Genres

Visitors Review

LoneWolfAndCub 2012-05-24 23:24:14

A lot of good ideas that unfortunately never pan out

Wes Craven's original A Nightmare on Elm is one of my favourite horrorfilms, so I came into this remake with slightly raised expectations.The 1984 original was made on a low budget, with unknown actors and afairly unknown director at the time (having directed The Last House onthe Left and The Hills Have Eyes in the 70's). It performedspectacularly at the box-office, spawned one of the most well-knownvillains in cinema and seven sequels. Samuel Bayer, who has only hadexperience directing music videos, accepted quite the challenge whensaying yes to direct this reboot produced by Platinum Dunes' MichaelBay. Overall the movie isn't terrible; however, it lacks substance andtrue scares.The story is fairly similar to the original story, with some slighttweaks here and there I will not go into for fear of spoiling them. Iwill mention the concept of micronaps that was introduced, butunderused. It is brought up two or three times during the entire moviebut other than that is kinda just left to the side after awhile. Bayercould have used these to his advantaged, and really created a fantasticdream-like atmosphere throughout the entire film, making us questionwhat is reality and what is dream. Also, a character who could haveplayed a key role was severely underused, and their demise isanticlimactic and it feels the character was just their to raise thevery low body count. On the topic of characters, they are all bland andunderwritten. There is no one that really sticks out as interesting,and it is hard to care for someone you know absolutely nothing about.Plus, most die fairly early on, leaving two to carry a fair chunk ofthe movie. The actors do a pretty good job with their roles; however,except Connie Britton as Nancy's mother, who is pretty bland andobviously does not want to be in the movie.I suppose everyone wants to know how the new Freddy holds up. JackieEarle Hayley has big shoes to fill, as Robert Englund's Freddy isbeyond famous. Personally I think Hayley holds his own, and creates anincredibly creepy and sinister Krueger who is only let down by themake-up (which is just not as creepy as the original) and the factBayer reveals his face way too early on, hence the 'scare factor' issignificantly dropped. Also, Bayer relies WAY (I cannot emphasise thisenough) too heavily on cheap scares which get old very fast. Theconcept of A Nightmare on Elm Street is frightening enough in itself,coupled with such a disturbing villain, that creating atmosphere andscaring the audience is easy without having to rely on loud noises.Conclusion? Well, overall it IS fairly entertaining and goes prettyfast. The dream sequences are well crafted and Hayley's Krueger isenough to keep one interested. Unfortunately there is a lot of wastedpotential and if the film was in the hands of a more experienceddirector (and not such a shitty producer) it could have been fantastic.3/5

darkraven_109 2012-05-24 13:34:24

A generic slave of the original

After waiting for so long here (the Philippine release of "Nightmare"was a few weeks late), I finally got to watch one of my (personally)most awaited movies of this year; the remake/ reboot of the classic"Nightmare on Elm Street" films. So after watching everything from the1984 original to the pathetic "Freddy vs. Jason," was this new one anygood? Does it do justice to one of the most memorable horror films ofthe 80's? Well, sort of but it still falls to mediocrity. This movie isnot as horrible as many critics put it; it's just mediocre.If you watched the 1984 original, it wouldn't be hard to guess whatwould happen to this character and the next. The movie seems more likea word-for-word copy of the original rather than a reboot. For thefirst half of the film, majority of Freddy's first appearances arehighly similar to how he makes his presence felt in the original. Iknow it's a remake but at least try doing something new like how the2009 "Friday the 13th" executed its kills. Simply copying the killsinstead of creating new ones removes the sense of dread you get whentrying to guess what happens next.Another complaint is about the dreamworlds; they all look the same. TheNoES series may be known for bad sequels but it's also known for thecreative dream sequences where Freddy screws with his victims beforekilling them. Now, everyone ends up in the boiler room or somethingthat looks like it. What the hell... where were their worst fears?Where was Freddy screwing what could have been their own piece ofparadise? As for the good stuff, the film succeeds in bringing forththe dark atmosphere of Freddy's world. Maybe it was just due to thebrand new CGI effects but it still worked. Now, Freddy's world looks ahell lot scarier than it once was. This was helped by the fact that thenew Freddy wasn't as fun-loving as the Englund version. Now, he stalkshis victims while saying a one-liner or two but instead of laughing,you feel a bit disturbed. Haley's delivery on the character makesFreddy feel like he's more of a threat rather than a maniac clown withknives for fingers. Personally, I prefer Haley's Freddy over Englund's.As for the rest of the cast, everyone pretty much delivered but alittle more screen time would've been nice.Another good thing is that they actually bothered to change was theclimax. If you haven't watched this film yet, well, let's just say thisversion's climatic face-off is actually more realistic than the 80'soriginal that involved a booby trapped house and the power ofbelieving. While these helped keep the film alive, they aren't enoughto redeem the movie's story.So in the end, the new "Nightmare on Elm Street" does shed some newlight on the old franchise, but this is no "New Nightmare." Thisreboot/ remake is not good enough to redeem a franchise plagued bycrappy sequels but it will do well to pass the time. If you haven'twatched any of the old "Nightmares," then this could serve as astarting point for watching this franchise. If you did watch the theold "nightmares," especially the original, then this won't disappointbut it won't impress. Lower your expectations before watching.

BooHoo7902 2012-05-22 00:57:49

Slightly surprised....

Throughout the majority of the first half of the film, I kept comparingit to the original which wasn't good. (It has been a few months sinceI've seen the original to be honest). However, I was slightly surprisedat thinking at the end of the film that it wasn't too bad.I thought although Jackie Earle Haley did try his best as playingFreddy, I felt that he lacked the scare factor that Robert Englund hadpreviously brought to the screen. His appearance in general was ratheroff-putting, in the sense that I didn't feel he was a genuine Freddy ashe looked completely different to the original.I liked the fact that there was no sex during the film, which normallyruins perfectly good modern day horror films, due to being filled withunnecessary scenes. The way the storyline mainly also focused on Freddyand the story of his past rather than mindless killings throughout thefilm is what I think did it for me, as I wasn't just sitting through afilm which had killing after killing of mind-numbingly boring teensscreaming their heads off throughout, there was some back plot.The ending was also a very big surprise and a good one at that. Ienjoyed the fact that this re-make was no a simple completere-adaptation of the original scene by scene and that certain scenes inthe original weren't used. (Such as the famous scene with Johnny Deppwhere he is killed and the blood pours from the bed onto the ceiling).I must admit, I've seen worst of re-makes. I'm still a big fan of theoriginal and although I think Freddy has lost his touch slightly withthe change of actors, if Englund had taken the place again, he wouldhave just been seen as a sell out.

NeverAgain85 2012-05-21 17:52:04

Poorly Executed Remake, Flaws, and Characters you just don't seem to care about

I kinda knew that it was going to be garbage. The only thing I wascurious about seeing was the new Freddy, and its safe to say he sucked.Maybe Im comparing this one to the original too much, but RobertEnglund seemed more creepier. Jackie Earle was more of an imitator ofFreddy, it just didn't work for me as a remake. I suppose he did hisbest I guess, but he did'nt seem to be "Freddy" and he was too mellowto be him.The main complaint Im going to make here though are the choice ofcharacters, and oh man, but they be any more cliché? first off in themovie, the first 30 minutes or so are stuck on the blonde chick Chriswho's having nightmares of Freddy, and dies in the same way as Tina inthe original (the bedroom ceiling slaughter scene), I have to say thisscene has got to be the worst remade scene in the whole movie,overacted and over-dramatic screaming and s**t-fits from this girl madeeveryone in the whole theater roar with laughter, I am not joking. Itwas garbage. The movie was focused on Chris so much I started tobelieve she was the lead character, then it seemed like they just threwNancy in. Things didn't get much better when the writers had to think up of aclever concept for one of the emo characters Quentin to stay awake(Kyle Gallner, who wears the same beanie hat in all his movies,and hasthat weird look on his mouth), to start taking drugs from apharmacy,and adrenaline syringes from hospitals, it got completelyridiculous. The unknown actress who plays Nancy is absolutelyhorrendous. We now see an Emo-Nancy, who works as a waitress, a veryweak character who does nothing but make creepy drawings ofFreddy...Why??? and cries and sobs, eventually leading her to becomingan adrenaline junkie like her emo friend which leads her in-between thereal and dream world where Freddy can get to her. We hear the emo kidget all scientific why its happening from the adrenaline. Did you everhear of coffee?!Its completely ridiculous.Shes nothing like the original Nancy, who was very strong, smart andcunning who we all knew and liked. After watching this, it really mademe want to go watch the original, and I did. Made around 26 years ago,and it kicked this ones ass way off.People need to know that it takesintelligence to write a movie, not over the top cg for the nightmarescenes,in the original it was standard prop special effects. For aremake of A Nightmare on Elm Street, this was weak as Hell, however Ididn't expect much. Stop the remakes for Gods sake!

2012-05-20 14:58:47

What's with the hate?

This review is from: A Nightmare on Elm Street (DVD) Nothing new?? It's a remake morons not a new feature film based on new ideas etc. This is an awesome movie and takes Freddy back to being scary and brutal instead of a stand up comedian. Granted I was scared to see how a new Freddy actor would stand up to the one and only Robert Englund but this movie did just that. The effects are great, the atmosphere is excellent. the kills are no holds barred awesome, and Freddy is played perfectly with minimal humour which at times ruined some of the NOES sequels. When the famous one liners come into play here they are done in a serious twisted way, which is awesome. I can't wait to see a pt.2 or 10 of this series as long as they keep it serious and scary like this remake and the first NOES. When judging remakes this TCM and Friday The 13th remakes were eons better than the lame Rob Zombie Halloween remake and the dreaded Halloween II remake.As a long time horror and Freddy fan, this was an awesome film, great job! Bring on the Sequel!

dancer-91 2012-05-20 00:16:04

Not bad, but not good

I think I have way too low expectations for movies these days, since myfirst thought was that this wasn't half bad.Everyone knows the basic story of the Nightmare on Elm street -movies.Freddy Krueger. That's about it really.Freddy is an iconic character. He's one of those characters that youreally can't beat because you don't live in the same world. He is atruly terrifying character, because you can't survive without sleep butif you sleep, you're dragged into Freddy's world where you really can'twin. I like the fact that they didn't change this. It's still reallyobvious that Freddy is the king of dreamworld and that the kids don'thave any chance against him.What I didn't like... I didn't like the fact that they killed Kris andJesse so fast. Dean's death and the whole opening sequence was reallygood but after that it didn't work so well.You could have kept Kris alive longer, making the audience believe thatshe was the hero and then kill her. Now it just felt like we didn't getto now her enough to believe that she would be the hero before shedied. And we didn't get to know Jesse enough either. It felt like thedirector wanted these two character's out of the way so they couldfocus on Quentin and Nancy.I did like the cast. I loved Kyle Gallner before this film and now Ifell in love with Rooney Mara. I even liked Katie Cassidy. ThomasDekker is always good. Jackie Earle Haley was good as Freddy. But therewas something missing, he didn't quite achieve the same intensity thathe did with Rorschach in Watchmen. But I think he did a fine jobanyway.So... The movie could have been way worse, but it had a lot of flaws.It did leave the bitter aftertaste of teen horror. But the cast savedthe movie from being that bad

tylermoore 2012-05-18 22:55:28

Didn't need to be made but superior to the original

Please hear me out on this. The original is a classic and was good forit's time. But it doesn't hold up like a lot of classic 80's horrorfilms do. Now the original is laughably bad. But it's sort of it's ownfault. The original Nightmare was made to cash in on the slasher genreand ended up sparking a pretty awesome concept. Now, this movie is nodifferent. It is just cashing in on the Nightmare on Elm Street name.But, everything has a much more threatening tone. Freddy is actuallywell developed and I enjoyed seeing his story unfold. It was in no wayperfect though. But much better then the development in the originalwhich was nonexistent which may have been done for a reason, but didn'twork as well. Now I must mention the thing that people didn't like isthe jump scares. Which is annoying. The film is very loud on purposeand uses loud noises to make you jump. That is sort of lame. But, it'sdue to the atmosphere it provides that makes it work. Which is the onlyway I can defend that. The one thing I'll say the original did betterwas the music. All of the tracks in this soundtrack sound alike, justdark tones. Which I don't mind, I love Tyler Bates' music forHalloween, but this is just sort of lazy. Overall I enjoyed this muchmore then the original, but I can respect anything good about theoriginal as well.

Justin Case 2012-05-18 14:58:10

Where was the whimsical world of nightmares?

The first scene was my favorite part. Through the remainder of themovie Freddy's voice became more of an annoyance and distraction than acause for fear (very similar to Christian Bale's Batman). I entered themovie expecting to get whisked away to the wonderful dream-world ofFreddy Krueger but was instead pulled into a high school slasher filmpromoting a typical killer with a grudge and thirst for blood. The factthe victim was trapped inside a dream battling with Freddy wasn't quiteenough to satisfy the sense of a nightmarish killer's dream world. Themovie lacked the demented mental toyings a character like Freddy shouldpossess (e.g. Pennywise). At the premier, the entire theater let out a"Boo" at the end of the movie. I recommend watching the original Freddymovies instead.

TTUCHY 2012-05-17 15:38:35

Could've written this in my sleep

I was very much looking forward to the new Nightmare. I'm a fan ofBay's Texas Chainsaw and F13 re-dos. Even though I'm somewhat of apurist, I'm open minded enough to adopt new approaches of tonalstorytelling. This film started like a typical Elm St sequel (not agreat thing), and then coasted into VERY familiar ground, rehashing thefirst movie with MINOR adjustments here and there. Because it did notoffer enough new things to stand on it's own and avoid directcomparison w/ the first film, you pretty much new what was bound tohappen from scene 2 till the end. Any adjustments that Strick made wereso subtle, that it felt like his script was a revision to the 84'original, with zero deviations. One example being that there wasquestion at one point whether or not Freddy was guilty of being anactual molester before his lynching, and that detail quickly turns onitself and becomes void. And the style of the movie didn't tread anynew ground either (love the look of the new F13). I thought the worstpart was Freddy himself... Almost any unknown could've played Krueger.I wanted to get excited about Haley's performance, but it felt likethere just wasn't enough substance for him to work with. Boring, lazyre-hash.

t_atzmueller 2012-05-17 04:14:34

Nightmare on Elm Street fans: avoid, avoid, avoid!

Right, spoiler alert: this movie was miserable. Spoiler over.If you, like me, are a 30-something horror-fan, there's almost no wayyou could have avoided the "A Nightmare on Elm Street"-hype. Admit it:like me you bought the comic-book, the Freddy mask and plastic claw andyou watched the "Freddies Nightmares" despite the show being awful.Yes, you were doodling Freddy figures in your math books! It didn'teven matter that the franchise became more teenage-compatible withevery film, that Freddy had become far too camp to be taken serious sothat even your mom stopped telling you 'not to watch that gruesomestuff' at one point.Eventually you parted with corny ol' Freddy, venturing towards morerealistic movies like "Henry – Confessions of a Serial Killer", whichreminded the jaded fans that serial killers weren't funny fellows who'dsign autographs with fake razor-claws. It also reminded us that Freddyhad 'interesting' story before becoming a dreamland boogieman, fatheredby Alice Cooper; a particularly bloody, brutal story which the priorfilms only hinted at.I was rooting for this movie, the main reason being that Haley Osmond,who's presence was the highlight in both "Little Children" and"Watchman". After all, this is the age of the charismatic,sophisticated psychopath like "The Dark Knight" Joker or Anton Chirugin "No Country for Old Men". Yes, Osmond was the perfect candidate forthe role of Freddy Krueger 2.0.The more "realistic make-up" seemed like a good idea, giving Freddy aharder, more realistic edge and at the same time allowing Osmond toarticulate his features. Could we have imagined that they would put arubber bag over his face? Did we believe that the script-writers woulddare to give Osmond one-liners that would have made the 80's Freddyblush? That they would cast two-bit actors that belong in a "Saw"- or"Hostel"-sequel but have no business in a "Nightmare on Elm Street"film? The good news: by estimation Hollywood is almost throughbutchering our beloved screen serial killers, now that Jason Vorheeshas become a degenerate survivalist, Michael Myers has been turned intoa beard-wielding hobo and Freddy, well, he certainly owes more to theScarecrow from "The Wizard of Oz" then the child-murdering monster wehad all loved back in the day.If you ever liked the original movies, I'd recommend you keep this oneout of your DVD player.

2012-05-16 03:11:48

NEW FREDDY.

In response to MR LOCO.If you were really a Freddy fan, You'd know that the back story had never changed. They just played it up a bit more.Freddy was always a pedophile, they just never use that word to describe him. Go back and watch Freddy vs Jason. The opening scene: the licks a pic of a little girl. before killing a live one. Later on in the film: he fondles with his glove hand the main female character and says, your mouth says no, but your bod says yes.Also: In the films there is a little girl saying he likes little children. Especially little girls. Through out the years, there were always the little girl victims who jump roped. Like said. It's always been there. Just like a puzzle. You just have to piece it together.

2012-05-15 08:06:59

If Craven was dead he would be turning in his grave

It was over a quarter of a century ago that a certain Wes Craven, the Horror auteur behind such cult chillers as "Last House on the Left" and "The Hills Have Eyes" and like what was to become arguably his most celebrated and iconic shockers with the potential exception of the Scream franchise. "A Nightmare on Elm Street" hit cinema screens and chilled and thrilled an eighties generation of teenagers and most probably adults to the very core. And still to this very day although some what dated it has held up reasonably well. So why in all that's holy would anyone make the grievous error of wishing to remake it? That no doubt would have been the reaction of a horde of Elm Street devotees who could not dare envision anyone but the legendary Robert Englund as the twisted and sadistic Dream stalker, Freddy Kruger. One of the most iconic and dreaded personifications of pure evil to have been put to celluloid. Gladly may I note that Jackie Earle Haley, an actor probably now best known up till now for his portrayal of the morally dubious socio-path and anti-hero Rorschach in last years epic "Watchmen" makes a decent stab(no pun intended)at the role but lamentably is unable to save what is ultimately a crude and ultimately unnecessary remake. Remakes do at times carry something of a stigma and while it is easy to try and compare this re-imagining to it's predecessor, even taken on it's own it is a flick that pretty much leaves you wanting. The buck for the films short coming has to stop predominantly with screenwriters Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer who try but fail miserably to impose any of the genuine build up of tension and the sense of foreboding that made the original so memorable. And rather than let the events in the movie gradually build to the first cinematic-ally sublime moment where the psychotic phantom strikes we're presented with a shoddily crafted prologue in a diner which fronts as a lacklustre opening when compared to the originals boiler based opening which was preceded by the classic first shot where Kruger facially unseen crafts the deadly claw like glove, ensnaring it instantly within out very consciousness. A tool in this version that seems some what superficial within the context of this Fred Kruger's back story. A paedophile rather than the brutal child murderer who tortured and mutilated his innocent victims in the boiler room where he worked. A seemingly amiable gardener who doted on the pupils who attended the nursery where he was partially employed. This supposedly revelatory moment of the film's leaky plot only further undermines any credibility as we're supposed to swallow that not maybe one or two of Kruger's victims suppressed the memories of the vile acts he performed upon them when he lured them to the abandoned boiler room where he eventually meets his fiery demise, but all of his unwitting playthings have forgotten the sordid mistreatment they were subjected to. While one of the parents is moronic enough to leave clues to what befell teenage protagonists hidden so the they can proceed to piece the missing parts of their past together. A blatant, inane plot device utilised to further the uninspired narrative. State of the art special effects and exemplary, polished set design attempt to add a sheen to set pieces some of which are shoddy attempts to reinvent legendary moments from the original which include the notorious bedroom sequence which was the scenario where the malevolent fiend claimed his first victim in the franchise. A haphazardly orchestrated imitation it fails to strike the right note of shock and awe while it is preceded by a lead up sequence which equally fails on most counts. Sam Bayer, a director whose filmography consists vastly of music videos he has helm-ed for bands such as Iron Maiden and Green Day for instance lacks the requisite experience and clout to carry the burden of directing an entire picture, notably one which is a remake of such cult status. Which is evident given the predominantly uneven performances from the largely youthful cast of wannabe stars. Rooney Mara, an actress who up till now I have been unfamiliar with sleepwalks her through the majority of the picture as it's titular heroine Nancy (who's surname has been changed from Thompson to Holbrook)exhibiting little in the way of charisma or the spunk that made the 1984 Elm Street's resiliant heroine one that you could really root for. Co-stars Kate Cassidy and Thomas Dekker (John Connor in TV's short lived "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles") don't fare any better with the slack being mainly taken up by Kyle Gallner who plays Nancy's friend and soon to be love interest Quentin. Old veteran, Clancy Brown thankfully is on hand to offer much needed solid support as Quentin's father who expertly parallels the role filled by John Saxon's Donald Thompson, Nancy's father in the original. But the most prized and honorary of roles falls to Jackie Earle Haley who makes the role of Freddy his own. Putting on his own stamp and wisely he doesn't try for a complete impersonation of Robert Englund's Kruger. Suitably brutal and lending the villain the same chilling bravado that he made his own with "Watchmen's" Rorschach. He doesn't better Englund but is excellent none the less.A miss step on practically all counts and although it contains the odd smattering of visual and imaginative ingenuity, Bayers's take on the story is not completely awful but Isn't exactly good either and merely serves as a sad reminder of why it Isn't always necessarily a wise idea to plunder the vaults of cinematic history. Particularly when the result is forgettable fodder as was the case with Last years "Friday the 13th" and the less than satisfactory "The Hills Have Eyes". Another Wes Craven creation which no doubt if he was dead and like this piece would have him turning in his grave.

Yusuf_Saggyass 2012-05-14 00:08:54

I would love very much to kick the balls of the people responsible.!

A Nightmare on Elm Street is as endearing a movie can get! Its is aprime example of a movie which is wonderful, fun-filled, formulaic yethaving a new age zing to it.Yes, it is a typical Samuel Bayer product soaked with fantasies, overthe top antics, situations, plausibilities and a few contrivedsituations! Heck! Damn It! Who Cares? This is not meant to be a pathbreaking film and it never claims to be one! Hell it even unabashedlydraws slight inspiration from the cult Freddie's Dead franchise,eventually spoofing and mocking it! That was that. Now its a newdecade, a new attitude! And it reflects that.Director Bayer knows the pulse of the Modern New Age Indian Audience --their psyche, their value systems and their attitudes. And it isreflected in' A Nightmare on Elm Street' in the way he executes an WesCraven script with backup from A grade ingredients -- the Nazisrecorded SCREAMS of PLANTS when they were being cut. Did you know that?No? If you're a vegetarian, now what you gonna eat, huh? The casting is just perfect with neatly carved out roles for each andeverybody. 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' heralds the arrival of a newsuperstar, in fact a new 'Raj' - Jackie Haler. It is a tailor made rolefor him to exhibit his unpolished prowess. And yes that glib charm damnwell works! He weaves magic! Saawariya -- who? what? and where? Amongstthe actresses it is Rooney Mara who with her oomph steals the showportraying a strong and well written character. The cute Julianna Dammand the sweet Hailey Schooping Knight are effective in their own right.Even the cameo with Jennifer Robers is brilliantly pulled off! ANightmare on Elm Street is one of the best visual spectacles you cansee on Celluloid! Top notch Cinematography and photography. It capturesthe heart and soul of exquisite locations like Switzerland, Australia,Italy! As if they are an important character of this movie; leaving youspell bound! And wait we are not done yet! It is a Starry, PoliticallyCorrect & Nonfrightening Extravaganza with family friendly gore scenes.One of the very best of its kind!

2012-05-13 02:37:36

An Unneeded and Pointless Remake

Jackie Earle Haley actually did a pretty good job in this. Other than that this is a mediocre excuse for a remake that just tries to replicate some of the original scenes while leaving certain ones out(Johnny Depp being sucked into the bed and coming out in a blood geyser). Meanwhile it turns Freddy into a pedophile instead of just a child-killer like the original. The blood and other special effects also don't work as well as they did in the original. CGI blood usually doesn't look good.While this isn't quite as bad as Freddy's Dead it is pretty close making it the second worst of the series.Overall this was a pointless remake of the original horror classic that should have never been made. If you feel a need to watch it because you're a Freddy fan rent this but definately do not buy this film.

2012-05-10 21:54:03

nightmare or not?

This review is from: A Nightmare on Elm Street (DVD) personally ehh kinda had a so-so reaction towards this movie.I have always been a fan of 80's horror flicks.the effects are good but the humor gets kinda dull at times by freddy.overall if u want a good way to waste a hour or so this movie is the way to go (hence the 3 star rating) but if you really want a treat , take some time and get the original...you wont regret it :)

2012-05-10 12:13:44

A completely inferior, pointless re-make

The original "Nightmare on Elm Street" was an innovative, cutting edge, classic horror film. For the 1980's audience, it was scary!The many sequels turned this film into a franchise which diminished it's quality and artisitic integrity.A remake could have only been made because 1) Easier to create special effects and 2) making money.I can't categorize this film in any other way but to state that this movie SUCKS! It's an embarrassment to the movie making industry and a complete exploitation of the teenagers that would swarm to anything that is heavily marketed.Any fan of horror should despise this.

kenny_ek93 2012-05-10 08:52:59

Not better than the original, but still a very good remake in my opinion.

OK first off let me say, that i totally disagree with all the super badreviews this movie has got so far. I think it's a worthy remake of thegreat classic with Robert Englund. I'll start with the bad things. OKthe first bad thing for me was that the pacing can sometimes be alittle slow for my liking. Some of the talk scenes go on for too long.Second I was a little disappointed with some of the acting. I thoughtRooney did a decent job as Nancy, but she could be a little stale andboring at times. She picks up the last third of the movie though. AlsoKatie Cassidy had some ups and some downs. Some dialog she said justmade me cringe at times, like the: I'm so afraid line. But she also hassome good scenes, as I absolutely love the classroom scene, she doessincerely look frightened there. Thomas Dekker also did a decent job,nothing special though. I also thought the dream/death scenes could usejust a little bit more imagination.One more thing i cringed at was the:She's starting to remember line. That just came out wrong and cheap.Now for the good things. The Special Effect are very good, there aren'tthat many but the ones who are present are great. I thought KyleGallner was the second best performance in the movie after JEH. He hassome very strong emotional presence when he's on screen. Therefore ithought the pharmacist scene was very well acted by Gallner. Now forthe best part of the movie: Jackie Earl Haley as Fred Krueger. Likemany fans of the original i was scared JEH wouldn't surpass Englund bya long shot, but he surprised e with his performance. He did the partso well, i totally forgot about Robert the rest of the time. Also hehas some very cool and bad-ass one-liners. But sadly also a few bad andunnecessary ones. I liked his performance as much as I loved Englunds.It's just a totally different take on the character. Now the part, manyfans of the original have been b****ing about since the movie came out.Freddy is a Pedophile in this movie and he was a Child Murderer in theoriginal. In my opinion they kept it fresh this way, and it really didnot make me despise Freddy less for it. I don't want to imagine whatNancy saw on those pictures in the school. One nice little touch fromthe original was parts of the soundtrack, as soon as the title came upi felt right at home with the original music playing in the background.I also liked the homage scenes as well.OK, so not all the acting was good, Rooney is no Heather and Jackie wasas great as Englund all the way. A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) --->8.5/10 (which becomes a 9 on IMDb)

milescorn 2012-05-09 22:51:18

Wes Cravens New Nightmare was way better than this......

When the lights went down and the movie started I kept thinking tomyself, why didn't they just re-release the original 1984 film. I know,they thought they could improve the movie. Did they really do that? Ido not think that they did. I also kept thinking to myself, wow, all ofthese teenagers that have never seen the original because it is 26years old, and heaven forbid that they watch something older than 5years ago, and yes I know that there are some that do, and yes, I workin a video store and I when they ask for horror movies they would muchrather watch Jennifer's Body over the Exorcist because "That is way tooold." Anyway, they were really loving the movie. This "Wanna Be Freddy"was not the same as in the films from the late 80's or early 90's, andhe was not as scary as the original Robert England Freddy, it was likewhen Roger Moore tried to be James Bond, after all he was no SeanConnery. This new "Freddy" could hardly open his mouth, he looked likehe was wearing a rubber mask, and he was just not that scary. He seemedto have no idea how to use his gloves, since when is making them soundlike a pair of scissors more frighting than the consistent scrapping onmetal? It just became more lame as the film went on. Then we are madeto believe that the children made up the stories about him. What ismore frighting, a monster that just likes to kill children, or a childmolester who wants them to remember that he really liked them? Kind oftwisted, but not scary. In the original we don't even find out whoFreddy is until way late in the movie, and only then we know that hewas a murderer who was seeking revenge. Well, watch this if you must,but just remember, New Line Cinema is the house that Freddy built, butit was the 1984 film that put them on the map. There is a reason forthat.

rocky_lifter69 2012-05-06 04:18:38

It is better to be original. This remake proves it.

I will start off by saying I am a huge fan of the original NOESfranchise. The first film is a classic in the genre and holds up welldespite being decades old. While the sequels diminished Freddy into acackling jokester, he is still an iconic boogeyman. All of that is whythis movie is so very disappointing.The story is fairly simple. A number of high school kids start dyingunder suspicious circumstances and the remaining ones begin to suspectsomething sinister at work. They realize that they have a sharednightmare of a burnt man with knives on his hand and struggle touncover the truth while trying not to fall asleep. As more of them die,they discover that the burnt man is Fred Krueger, a gardener at theirpreschool who molested them all as children. When the parents found outthat this was happening, they chased him into an abandoned building andset fire to it, vowing to never speak of him again. Now, he hasreturned for 'his' children.My absolute biggest complaint, beyond the one dimensional characters,overuse of jump scares and clunky dialogue, is that they completelychanged Krueger. In the original movies, he was a child murderer, plainand simple. But they decided to turn him into a child molester for thisremake. It not only completely changes the dynamic of the character butit adds a layer of sexual grime to the entire film that is unnecessary.In the original, he was a killer, so it made sense that he would wantto kill the kids in their dreams. Changing that poses the question ofWHY he suddenly wants to kill them, not to mention giving him way toomany terrible innuendos.The cast of teens/fodder are all poorly drawn reheats of the usualclichés. Popular athlete, artistic female outsider, pretty blond,brooding guy with a dark side. They all say the lines and scream whenthey are supposed to but that is about it. As for poor Jackie EarleHaley, he does the best he can in playing a character beloved bymillions of horror fans. The script hampers the character, who cannotdecide if he is a terrifying boogeyman or perverted jokester. It is asthough the writers could not decide if they should base this new Freddyon just the original movie or the sequels, so we get a little of both.And it just does not work. Also, the Freddy makeup is awful. He lookstoo much like a cat in my opinion, especially the early flashes of him.I will give the writers some credit, as the whole 'micro-naps' idea hada ton of potential. The problem is they use it more for jump scaresthan anything else. Plus it seems inconsistent with regular sleep. Forexample, when Nancy is pulled out of the car by Freddy during one ofthese micro-naps, she wakes up back inside of it, completely unscathed.She should have either been on the ground outside the car or scraped upfrom that. But I digress...Horror movie remakes are constantly churned out, usually for a quickbuck. But some others actually attempt to re-imagine the material. Ifeel that this one falls somewhere in the middle. It falls victim tomany modern day horror trappings, which adds a feeling of lazy cash in.While I respect them doing something as risky as altering an iconichorror figure, they simply did it the wrong way. Overall, the movie isnothing impressive, although it is better than some remakes I haveseen. A few interesting visuals involving the dream world scatteredamong an otherwise boring and almost dirty feeling film. I would saystick to the original if you really want a movie that will disrupt yoursleep patterns.

whitewingedove17 2012-05-06 02:42:22

Weak Freddy

I was really excited to see this movie at midnight on opening night.The movie theater was completely packed and the thought of being ableto watch this on the big screen was really exciting to my best friendand me. Unfortunately, by the end of the movie we did not feel the sameexcitement as we shared when the movie started. I thought the actingwas decent, but what lacked was the fear that Freddy inflicted in us inthe original classic. The Freddy in this remake appears deformed andless frightening as Robert Englund's character. He lacks the typicalone-liners that Robert used as well...although he did have a few ofthem here and there. There were certain elements from the original thatwere used in this, but all in all I found it to be disappointingcompared to the original. I also didn't like that they went beyondFreddy's child-murdering past and made him a child molester instead.That really was unnecessary as the child murderer character was muchscarier. I also didn't really think it was necessary that they showedhis past and how he led up to the monster that he became after hedied...we all know him as a killer, there really isn't a psychologicalneed to know why he's killing these teens. I kinda liked the endingscene, although it's still not as classic as the ending in theoriginal. I'm sure with this ending, there'll be a sequel...hopefullyit'll be much better than the mediocre Freddy's Revenge sequel...