That was a lot of Freddy for sure. It’s tempting to try to rank the films, but ultimately I think that’s kind of unfair, but I think we can group them.
I will say that the first one was, and still is, the best if I had to choose.
Also, none of them are awful films, they’re all still watchable for sure. The issue, as I’ll show with the grouping, is that some of them kind of blend in to one another.
I would consider the first three films to be their own series. If you want to know Freddy, you can get all you need from these.
The original was excellent, the second tried something a bit different and still worked, and the third was good, and it certainly paved the way for the rest of the series, whilst being its own thing.
Four and Five are the formula films - a bunch of kids each with a single personality trait, who die in some way connected with that personality trait. It gets repetitive, but they’re all original in their own way. I do forget which kills are in which film though.
The Final Nightmare does add in some new elements, like Freddy before he’s Freddy, the town with no kids and such but even then it doesn’t quite escape the theme kills formula and is comedic for long scenes, instead of the more effective quips.
New Nightmare is again another attempt to reboot the idea and it does get away from formula kills, but honestly, it’s slow and tries too hard to be the first one again.
Despite their fame, none of the films had huge budgets, and ended when horror in general was in decline. That said, the small studio which produced them - New Line Cinema - was known as ’the house which Freddy built’ and of course would go on to produce the Lord of the Rings series.
The special FX were excellent for their times, and though some don’t hold up, I think most watchers would respect the artistry, and the effort which went in to many of them as practical effects. Personally, the firehoses of blood and rotating rooms in the first one make up for some short comings. I remember long-armed Freddy in the first one being scary, but re-watching it you can see too easily how it’s working. It’s not a problem though.
The cinematography is also very well done for most of the runtimes, with themes continued through films like the red and fire, or the fog or smoke in dreams, and given so much happens in the dark the lighting is excellent. Before Freddy comes front and centre in the later films, we initially saw less of him and perhaps more of the glove actually and that was a smart production choice. There are also plenty of plays on Freddy’s green and red jumper in many scenes.
Another important thing that I think Wes Craven and subsequent directors remembered was not to allow the films to overstay their welcome - most of the films come in around the 90-minute mark, with the notable exception of New Nightmare, and I think it shows - it feels much slower than the others. For some reason an Elm Street film works best at the hour and a half runtime.
I should also mention the music; we might not think of Freddy as having a real theme tune, there are very familiar piano parts throughout many of the films, especially around the nursery rhyme which comes into most of the films as a background detail.
It’s odd the series increasingly leaned into more comedic elements especially in the last few films, not just because it started as quite a serious horror series, but because the antagonist is a child killer, who was killed not by the Police, but by the parents of his own town acting as vigilantes. In the Final Nightmare Freddy is seen killing his own wife and traumatising his own daughter, yet in the same film we see Freddy as a Wizard of Oz like witch on a broomstick. It’s an odd combo.
I don’t have a problem with some of the darker one liners, but Freddy playing the video game in Final Nightmare is possibly a ‘jump the shark’ moment.
I think the films’ evolution reflected the fact that Freddy eventually became the Elm Street films, and a little like humans in most Godzilla films, they’re somewhat filler until the main attraction turns up. Also, unlike Jamie Lee Curtis from the Halloween films (and Dr. Lomax played by Donald Pleasance), there is no real antagonist continuity between many of the films, except Alice perhaps, but she’s somewhat forgettable and the only one I remember is Nancy played by Heather Langenkamp from parts 1 and 3.
There was the inevitable reboot in 2010, though I haven’t seen that one. Maybe I will some day.
So that was the Nightmare on Elm Street series. There was some nostalgia watching them, but I fell back into them quite quickly and they stand up well. It’s quite impressive given they made 7 of them in just 10 years! Somehow I thought there were more years between them.
In summary then, if you’re looking for some old school slasher films I’d definitely give the first one a go, and if you’re interested the first two sequels. It’ll be fun. I wonder if they’d be considered horror nowadays?
One, Two, Freddy’s Coming For You Three, Four, Better Lock Your Door Five, Six, Grab A Crucifix Nine, Ten, Never Sleep Again