - a now virtually forgotten and quirky film from 1985 that also had its lead villain rip someone up with a clawed hand. I did get round to watching the original before I continued on the ups and downs of the rest of the franchise, and even as 13 year old I could see what my friends had meant about the fear factor. The trouble was comic Freddy had already taken the edge of it, so I never did get the impact that a film like the original "Ringu" or "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" provided when I got round to seeing them many years later. That didn't matter, I was into horror-hero Freddy. The scarred maniac of our dreams made us all laugh with him out loud. Who could blame us, The Fat Boys were rapping with the guy by the time the campy and hugely entertaining fourth part came out. Cognitive dissonance allowing me and the rest of my generation to separate the wise-cracking rogue from the implication that he were putting a sadistic child-murdering pervert.
Sadly and despite the facts that certain critics and documentaries testify to the original film's credibility, it's legacy is marred by its status as a slasher movie and Krueger's development as a wise-cracking ghoul. Matters are not helped by creator Wes Craven's incredibly sporadic levels of quality, which often call into question his status as a master of horror...
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
This is how it all began...
Tina Gray is experiencing some very disturbing dreams, where she is being pursued by a hideously disfigured man wearing a red and green striped sweater, an old brown fedora hat and wielding a single glove adorned with knives on its four fingers. One morning the teenager awakes from her nightmare to discover four slashes torn into her night shirt. The tears correspond with the razor bladed fingers of her dream stalker...
And so began "A Nightmare on Elm Street", a landmark movie in both the horror genre and the slasher subgrenre. The man in Tina's dreams is, of course, Fred Krueger who we will very soon know as the iconic bogeyman Freddy. This figure will end up being featured in six sequels, a television series, a crossover picture with the other iconic horror figure of the '80s, Jason, and then in the recent remake. It is easy to think of Nightmare as another slasher franchise, living off the back of John Carpenter's Halloween and its predecessor, Black Christmas, and after the third instalment of the series Freddy had become a figure of parody. However, this is to overlook just how good the original Nightmare really was or, for that matter, how much better the sequels were compared to most other slasher films.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is arguably director/writer Wes Craven's best work. It is true that on a basic level, Nightmare is a slasher film. It contains many of the established clichés (and they were clichés by 1984) that would be sent up by Craven's film, Scream over a decade later. It has a dark secret that spawns an almost indestructible killing maniac, its victims are mainly teenagers or young adults, the killing methods vary and it has a "last girl" character. However, what sets it apart is the concept of Krueger killing his victims in their dreams. No one can avoid going to sleep, so this dispenses with the need for the outrageous stupidity of the victims. In fact, many Nightmare protagonists are actually quite switched on and the first film's main character is an inventive and formidable opponent for Freddy.
Nightmare also transcends its subgenre and finds its place in true horror by its use of imagery - much of it disturbingly sexual - and the way it blurs reality with dreams. This latter point is its real strength. Craven is not content with just showing us that what happens in the dreams can affect the victims in reality, he warps the viewers perceptions so they are not always one hundred per cent clear about what is real and what is dreamscape.
Finally the strongest point about Nightmare, of course, is its villain. Other slasher films may rise above their rivals through tight direction, careful observation of how to build suspense, inventive special effects, iconic music scores, and even have good actors and actresses in lead roles, but only Nightmare has Freddy. By allowing the villain to be intelligent and be able to speak, and revel in his sadism, we have different dimension altogether then the mute killing machine seen in Halloween and the Friday the 13th sequels. Freddy is not especially large, but his wicked cackling personality, played unforgettably by Robert Englund, is all too reminiscent of many a childhood villain - think the Wicked Witch of the West of "The Wizard of Oz" or, more appropriately, think the Child Catcher of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang". Before Freddy became a comical character he really was an effective menace.
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: "Freddy's Revenge"
You expect a possession entry in the Friday the 13th series. It was a cynical slasher series cloned from Halloween, never aspiring to any sort of horror greatness, and no stranger to gimmicks or inconsistency. Even when this did happen to Friday it had taken nine films and a change in production companies. A Nightmare on Elm Street - a modern classic horror movie - made this booboo on their second instalment. Fortunately it wasn't of the body hopping type, but it was a major unfortunate swerve from the original's intentions to the point that the rest of the franchise ignored it completely.
"A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge" develops an angle where Freddy Krueger can inhabit the world of the living through the body of another. By doing this rather than becoming mortal like he was in the original, he can distort the real world turning into a literal living nightmare. Five years after the incidents of the original Nightmare, a new family moves into Nancy Thompson's house. Enter Jesse, the adolescent son of the family who has just moved in. Jesse is a rather effeminate and sickly individual, which I am not entirely sure were the intentions of the casting director, but still he deserves some credit for being that rare character in a slasher flick: a "Last Man". Jesse starts experiencing some disturbing dreams featuring our favourite burned psycho. This time, however, Mr Krueger has a proposition for his victim, declaring "You've got the body and I have brain" in his own "charming" way. Actually this is perhaps the first genuine one liner from Krueger.
There is no mention whatsoever of the twist ending of the previous film, but Nancy's diary turns up. We never saw Nancy write a diary in the first film, but fair enough the writer is at least trying to make some sort of connection with the original material. Krueger's back story is also told again and his boiler room is visited in the real world. Aside from this, however, the film does not feel like the logical next stage of the original picture. It's almost a spin-off in this respect and not a particularly good one. There would be much better examples in the Twilight Zone/Tales from the Crypt style series "Freddy's Nightmares".
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 3: "The Dream Warriors"
Westin Hills psychiatric hospital is playing host to seven teenagers with supposed suicidal tendencies. New member of staff, Nancy Thompson (the heroin of the original A Nightmare on Elm Street), quickly discovers that the teenagers are linked by being the last children of the gang of parents who killed child murderer Freddy Krueger. Far from being suicidal, the seven patients are all struggling for their lives against Krueger who continues his murderous rampage through their dreams. Nancy hits upon a plan to get the teenagers to fight back by using their wildest fantasies to transform them into the Dream Warriors. However, they are going to need far more than their imaginations to defeat this bogeyman...
Freddy Krueger was hot property, but after the disappointing swerve of "A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge" the franchise was in urgent need of some attention. Wes Craven, who had wanted the original film to be a stand alone effort returned to work on Part 3. The film gives the feel of being the last part of a trilogy, which again was Craven's intention. However, this was not to be.
Heather Langenkamp and John Saxon reprise their roles as Nancy and her father, Lt. Thompson, respectively. They put in reliable performances alongside the very promising Patricia Arquette, who stars in her screen debut as the most predominant member of the Dream Warriors, Kristen Parker. However, the show this time belongs completely to Freddy Krueger, played again by Robert Englund. The Krueger franchise is assured for the rest of the 1980s at least by a more wisecracking rendition of the character, who uses the psychological weaknesses of his victims directly against them in their dreams. Later instalments turn the new dark humour into parody and the dream sequences into more elaborate set pieces.
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 3: The Dream Warriors rights the faults of the second film by providing a better continuation of the story. The film's script was drastically changed during pre-production, and many of the original concepts made it into the movie tie-in novel. Just as Craven's hands had been tied with the gimmicky twist ending of the first Nightmare, he was clearly very much over-ruled with the Dream Warriors, which is clearly aimed at a more commercial audience than before. The resulting film may not equal the original picture but it still serves as an exciting dark fantasy with a wide range of special effects depicting Freddy in many different forms from a murderous television set to a Ray Harryhausen-esque stop-motion skeleton.
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4: "The Dream Master"
The last remaining Dream Warriors are dispatched in succession as Freddy Krueger makes his return. However, Freddy needs more victims and it looks like he is going to get these via local shrinking violet, Alice. Alice, a friend of Kristen Parker's absorbs her dead friend's ability to draw people into her dreams, which gives Krueger access to her school friends. Despite this, all is not lost as Alice grows stronger after each death and prepares to go head-to-head with the dream demon in one final showdown. The past film revealed Krueger's strength came from the souls of his child victims. This time, however, it might just be his undoing...
"A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4: The Dream Master" did what most genre franchises do, amp up the previous film's most saleable attributes. Freddy not only cracks more one-liners as he dispatches his victims, but there is a visual element of parody present in the film. For example, Freddy Krueger enters one scene with his four finger knives cutting through the water like a shark's fin. The wisecracks are actually more funny than menacing this time around, robbing the victims of much sympathy and bringing the franchise dangerously close to Friday the 13th territory. Having said this, I have a soft spot for this particular instalment. The characters still have more depth than most horror films of this genre and the story's concept is very good. Alice's transformation from shy retiring schoolgirl to the Dream Master is almost a dark send up of the Cinderella or ugly duckling style flicks that were very popular in the 1980s.
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 5: "The Dream Child"
A year after the incidents of A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4: The Dream Child, Alice is beginning to have disturbing dreams again. This time she begins to relive the horror of child killer and then dream demon Freddy Krueger's conception and birth. After his birth, Alice witnesses the resurrection of the undead maniac in the venue where she had supposedly destroyed him. Freddy is back again and out to kill Alice's boyfriend and her new friends. He has further plans too. Alice is pregnant and Freddy has plans for her unborn child...
In many ways, "A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 5: The Dream Child" should have reprieved the franchise, just as Part 3 did. Although Part 4 was in no way a bad sequel, it had lightened the horror of the series. With Stephen Hopkins at the helm for this instalment and a clear determination to give the film a darker tone, it appeared that at least stylistically the film was going back to its roots. The noticeable blue filter filming technique does make the film appear more sombre. Hopkins would go on to show his brilliant directorial skills in films such as "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers". However, the fifth Nightmare film would not earn him much praise from critics or fans.
It is not that Nightmare 5 isn't a loyal sequel. Alice and Dan from the previous film continue on in the fashion you would expect and are played by the same actors. Even Alice's father, now a recovered alcoholic, makes an appearance. The origin of Freddy Krueger is looked at again, but the visuals are not as disturbing as the picture painted by Amanda Krueger's ghost in Part 3. In fact, despite the attempt at a gothic style the whole film lacks edge. The trademark humour of Freddy is present, but his death scenes are now completely devoid of anything that resembles horror. The idea might have been to darken Nightmare again, but the material is just not there. Combine this with the fact that so far the weakest entry, Part 2, had already used the idea of Freddy trying to possess someone, and you have a rather ill-conceived project. Sadly, despite some real potential, Nightmare 5 goes wide off the mark. Unfortunately the franchise would stray even wider the next time around...
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare
In the way off distant future of 1999 Freddy Krueger has successfully wiped out all the children in Springwood. The last teenager, John Doe, narrowly escapes the dream monster by being knocked past the city limits during an assault. The Nightmare series has never been big on defining what is the real world and what is dreamscape, so somehow Freddy doing this in a dream is enough for John to find himself in a different area in real life. Having acquired amnesia through the incident he ends up in a shelter for troubled children, where he meets a rebellious bunch of misfits. The group escape the home with John and return him to Springwood, having found a newspaper clipping in his pocket of the place and figuring it might jog his memory. This brings new meat back to ol' Pizza Face, but this time some startling revelations are about to made the horror icon. The source of his seemingly indestructible power is discovered and so is previously unknown fact that he had a child. Both are set to spell doom for Mr Krueger...
"Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare" was released over two years after the fifth film. This was the longest gap between films since the one between Parts 2 and 3. Like Part 2, Part 5 had disappointed fans and critics. It was thought that by announcing this instalment as the final part, the film would be a financial success. This turned to be correct and influenced New Line Cinema, once they had acquired the rights to the other great slasher icon of the '80s, Jason Voorhees, they could pull off the same stunt with him. This wasn't as successful. Back to Nightmare and we find the most disappointing entry since the justly panned Part 2. In fact, it is arguably worse than this episode and future films featuring Freddy would treat the sixth part with the same disdain, in that it is virtually ignored.
Every gimmick in the book seems to be shamelessly to be pulled out for Freddy's supposed final outing. The final dream battle sequence is not only done in 3D, a cinematic gimmick that had died in the '80s and wouldn't prove popular until just recently, but the combatant teenagers actually don the glasses. Even horror rock singer, Alice Cooper is cast to play Freddy's father. Having seen the failure of Stephen Hopkins' attempts to prolong the continuity of the series and to return it, at least stylistically, back to its darker roots in Part 5, it seems that Freddy's Dead tries to do the exact opposite. The results are far worse. The film has virtually no reference to the storyline picked up in Part 3 and faithfully followed in Parts 4 and 5. Although Part 5 was hampered by a dreadful script that provided the parody, its dark style at least gave it some good visual moments. This film takes the parody and almost turns the movie into a type of mild spoof.
Wes Craven's New Nightmare
No one at the time believed this would be the last Nightmare film. I recall several reviewers at the time not even referencing the apparent finality of the film, but discussing what would happen in the picture. In a way, the film didn't lie. It signalled an end to an era for A Nightmare on Elm Street. The next instalment would be completely out of cannon, a post-modern vision creator Wes Craven had wanted to do since he made the first film called "New Nightmare". After that there would be the long anticipated match up between Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees. Both films would be pleasant surprises for many reasons, but then again it couldn't be too difficult to outdo Freddy's Dead.It may surprise some that Freddy Krueger creator, Wes Craven did not intend for there to be any direct sequels to his surprise 1984 horror hit "A Nightmare on Elm Street". The film's twist at the end was added due to pressures from New Line Cinema who saw the potential for a franchise. When asked to be involved in the film's second sequel, Craven offered forward a script for a metafilm. Those involved with the original film would become haunted by their own creation. The idea was rejected in 1987. However, 10 years after the release of the original Nightmare, Craven's concept became a reality. The series had released its apparent "finale" film, "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare", which although considered dreadful by most, did very well at the box official initially. Seeking a new direction and possibly taking the negative feedback on board, Craven was allowed a shot at taking complete control back of his creation.
"Wes Craven's New Nightmare" pits Heather Langenkamp, the actress who played Nancy Thompson, the heroine of Nightmares 1 and 3 against a real manifestation of Freddy Krueger. Her son is threatened by the growing presence of the dream demon, as a new script written by the haunted Wes Craven is being written. The film sees Robert Englund both play the role of Freddy and himself, which are great contrasts. I grew up watching the science fiction series "V" long before I became a Nightmare fan, so Englund is as much Willie the gentle alien as Freddy the ghoulish spectral serial killer to me. Because of his success as Freddy, he has ended up with numerous jobs either presenting tired clip-show documentaries on horror films or being cast in some terrible B movies playing creepy people. In "New Nightmare" we get a chance to see the quietly spoken and artistic Englund make a cameo appearance. However, John Saxon, who played Nancy's father in the first and third instalments, has some of the best scenes in the film, discussing the unfolding drama with Heather Langenkamp.
"New Nightmare" is the vision of an auteur. Freddy Krueger looks distinctively different to his well-known incarnation, resembling the original idea Craven had for the character. He is far darker, with an organically razor "clawed" right hand rather than the homemade glove he sports in all the other films. The film does feature some overt and subtle homage moments to the original film, which don't detract from its place as a stand-along piece. For example, in Nightmare 1 there is a brief suggestion put that nightmares can occur before an earthquake happens. Early in "New Nightmare" Heather is awakened by an actual earthquake. Interestingly real scenes of quake damage were shot when the Los Angeles earthquake hit not long before the film was wrapped, adding another angle to the already complicated concept of art becoming reality becoming art.
The film is up there with "Being John Malcovich" with its surreal comments on the way art and iconic figures affect those closest to their creation. Unfortunately, although well critically received and a fan favourite, "New Nightmare" did not take as much at the box office as any of the other previous instalments. Perhaps the general public were not happy with this portrayal of Freddy Krueger, who they had come to accept since Part 3, as a wisecracking "horror hero". Perhaps the damage had been so bad with the sixth film, that few people were willing to give it a chance. I think, however, that times had move on. This was the longest gap of all between films and Freddy was a '80s icon. Nevertheless, after the series had gone so wayward and really crashed, from an artistic perspective, with the awful "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare", "New Nightmare" provides a reminder of why the original film was such a classic horror picture. This is the proper finale the franchise deserved.
Freddy versus Jason
In the red and green corner, weighing in with one genuine movie classic and six sequels of varying credibility and quality, once an original icon of horror now a lampooned cartoon figure associated with the 1980s: Freddy Krueger! In the white and red corner, weighing in with one half-decent send up sequel: Jason Vorhees! This was the moment many slasher fans of the '80s had been waiting for. We didn't think we would have to wait this long. Proposals for the match-up had been around since 1986, but it would take New Line Cinema to eventually buy the Jason character off Paramount Pictures in the early 1990s and then go through what is known as "production hell" where several disparate scripts would be proposed and rejected until finally 2003 saw the release of "Freddy versus Jason".
The millennium saw retrospective go into overdrive in terms of fashion, music and especially films. It was a time for the remakes, the live action versions of retro cartoon and toy franchises, and for superheroes (and villains) to meet. Fans were not just a vocal minority now, they were active contributors guiding people on the internet, writing for mainstream magazines and demanding that respect be shown for nostalgia they held so dear. So, according to the publicity surrounding "Freddy versus Jason", the story is linked directly to the end of the abortive "Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday" and almost as terrible "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare". The previous instalments of the franchises required no place in the film. "Jason X" was set in the future and "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" was none cannon. Jason is resurrected in his dreams by Freddy Krueger in order to bring terror back to Springwood, a town which has erased the history of Freddy from its archives and put all its children on the dream suppressant drug first seen in Nightmare 3. The plan works, but Jason refuses to stand aside when Freddy wants in on the action. Meanwhile some teenagers have figured out what is going on and embark on a plan to ensure that when the two monsters clash it will finish them both.
We all waited for this film to smash our expectations and many of us were pleasantly surprised. I am happy to say I was among those many. I am under no delusions about this film's place in horror history; it is the 21st century's equivalent to Universal's "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man". However, its realization is not some desperate attempt to resuscitate an ailing franchise, that had already happened, but an unashamed commercial enterprise designed to appeal to fans of the two "horror heroes". Robert Englund steps in as a cackling and wisecracking Freddy without missing beat. Jason Vorhees is, well, Jason Vorhees. Kane Hodder had become a fan-favourite and only actor to play the role for more than one film, but he was replaced by a much taller actor in order create a greater contrast with Robert Englund's smaller stature. The film worked hard to merge the hallmarks of each respective franchise. Elm Street's switched on kids and Crystal Lake's stupid ones have their representatives in the different characters. Both Freddy and Jason's back-stories are used extensively for valid plot reasons, including the discovery of their weaknesses. It all culminates in a match-up that sees the two icons duke it out in Freddy's dream world and Jason's home at Crystal Lake. Unlike the very short eventual fight between Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man, this battle is good value for money.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Plot:
Remake of 1984's "A Nightmare on Elm Street". The teenagers of Springwood are being haunted by a hideously burnt man who brandishes a glove with razors on its fingers. As her friends begin to be killed in their dreams by the scarred man she learns is called Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley), Nancy Holbrook (Rooney Mara) goes on a mission to find out their connection to the killer. She unearths a dark story of child molestation and vigilantism that has resulted in a terrible curse that threatens consume the children of Elm Street...
Review:
Sadly it was only a matter of time for "A Nightmare on Elm Street" to be remade by "The House that Freddy built". The 2000s proved that remakes of true genre-defining horror classics like "A Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Hills Have Eyes", "Black Christmas" and "Halloween" could be successful. TCM and HHE actually did a pretty good job in bringing the visceral fear and horror associated with the originals to a new audience. Then it was time to ransack a dubious classic, "Friday the 13th. In essence the original picture was really just another rip-off of 1978's "Halloween", but it quickly took on a ridiculous life of its own, becoming one of the most successful and recognizable franchises in movie history.
Like "Halloween", "Nightmare" had everything just right. However, it was much better. It took the old concept of a single seemingly indestructible killer on a revenge hunt and turned it on its head. Craven's monster, the child-killer Fred Krueger, attacked his victims in their dreams. Rather than the incredibly stupid teenagers that had been featured in "Friday the 13th" and other slasher horrors, we now had intelligent kids who fought to stay awake. In one deft move Craven eliminated the need to explain why the victims split up or made silly choices. Craven was also able to play with surrealism and merge dream and reality to create a genuine feel of helplessness in the picture. This was coupled with a certain Freudian type symbolic sexuality. Unlike other slasher horrors it didn't go in for excuses to show brief soft porn to titillate viewers before bringing in the gore. What was implied was altogether more disturbing. Krueger wasn't some mute zombie either. He was a cackling, taunting pervert like the Wicked Witch of the West on crack and spoke to society's worst fears. It spawned many sequels and none of them regained the original's dark magic, but even the worst of the batch (parts 2, 5 and 6) seemed to be a cut above the conventional slasher picture. Not so with the remake.
"How can you make 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' without Robert Englund?" was the question on everyone's lips, and answer it is appears is you can't. This vital ingredient made even the best moments of this film hard to appreciate. I read all the excitement about how the make-up and visual effects were done to make Krueger look more like a real burn victim than Englund's incarnation. The casting of Jackie Earle Haley on the back of his performance playing the part of a paedophile in the drama "Little Children" to portray Freddy also seemed well thought out. The film tries to portray Krueger as a child molester rather than an outright serial killer. This adds a better logic to the secrecy of the whole parent vigilante thing and somehow makes it more disturbing. The idea that the kids believe Krueger might have been innocent is also a nice touch. However, all of this fails to deliver. In order to honour its roots the familiar chords are there, so is the "One, two, Freddy's coming for you" jump-rope song, but as the Haley dons the familiar fedora and red and green striped sweater it all seems wearisome.
Englund appeared as Krueger in every single incarnation of the series prior to this picture. He not only appeared in the official sequels, but also in the post-modern "New Nightmare", in a movie crossover, "Freddy versus Jason", and even the TV series "Freddy's Nightmares". Englund's unique features and his voice are Freddy Krueger. There is no getting away from it and the sad thing is that any attempt to pay tribute to the original just seems to heighten this missing part.
If this was not enough - and it most certainly is - the film has plenty of other flaws. If it weren't for the aforementioned good parts in the previous paragraph I would consider this perhaps one of the most thoughtless of remakes. Haley aside, the rest of the cast literally and figuratively look like they are sleepwalking through this picture. This seems to be in line with the overall tone of the picture. There is zero mounting suspense and it all feels like a tired re-tread rather than a fresh beginning. To make matters worse, the exposition is very unnecessary. As previously mentioned, I appreciate the desire to reconstruct Freddy, but we don't need to know about micro-sleeping to explain why reality and dreams sometimes blur. By combining the supernatural with dreams, you can throw logic out the window and we all happily fasten our disbelief's seatbelt. Ever since the awful "It was all a dream" cliché came into regular currency we accept that we will be constantly wondering whether something is a dream or not. The fact that teenagers are scared to death of being killed in their sleep is enough to explain why they might be missing out on their healthy eight hours and then slipping in out of dream world throughout the day. It's a given!
The remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" should as a warning to future studios who think that all horrors that spawned sequels were not created equally. "Nightmare" could just about stand with a couple of fun instalments without Craven's input - although it should be noted that the best sequels, parts 3 and 7, were where he had a bigger say - but not without Robert Englund.
If you liked this article try this one "That Day Again"
Don't forget to check out Jamie Clubb's main blog www.jamieclubb.blogspot.com
