There ain't a Goddamn original thought or idea in A Nightmare on Elm Street and there isn't any indication that any were even considered. That's pretty fucking sad since it's a remake of the original and relatively boring Nightmare. Yeah, I know people are gonna claim it's a classic because: 1) they like it as a kid and they believe every piece of shit they liked as a kid should be in a museum somewhere; 2) they think that if they liked it, then it must be fucking great; 3) they haven't bothered watching it in a long time. To me, it was a clever idea that didn't get any good until the third movie in the series. My point is, though, that if you're remaking something, shouldn't you make some effort to improve on the original? Because if the original is so fucking perfect, why remake it?

Anyway, twenty-six years later and nobody involved in this turd used the interim coming up with a way to remake it better. Someone could, I'm sure, but that would be taking a risk. A Nightmare on Elm Street is like tin foil is to crack: the cheapest, easiest way to deliver a toxic thrill.

The dreams of a group of homely, hobbyless teenagers are haunted by a patty-melt-faced slasher. If he gets to them while they sleep, they're dead in real life. The teens soon realize they are having the same dreams with the same villain. They learn he was the child-molesting gardener at their pre-school, who was burned to death by their parents because the cops in their town were too busy pulling over Mexicans and asking for papers.

Although the parents never told the teens they had been molested, it's obvious they were affected by the diddling because they've all grown up to be boring-ass whiners. To stay alive, the kids must stay awake. But because A Nightmare on Elm Street is as timid as a Japanese exchange student, they only use legal and prescribed methods to do it. Fuck it, if ever there were a time to use meth, this would be it.

What a lousy bunch of kids to spend an hour-and-a-half with. I would rather hang out with the hoodlums who think it's a good time to shit on the floor of the library bathroom and terrorize toddlers in the town square with their BMX bikes and puberty 'staches.

Freddy Krueger is played by Hollywood's latest feel-good reclamation project Jackie Earle Haley. Those bumfucks love it when they can think they're doing some dude a favor by reviving his dead career. Then they give the guy shit roles like this and he will disappear fast enough. His Krueger is mechanical and drab. He has the same punny one-liners as the original, only this time without the self-awareness of how lame they are. Rather than being creepy or chilling, Freddy is just relentlessly pops up when you least expect it, meaning when you most expect it. The movie's few thrills are all the weak "boo" kind. Nothing sticks beyond leaving the theater.

Visually, A Nightmare on Elm Street uses the same boiler room imagery as the original for its nightmares. The pipes are bigger and lit better, but it doesn't conjure up any new dread. The set designers copied, not innovated. The same could be said for the writer and director. Some executive asked, "Don't do too much, okay?"

When a movie sucks this hard and does this little, but has an R rating, it owes us at least one simple thing: teenagers played by hot actresses in their twenties who take off their tops. A Nightmare on Elm Street doubly fails. First, these actors are pasty, dopey and look vaguely Canadian. They are humorless and exhausted. Second, the Fionas never get any naughtier than wearing pushup bras under their pajamas. How can such a shitty movie not even offer us a visceral reason to watch it later on premium cable?