Topic: Robert Englund

Having just  watched the pile of steaming poo called "Strippers vs Werewolves".  I ask the question why is this actor regarded as an icon of horror? Robert Englund has made more duds in the horror genre than any other recognised horror actor. I am not anti Robert Englund, i do not dislike him, in fact he is not without talent but for christ's sake man get a better agent! His career was better pro Freddie in my opinion  with " Death Trap", and "V" the t.v series. I will give you the first three "Nightmare on Elm Street" films as decent performances from him but the rest of that series is more of the same. "Phantom Of The Opera (1989) is probably his best performance outside of the Nightmare films, and 2001 Maniacs and Jack Brooks Monster Slayer are decent but the rest are eithier clunkers or "Brando" like cameos!!!! among the many terrible films to at best below average films he has done is Night Terrors, New Nightmares,The Mangler,Black Swarm, Zombie Strippers, Heartstopper,Strippers versus Werewolves and loads of others.I say again take out Freddy Krueger, why is this man considered a horror Icon?

Re: Robert Englund

wolfman1959 wrote:

Having just  watched the pile of steaming poo called "Strippers vs Werewolves".  I ask the question why is this actor regarded as an icon of horror? Robert Englund has made more duds in the horror genre than any other recognised horror actor. I am not anti Robert Englund, i do not dislike him, in fact he is not without talent but for christ's sake man get a better agent! His career was better pro Freddie in my opinion  with " Death Trap", and "V" the t.v series. I will give you the first three "Nightmare on Elm Street" films as decent performances from him but the rest of that series is more of the same. "Phantom Of The Opera (1989) is probably his best performance outside of the Nightmare films, and 2001 Maniacs and Jack Brooks Monster Slayer are decent but the rest are eithier clunkers or "Brando" like cameos!!!! among the many terrible films to at best below average films he has done is Night Terrors, New Nightmares,The Mangler,Black Swarm, Zombie Strippers, Heartstopper,Strippers versus Werewolves and loads of others.I say again take out Freddy Krueger, why is this man considered a horror Icon?

Did you actually watch Strippers Vs Werewolves, or did you do as I did and give up on it after 20 minutes?

And 20 minutes too long of my life wasted on this pile of poo. LOL.

I agree about Robert. Away from the Nightmare character he's a pretty uneventful, boring person. Not like the real horror greats, Cushing, Price and Lee.

Re: Robert Englund

Englund isn't a horror icon (to me anyway). He's done Nightmare on Elm Street and that is great, but the other films have tainted his name greatly.

I never understood all the hype around him, he's just not that good (to me, again). I know there are some hardcore Englund fans out there, but I'm certainly not one.

Re: Robert Englund

Master Horror wrote:
wolfman1959 wrote:

Having just  watched the pile of steaming poo called "Strippers vs Werewolves".  I ask the question why is this actor regarded as an icon of horror? Robert Englund has made more duds in the horror genre than any other recognised horror actor. I am not anti Robert Englund, i do not dislike him, in fact he is not without talent but for christ's sake man get a better agent! His career was better pro Freddie in my opinion  with " Death Trap", and "V" the t.v series. I will give you the first three "Nightmare on Elm Street" films as decent performances from him but the rest of that series is more of the same. "Phantom Of The Opera (1989) is probably his best performance outside of the Nightmare films, and 2001 Maniacs and Jack Brooks Monster Slayer are decent but the rest are eithier clunkers or "Brando" like cameos!!!! among the many terrible films to at best below average films he has done is Night Terrors, New Nightmares,The Mangler,Black Swarm, Zombie Strippers, Heartstopper,Strippers versus Werewolves and loads of others.I say again take out Freddy Krueger, why is this man considered a horror Icon?

Did you actually watch Strippers Vs Werewolves, or did you do as I did and give up on it after 20 minutes?

And 20 minutes too long of my life wasted on this pile of poo. LOL.

I agree about Robert. Away from the Nightmare character he's a pretty uneventful, boring person. Not like the real horror greats, Cushing, Price and Lee.

i'm afraid to say i watched the whole thing sad it didn't get any better. truly one of the worst films i have ever seen.

Re: Robert Englund

Scavenger of Human Sorrow wrote:

Englund isn't a horror icon (to me anyway). He's done Nightmare on Elm Street and that is great, but the other films have tainted his name greatly.

I never understood all the hype around him, he's just not that good (to me, again). I know there are some hardcore Englund fans out there, but I'm certainly not one.

thanks guys! i thought i might get ( and still might) get a lot of Flack over this ( he he i'm prepared because that's my name smile )but putting him in the same group as Karloff, price, Lee, Cushing, Chaney, Lugosi ( who i'm also not a great fan of)or even Carradine is a vast stretch of the imagination to me. he has made some terrible films, much more than he has good ones in the genre, in fact it has been for a while now if i see his name in the cast of a horror film, i think " Well, i think i can wait to see that".

Re: Robert Englund

I don't understand why he does films like 2001 Maniacs and such. And someone can sugarcoat it all they like, but the movies aren't good. They aren't horrible but they are bad.

Maybe he just believes they are good, and that is fair enough. But then again, maybe it was just the money he was offered.

Either way, he is no match to Cushing.

Re: Robert Englund

I think Englund's earned his icon status.  He's not an icon in the same way that, say, Vincent Price or Peter Cushing are icons; their icon statuses are based on their vast and diverse work in the genre, whereas Englund, while he does have a long list of credits, is more like Karloff or Lugosi, whose icon statuses stem from highly memorable single performances.

That said, I actually prefer Englund more in character roles than as Krueger.  I love the first two Elm Street flicks, and while I do enjoy part 3, by that point the character had become a jokester and pop-culture sensation, which robbed him of his ability to truly frighten.  But I enjoy more when I see him pop up in stuff like Eaten Alive, Stay Hungry, Adventures of Ford Fairlane, Urban Legend, etc.  I liken him quite a bit to Brad Dourif as a genre vet who may be best known for one role, but is actually better in his many smaller ones.  IMO, anyway.

Re: Robert Englund

I agree with you Lon, except for the part about karloff. I believe his like Christopher Lee, he may mostly be remembered for a specific role in horror film, but also played many diverse rolls.

Re: Robert Englund

Oh, no doubt.  And Karloff was a VERY good actor.  But understand I wasn't saying guys like Englund, Karloff and Lugosi weren't diverse, merely that despite their diversity, they had signature roles that they're most widely known for, whereas guys like Lee and Price are widely known by multiple famous roles.

Not that it makes a difference when it comes to any of them being icons.  They're just icons for different reasons.