A Nightmare on Elm Street Reviews

I wasn't expecting the remake to Nightmare on Elm Street to be as good as the classic original, but I was expecting a decent enough film. As a remake and on its own terms, this Nightmare on Elm Street is a mess. Is it the worst remake out there? Not quite, Psycho and Wicker Man were worse. But it is among the most pointless, at least to me. This time round, the story is over-simplistic, the characters shallow and dull and the script jumbled. And apart from one, the acting is terrible, especially from Kyle Gallner. The editing in general could've been tighter while the effects lack clarity and distract from the atmosphere rather than enhance it. Speaking of the atmosphere, it seemed bland here, the nail-biting suspense and build ups seem very subdued and I don't think I remember being shocked by any scene from this movie. The only redeeming quality I feel is the efforts of Jackie Earl Haley. Robert Englund's performance was iconic and wonderfully creepy so Haley had big shoes to fill, and while he is a little too small for the role his makeup is believable and he does make a valiant attempt with his characterisation. All in all, pointless and messy. 2/10 Bethany Cox

I wasn't expecting the remake to Nightmare on Elm Street to be as good as the classic original, but I was expecting a decent enough film. As a remake and on its own terms, this Nightmare on Elm Street is a mess. Is it the worst remake out there? Not quite, Psycho and Wicker Man were worse. But it is among the most pointless, at least to me. This time round, the story is over-simplistic, the characters shallow and dull and the script jumbled. And apart from one, the acting is terrible, especially from Kyle Gallner. The editing in general could've been tighter while the effects lack clarity and distract from the atmosphere rather than enhance it. Speaking of the atmosphere, it seemed bland here, the nail-biting suspense and build ups seem very subdued and I don't think I remember being shocked by any scene from this movie. The only redeeming quality I feel is the efforts of Jackie Earl Haley. Robert Englund's performance was iconic and wonderfully creepy so Haley had big shoes to fill, and while he is a little too small for the role his makeup is believable and he does make a valiant attempt with his characterisation. All in all, pointless and messy. 2/10 Bethany Cox

You can't even fairly call the 2010 remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" a divisive film. It is, in fact, largely hated or just outright purposely forgotten about in the horror community. When it does crop up in conversation it is mostly referred to with tones of derision or dismissiveness before the subject is promptly changed but are things really all as bad as everyone would have you think? As usual, no. Don't get me wrong, the remake is far from a perfect film. It is hobbled by a variety of issues that are worthy of criticism. More often than not these are hyperfocused on in reviews and much of its strengths are cast aside.

Nostalgia is a son of a bitch, I've found and, in the case of a Freddy movie, any self-respecting horror fan will tell you that no one can be Freddy save the wonderful Robert Englund. With his distinctive body language, spot on delivery of gallows humor, and unique facial features, he very much defined the character in a way that may never be surpassed. He is so good, in fact, that many a fan conveniently forgets how truly abysmal some Nightmare movies truly are. It's easy to forget when the guy can entertain, after all. Ironically, it is Freddy's character that proves the saving grace of the remake. Given what we know about people's inclination to stick by Englund (and rightfully so) this made it an uphill battle for the remake to remain memorable. At the end of the day, however, the elements surrounding the nightmare dwelling Freddy Krueger are its strongest elements and a reason it might merit a rewatch for some.

First the problems, and there are many. The film is plagued by a strange languid detachment to its atmosphere. Everything seems to exist in a world apart from our own. If this was purposely (and effectively) done, this could of serviced the idea of a nightmare creature's reality affecting people or even those guilty for his death feeling "set apart" from their fellow townspeople. Alas, it just gives the film a distinct lack of realism. These don't feel like real people or events for the bulk of the film. Contributing to the widening chasm between reality and fiction is the cinematography which seems both too polished for a horror film while, simultaneously, looking too monotone and bereft of vibrancy.

Gratefully, extensive CGI is not used but the few times it is it proves underwhelming. Most notable is the callback to the original Nightmare movie where Freddy stretches through the wall to menace our protagonist. What looked stunning then looks outright bad in this version. In fact, a lot of the callback kills prove largely ineffectual in comparison to their original counterparts. Whether this has to do with the front half being somewhat of a limp effort to create suspense or just outright lack of creativity, I'll leave up to you.

The film is also populated by fairly capable actors, at least as we normally see them in other movies. In this movie they all seem barely there, the possible exception being Clancy Brown as a parent and school principal (though he has little screen time). Again, i'm at a loss whether the director intentionally instructed everyone to behave like they're drifting through scenes (as one would in a dream) or if everyone was just checked out for what they were doing. I am not counting Jackie Earle Haley in this criticism, he will be discussed later on.

One of the most egregious mistakes the movie makes is depending on a bevy of jump scare tactics throughout. Mind you, I'm not in the foolish camp that dismisses all jump scares, there is rarely a horror film without them, but it's all in the execution. At this point in our pop culture we are so used to jump scares that they must truly be built up and earned to not become fodder for eye-rolling. Well, they don't bother to build any of them up here. Some are fine because the moment didn't require much buildup other than expectation (two mirror gags come to mind) but most are just awfully unwarranted. If they'd taken those out and just let the scene unsettle by its very nature it would of done much to improve the final product.

So, by now you're thinking I've planted this bad boy straight in the garbage bin and then chucked that off a cliff. Well...

Here's the thing. The movie handles Freddy pretty well. I know, I know, Robert is Freddy. I'm not saying he's not. What I am saying is Jackie Earle Haley is a surprisingly disturbing version of Freddy that makes his own way and almost single-handedly saves this film from being absolutely forgettable.

A lot of hubbub was made about how Freddy's burned look was too strange or "cat-like" by many folks but, personally, it doesn't bug me one bit. Well, except in the way it's supposed to. The fused skin, the large raw skin patches, the taut skin, slit eyes, and virtually non-existent lips are all pretty much what a real burn victim would look like. In all honesty, it's pretty uncomfortable to look at.

Also, this Freddy doesn't revel is constant jokes or dark humor as we had grown accustomed to but rather hearkens back to the original Freddy with his morbid glee in the pursuit of the kill. If a joke or two slip out they're coupled with a devilish mirth we can hardly get behind. You see, this movie knew we come pre-loaded with expectations on Freddy's motivations but the film throws us a minor curveball by going back to something even Wes Craven ended up taking out of the script before he shot his original version. This proves to be the most distressing element about this portrayal...Freddy here is unarguably a child molester. Who you gonna cheer for now?

It always fascinated me to see crowds of fans cheering Freddy on as he eviscerated and tortured youths onscreen. It was what arguably destroyed the franchise as it opened the door for humor far wider than one might expect as it would serve as a balancing factor. Well, we all know that got way out of control in the original series. This movie has absolutely no sense of humor to begin with (which comes to its detriment, initially) but when it turns the screw on us that lack of humor suddenly becomes justifiable. These are damaged kids burdened by psychological trauma since childhood. Then the film tells you what you never wanted to know (but should of), Freddy wasn't just a child murderer (or innocent as a brief red herring path would suggest), he was a lecherous pervert. So perverse, in fact, that even beyond death his interest is not revenge but to continue the cycle of abuse.

THIS is what makes the movie stand out. Freddy is a monster, through and through, both in the traditional sense and in that fantastical world. The reveal of his ultimate intent and the implications of it are truly unsettling as they are exactly what you'd imagine someone of that ilk conjuring up if they were given some form of unbridled power.

Jackie Earle Haley himself gives Freddy not only a distinctive look and delivery but the way he leans into the suggestive nature of Freddy's inclinations can't help but make your skin crawl. The moments between him and Nancy reek of filth best left unspoken. Coincidentally, that is why Freddy as a pervert doesn't become too much to handle (a scene with pictures shows particularly admirable restraint). The way Haley plays the part (and it is written) skirts close enough to the fire to make it possible to hold on, if only to see him get his. And that in itself is an achievement of its own. For the first time in a long time, you want Freddy to get his just desserts. Point to the remake. What's interesting about this dynamic is that you are kind of coerced into cheering for characters you previously thought were kinda "just there" because the film lets you suddenly see them through a vastly different lens than just people out to be killed.

We are all familiar with the Freddy backstory and this movie makes minor changes to it that not only feed into the heightened villainy of the character but give the viewer a sudden renewed interest in what's going on. One wonders what kind of movie this would of been if they'd moved these reveals up a bit earlier in the running time and shown Freddy really work his way up the roster of kids to his ultimate goal.

The "A Nightmare On Elm Street" remake will never be loved but it kinda doesn't want to be loved. Our heroine is a listless and traumatized survivor of child abuse and or villain is the lewd, dirty old man that relentlessly pursues the same goals even from beyond the wall of death. Though its flaws are impossible to ignore, I can't help but look at the strange strengths in the movie as well. Somewhere in here was a good film. As it stands, its weaknesses outweigh it but, if you can put aside nostalgia, you'll see the strengths that crop up in it's latter half with that specter we all know as Freddy.

I can truly say I don't hate this remake. Though I do not love it, I do love some of what it does and can say it doesn't deserve the reputation it has. I give "A Nightmare on Elm Street" a 5 out 10.

Horror today, can't do what horror did in the past. Trying to remake classics, and trying to put their own perspectives in the movies. Nightmare on Elm Street is the next to get a remake. With a good pick of Freddy I was a little intrigued, but not quite.

We all know the story, don't fall alseep, or Freddy will get you. Well they keep it the same, but it rarely develops until the end. For half the movie, kids are just dying, of course we knew that would happen, but there was no story, just kids dying, I don't want to see that unless there's some story behind it. The screenplay was very very weak, almost made the actors look back.

Which brings me to the acting. I liked Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy, he is a very underatted actor. He did a great job, selling the almost corny screenplay, for Freddy at least. Rooney Mara almost saved the movie for me. Finall seeing her in a lead role, was nice. She was really good, and is becoming one of my favorites, I can't wait to see The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The supporters were decent, usually most of these have terrible acting, there were some decent parts.

So we got another remake, that just wasn't that great at all. It wasn't all of a terrible movie, but it had so much potentional to be a decent film.

This movie just makes me SO mad, start to finish. First of all, it's terrible. Bad writing, bad acting, just bad. Second, no one should be allowed to play Freddy Krueger but Robert Englund...and then to play him SO badly?

Okay, next, is shifting the focus from ONE main character (Nancy), to making her the last character the movie really focuses on, after all the others are killed off...we learn bit and pieces of the story with each character, as an audience, but that doesn't mean the surviving characters get to learn everything until cornering their parents in the dumbest, most idiotic argument I have ever seen (Nancy and her mom).

This should have been left alone. The original franchise is awesome, and should have been left as it was, instead of introducing this piece of garbage into the world with people who look like they are approaching 30 (especially Katie Cassidy, who despite being apparently only 25 looks like she's 30, and her "mom" in this movie looks like her sister, not her mom) playing high school students.

Yes, the movie has some recreations of scenes from the original, which I was glad to see, but in the midst of a terrible, awful movie, it all just made me angrier really. Murders out of order, a horrible Freddy who is just annoying more than anything else. A weak Nancy who is more of an after-thought than the main focus of the movie. Lame, lame, lame. I have seen this twice now, and it just made me even angrier the second time through than it did the first time. I cannot believe time and money was wasted to produce this, or that some people are moronic enough to think this is good, let alone BETTER than the original. This remake is like slapping Wes Craven, Robert Englund, and all the rest of the original cast in the face, repeatedly.

I am never, ever watching this piece of shit again. I love horror movies, but this, aside from everything else, isn't even scary, has none of the charm or wit of the original, and Robert Englund's Freddy scared me silly when I was younger and watching the original movies for the first time (and even for the second and third times!).

Freddy wasn't ever to scary that much, with exception of the first one, second and the seventh. So why people claim about this remake? The remake brought the original Freddy back, and yes it's a cliche movie but very good produced. This movie is far away to be perfect as the others, but i love the sarcastic Freddy, anyway this film was so criticized cuz is a remake. I waited so long to see this movie. The summary was right: they did re-imagine Freddy Krueger. I can see a big difference between Robert and Jackie as Freddy. Even though this was copying a ground-breaking movie and it excited me, there may have been problems. I understand that as a series goes on, things get boring and repetitive. Because this is a reboot, I found the new storyline a little complex at first. In both the original and the reboot, Freddy was bad from the start. Like the other slasher movies I've seen, I was disappointed that all the other supporting characters died. With today's technology for movies, everything looks more realistic. Much detail was put into Freddy's disfigured face. and beaten sweater. As for personality, Jackie made Freddy demonic. What didn't go away though, is Freddy's sense of amusement. I wouldn't say i liked for the gore. When I watched it alone, the suspense got me going. I knew my heart accelerated, thinking at any moment, he'll pop up. The very end told me Freddy was still out there, possibly in other forms. But I forced a laugh seeing him defeated. Every bit was just startling. For this movie, I liked how the suspense pumped me with adrenaline, making me feel alive, the make-up and detail, and the cast. I disliked the blood splattering and how the attacks can be torturing. The new Freddy Krueger is my kind of villain even though I'm not willing to own a copy. If you hate this Freddy, that's your problem.

Pointless and dire remake of Wes Craven's horror classic.

I’m tempted to leave this review at that but I guess I should elaborate further.

The original Nightmare is one of my favourite horror movies, and 80s films, but I am always open to a “reimagining”, especially when it involves characters as iconic as Freddy Krueger. Plus, I have really enjoyed certain horror remakes such as Dawn of the Dead and Texas Chainsaw so I went to this with quite a positive attitude.

And all I can say is that this particular film sums up all that is wrong within the horror genre today. The characters are bland. There is no tension. Gore is favoured over terror. And an iconic and frankly disturbing villain is turned into a paedophile.

Why on earth the writers felt they had to tap into that all-encompassing fear of men who work with children I don’t know – Oh! He likes kids. He must be a paedophile! Let’s burn him!
When Freddy was a full-on child murderer who actually used those knife-fingers and might have gotten a sexual thrill while doing it he was much scarier; much easier to fear. You never knew why he did what he did; only that he enjoyed it. Now, with the new back story and flash backs you’re instructed to only feel disgust towards him, not fear. And therein most of Freddy’s potency as the producer of nightmares is lost.
Team that up with a thoroughly mediocre performance from Jackie Earl Haley and such stiff makeup that it’s hard to read any expression on his face, and Freddy is rendered banal.

So, a crap villain, horrendous “young” actors who no one could care about, and nightmares that are not nightmarish. That was the other main bugbear – the nightmares just weren’t scary. The key to the original Freddy films is that you can imagine having nightmares like those Freddy produces. The long Freddy snake, the tongue that comes out of the phone, the dangling of a human as puppet using his veins – all truly nightmarish visions that you can imagine a twisted psyche and imagination creating. Endlessly running down a corridor or Freddy making you slit your own throat not nearly as scary.
And the main thing I really missed? That horrible screeching noise as he drags his claws across metal. Here he just gives off fireworks.

It’s inevitable that there will be a sequel which just deepens my despair of the contemporary horror viewing public. Do they not know there could be much better horror than this?

"One, two, a Nightmare remake was overdue,
Three, four, but it's something to abhor,
Five, six, you should not mess with the classics,
Seven, eight, Michael Bay's movies are dead weight,
Nine, ten, don't watch horror remakes again."

Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes production company have so far produced remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, The Hitcher and Friday the 13th, so it was only a matter of time before they tackled A Nightmare on Elm Street. However, what should have been the best remake of the bunch (considering the legacy, characters, themes and ideas of the series) is instead a motion picture with no purpose, rhythm or heart. Music video director Samuel Bayer and the duo of screenwriters simply recreated a few famous scenes from the original Nightmare on Elm Street and positioned them in the midst of a barely-cohesive narrative surrounded by subpar acting, dull characters, uneven pacing, generic atmosphere, and a Freddy Krueger who looks more like a deformed space alien. Wes Craven's original film was a chilling, creative horror flick concerned with female empowerment, but this remake/reimagining is a standard slasher picture with tragically watered-down character nuance.

In the film, teenager Dean (Lutz) begins complaining of visions of a badly burned figure stalking him in his dreams, but his claims are dismissed as side effects of his medication. However, when he appears to kill himself at a roadside diner, Dean's friends begin to suspect that he may not have been so crazy after all. Soon, a bunch of local teens find that they, too, are all being hunted by a horribly burned, disfigured slasher named Freddy Krueger (Haley) who's armed with razor-sharp blades lining his right-hand glove. If Freddy kills you in your sleep, you die for real. With the neighbourhood parents seemingly withholding information regarding Freddy's true identity, Nancy (Mara) and her friend Quentin (Gallner) set out on their own; desperate to stay awake while hunting for the reason as to why Freddy is pursuing them.

Despite what you may believe, Wes Craven's original A Nightmare on Elm Street was more about Nancy than Freddy. Nancy was the central focus, while Krueger was the demon in the background that motivated events without being at their centre. Unfortunately, because Krueger developed into such a recognisable figure across the '80s and '90s, he was allotted a more prominent role in this new version. Alas, greater exposure diminishes Freddy's impact. It's also worth noting that A Nightmare on Elm Street is not a franchise that will take to a reboot easily. Much of the appeal of the original film was rooted in its '80s, identity, from the virginal valour of the protagonists to the safety and protection of the suburban setting which Freddy penetrated with joy. This is 2010, and things have changed. To be fair to the film, though, it's not explicitly a remake of the 1984 picture - the thrust of the story in this version veers away from the original, and it openly questions Freddy's guilt while portraying the adult characters as possibly villainous rather than manically overprotective.

Director Samuel Bayer has an impressive résumé of music videos, and was personally recruited by Michael Bay for the project. Unfortunately, Bayer was considerably more concerned with refining the visuals of the film than adequately developing the characters or helping the actors bring them to life in a convincing fashion. A Nightmare on Elm Street hastily sprints into conflict without developing the community of characters or even offering so much as a hello. In particular, Nancy gets the shaft in terms of characterisation. While this new Nightmare on Elm Street is visually appealing and thus fairly enjoyable from start to finish, the film is unable to sustain momentum or create enough genuine tension. There's no reason to care about the one-dimensional caricatures which are passed off as the heroes, and consequently there's no emotional kick or any nail-biting Freddy attack scenes.

For a reimagining, 2010's A Nightmare on Elm Street is disastrously low on creativity, too. Most detrimental is the lack of genuinely memorable kills and gore in general - the kills are all workmanlike and unremarkable. This is especially unforgivable considering that even the weakest Nightmare sequels boasted a few creative scenarios. Additionally, several iconic images and moments from the 1984 film were recreated here, but these only serve to provide the movie with a frequent "been there, done that" feel. They also seem cold and routine, and, while slick in appearance, they are less impressive than the practical effects used in Craven's original. In the original, the image of Freddy appearing out of the wall above Nancy's bed was achieved practically. In this 2010 version, the image was achieved with obvious-looking digital effects, and it weakens the impact. The filmmakers behind A Nightmare on Elm Street clearly banked on making money by capitalising on the name and general appearance of Craven's film, but neglected to replicate the underlying spirit that made the original picture such a genre classic.

In terms of acting, the standout is Jackie Earle Haley who delivered a suitably intense performance as Freddy. Fortunately, it does not feel like a simple retread of Robert Englund's work in the role - it's a laudable interpretation, and his voice is menacing. However, the make-up is unimpressive - Haley looks vaguely reptilian, like an old man with a bad skin condition. Apparently the aim was to make Freddy resemble a real burn victim, but why is "reality" important in a movie which deals so forcefully in dreams?
As for Rooney Mara as Nancy, the actress is awful; mumbling her lines and transforming the role into a mopey wuss. Mara conjures up no sense of personality or bafflement - she simply stares at her equally monotonous co-stars. Kyle Gallner is tolerable as the potential love interest for Mara's Nancy, but both Kellan Lutz and Katie Cassidy are dreadful in addition to looking far too old to be playing teenagers. Perhaps there's another Johnny Depp to be found in this cast (Depp was, after all, unimpressive in Craven's original), but that's unlikely.

The magic of the original 1984 film was Freddy's monster status and the way that this hysteria generated a neighbourhood mood of confusion and bewilderment. Bayer's 2010 reimagining is only interested in the gore shots that Freddy brings, rather than the curse of Freddy. This leads to the ultimate point about the film: it's watchable, but disposable, unnecessary and unremarkable, and it pales in comparison to the cherished original.

4.1/10

I went to see this movie with a friend at the cinema when it was released, I liked this movie and so did she, it was definitely better than the Rob Zombie remakes of the Halloween movies.

I especially liked how the writers went into more detail about Freddy's time spent at the preschool and I liked how the characters were linked to what happened there, finding out that they were abused by Freddy.

The one thing I didn't like was Freddy's make-up because I think it looked better in the original.

Robert Englund is a legend and I think that it is hard getting fans to accept a new face to play Freddy but I think that Jackie Earle Haley did a good job as Freddy.

That's pretty much it, I'm rating this movie 4 stars.