A Nightmare on Elm Street
New Line Cinema | Release Date: April 30, 2010
5.0
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 328 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
110
Mixed:
105
Negative:
113
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
0
johneMay 3, 2010
I am sick and tired of people saying this movie has any value at all. This movie is a huge pile of crap, just like all the other stupid shallow piles of crap that make up the horror genera. If you like this movie you are a retarded pathetic loser!
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
JPKJul 4, 2019
A Poor Remake
This remake is completely unnecessary, stupid (Not in a good way), boring, not scary, and mediocrely acted.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
0
GooberParentsFeb 7, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have to say this movie was by far one of the worst remakes I've ever has the displeasure of seeing. I love how they robbed scenes from the originals (bloody body in a bag in the school hallway, Nancy's name and mother's fate, the blond bombshell/bad boy cuddling then she dies all around the room and him in jail) I thought to was supposed to be a remake, not a 'hijack-and-puke' fest. I love the breaking of the paper cutter just like in the Faculty too! If there is ANYTHING "good" about this movie, it gave us plenty of not-fully-related-to-the-plot images at why pedophiles should be burned alive.… Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
3
cameronmorewoodNov 7, 2012
Despite its bold recreation of the legendary movie monster and the spellbinding dream world created with the aid of modern technology, Nightmare is produced by Michael Bay, that is, it's flat and lifeless.
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
0
JacobparkerMay 18, 2013
Was it scary? NO
Was it entertaining? -NO
I'll never watch this again, that was very boring ant definitley non exciting.
Watch the original it's much better!
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
3
GarethCriticOct 22, 2010
This movie pales in comparison to the original and why? This remake ruins Freddie Kruger. In the original he was a killer who invaded people dreams to murder them and despite still doing that in this movie it just doesn't have the sameThis movie pales in comparison to the original and why? This remake ruins Freddie Kruger. In the original he was a killer who invaded people dreams to murder them and despite still doing that in this movie it just doesn't have the same effect. Freddie, in the original, had a sick sense of humor and was even able to turn his kills into entertainment via the ability to shape shift and do anything he wanted within his victims dreams but in this villain Freddie is simply a stereotypical slasher. This movie has ruined a once credible character.… Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
2
SlasherVoorheesAug 20, 2011
I Have Seen some of the new Horror Remakes and this is one of The Worst i mean Freddy's Makeup is ok but the Kill Scenes Are Generic and The Acting is Horrible the Guy Who Plays Freddy is Aboslutly Horrible and doesnt fit the Role Well at allI Have Seen some of the new Horror Remakes and this is one of The Worst i mean Freddy's Makeup is ok but the Kill Scenes Are Generic and The Acting is Horrible the Guy Who Plays Freddy is Aboslutly Horrible and doesnt fit the Role Well at all This is a Remake that Features new Versions Of Classic Scenes but Its Not the Same and its redone Poorly. The Characters are Lame and Boring and And Worst of all Freddy Has no Peronality and all he is is just A Poor Mans Copy of the Original Freddy This is a Remake that You Should Stay Far Away from!… Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
2
Kyle39Sep 9, 2012
Dreadful remake of Wes Craven's 1984 horror masterpiece. No redeeming value at all. Englund is sorely missing as Krueger, and the rest of the cast are untalented and bland. Just horrible on every level.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
2
kyle20ellisMar 26, 2022
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 outI 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… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
ChristianV.May 3, 2010
Waste of money. Bad Character development. Bad script/story. Nothing scary about it. Period.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
Lopez17Aug 11, 2010
I am not a fan of the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" in fact I did not like it much at all mostly due to the fact that for a movie with it's reputation it lacked everything a great horror film needs it just fell flat when I needed itI am not a fan of the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" in fact I did not like it much at all mostly due to the fact that for a movie with it's reputation it lacked everything a great horror film needs it just fell flat when I needed it to soar. Sometime in mid to late '09, I started hearing rumors that New Line Cinema was looking to reboot the famed Nightmare on Elm Street franchise but then I had not seen the original so I had no interest in watching the remake. Well after much speculation and some minor hype for this film I sat down to see the much talked about remake to the popular 1984 slasher film. Little did I know that I was in for a treat and a sour disappointment? Samuel Bayer's (another music video director trying to make it big) "A Nightmare on Elm Street" was not the nightmare I had hoped for it lacked depth of character and enough twist and turns to really be called a true horror film instead it comes off as a two bit SyFy channel "horror" film. That comes complete with hooky dialogue, extremely poor acting, predictability on a scale so high that you almost want to laugh at this films expense and trust me when I say this, you will! The "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake makes the original and other horror remakes (The Ring, The Crazies) look so good in comparison. Samuel Bayer's â… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
MovieLonely94Oct 16, 2010
why are the remakes of michael myers, jason voorhees, and freddy krueger so frickin stupid and boring?!?! they had nothing to do with the originals and they frickin know it! I swear to god, If I see another remake of another horror movie, I'mwhy are the remakes of michael myers, jason voorhees, and freddy krueger so frickin stupid and boring?!?! they had nothing to do with the originals and they frickin know it! I swear to god, If I see another remake of another horror movie, I'm gonna choke myself!… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
1
jdrandall38Oct 25, 2010
This was the worst remake of a classic i have ever seen. The acting was terrible ( Besides the guy who played freddy which was pretty good). The original haunted my dreams as a kid and if kids watch this one, the only thing that will beThis was the worst remake of a classic i have ever seen. The acting was terrible ( Besides the guy who played freddy which was pretty good). The original haunted my dreams as a kid and if kids watch this one, the only thing that will be haunting their dreams is the horrid acting. I honestly expected it to at least own up to the original in some way but this movie doesn't deserve to be called "A Nightmare on Elm Street", maybe it should be called "A nightmare by New Line Cinema" I wish i could have that 90 minutes back to watch the original instead of this P.O.S!!!!… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
HalfwelshmanDec 13, 2011
The remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street isn't a bad film because of complete lack of competence. On the contrary, on a technical level, the stunts and effects are handled extremely well. What makes it a particularly sub-par film is the factThe remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street isn't a bad film because of complete lack of competence. On the contrary, on a technical level, the stunts and effects are handled extremely well. What makes it a particularly sub-par film is the fact that it's so empty below the surface. Whereas the original was a thinking man's horror film, this version substitutes original ideas and genuinely scary imagery for cheap thrills and an abundance of gore. As a remake, it has little new to offer - every scene that "pays tribute" to the original is a pale shadow in comparison, and the few original ideas are lazy and completely lacking in the ability to scare. Though Jackie Earle Haley makes a decent enough Freddie Krueger, somehow the character loses all power and sense of threat with the filmmakers' decision to flesh out his backstory - he was scary in the original because he was an enigma! The vast majority of the cast are laughable in their performances (though at least Rooney Mara looks like she's trying) and the script is abysmal. Even after all this, the main crime this remake commits is not that it isn't fit to lick the boots of Wes Craven's chilling classic, it's that it simply isn't scary. It's unsubtle, dumb, and about as terrifying as a trip to your local post office. Thank goodness Wes Craven had nothing to do with this insulting version of his seminal horror creation, but at least he can still dream of the good old days, when original ideas still counted for something in filmmaking.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
driesy8888Sep 5, 2011
Garbage. Utter garbage. Oh how the original sh*ts ALL over this movie. The only mildly appealing thing is the cinematography at some points...otherwise, throw this one out
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
RolentoNov 25, 2012
I'm speechless. I'm not even a hardcore fan of the series, and I still felt bad for those fans after watching this at my local cinema. Without exaggeration, this is the worst movie I have ever seen to the point that it's not even decentI'm speechless. I'm not even a hardcore fan of the series, and I still felt bad for those fans after watching this at my local cinema. Without exaggeration, this is the worst movie I have ever seen to the point that it's not even decent joking material. It exploited the name of an actually good franchise and spoiled it of everything that was characteristic of it, replacing it with unoriginality itself, literally random jump scares (that scene with Freddy's head on a black background at a certain point... I cannot even begin to address how inappropriate that was) and turning a cult character into an obvious "mainstream" pedophile villain for no reason. What were they thinking.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
Kylenine1Jun 16, 2014
A waste of not only time, but money. Even though the remake had its moments the storyline isn't strong enough to compare to the original film. There's nothing much to say about this film except that it has bad acting, the special effects wereA waste of not only time, but money. Even though the remake had its moments the storyline isn't strong enough to compare to the original film. There's nothing much to say about this film except that it has bad acting, the special effects were okay, the storyline was terrible and the direction was the only thing that was good. The music was terrible because we've been heard it all before and we've been there and done that.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
gmpawesomenessFeb 6, 2013
This movie disgusted me for a number of reasons. The biggest being that Robert Englund would not playing his legendary character Freddy Krueger. Robert Englund owns that role to not have him play Freddy is like not having Harrison Ford playThis movie disgusted me for a number of reasons. The biggest being that Robert Englund would not playing his legendary character Freddy Krueger. Robert Englund owns that role to not have him play Freddy is like not having Harrison Ford play indiana jones or to hang the mexican flag in front of the white house. But Robert says he wanted to retire and you know what I could get over that if they didnt completely change his character. I hate it when people take some one eles great work of art and try to change it. YOU DONT SEE ME PAINTING OVER THE MONA LISA! There was no puns, no miniacal laugh no cheese yet still funny puns and they tried to make you feel sorry for freddy rather than being scared of him. Please if you love the nightmare on elm street movies do not buy or rent this movie because it would just premote them to make another terrible sequel. I hope that one day there wil;l be some one who can play the character as well as Robert Englund and I also hope If Wes Craven wont write the script then the next person who writes it will show some respect to the legeng that is Freddy Krueger.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
marcmyworksJan 11, 2014
Sadly it was felt that this film franchise needed a reboot and thus the 2010 NOES was born. Jackie Earle Haley's Freddy is nowhere as scary as Robert Englund's and the cast proves to be pretty yet bland.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
StrangerinaJul 1, 2014
This movie cannot build up suspense at all, and the intensity of the Freddy scenes is completely gone and traded for in-your-face jumpscares. The plot is a much simpler version and none of the symbolism prevalent in the original made it here.This movie cannot build up suspense at all, and the intensity of the Freddy scenes is completely gone and traded for in-your-face jumpscares. The plot is a much simpler version and none of the symbolism prevalent in the original made it here.

Freddy's motivations also seem a lot more petty. Here Freddy's revenge is much more direct, as in he wants to kill the kids for ratting out on him.

These motivations show in Freddy's interactions with the kids, he whinges and moans about how poor child molester got denounced. While Jackie Earle Haley was a pretty good choice to play the role of Krueger, this script just gave him bland to pathetic lines. Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger's sick sense of humor didn't really make it to this movie.

The visuals are decent, almost overblown, but when you don't have the suspense and intensity, it's hardly worth more than 2 stars.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
1990Jul 6, 2014
Worst Unnecessary Remakes I Seen In My Life ,Psycho (1998). Carrie (2013). Planet Of The Apes (2001). The Fog (2005). A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010). Prom Night (2008). The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008). Flubber (1997). The StepfatherWorst Unnecessary Remakes I Seen In My Life ,Psycho (1998). Carrie (2013). Planet Of The Apes (2001). The Fog (2005). A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010). Prom Night (2008). The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008). Flubber (1997). The Stepfather (2009). Clash Of The Titans (2010). The Wicker Man (2006)… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
Cornelius68Jul 7, 2014
this movie is absolutely terrible ,This is the worst yet from Michael Bay's horror production company Platinum Dunes, which also brought you rubbish re-makes of Halloween and Friday the 13th and Carrie
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
Gina_HJul 8, 2014
the remake and it didn't speak on anything new. It just copied the original but watered it down. i prefer watching A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 ,than Carrie 2013
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
ydnar4Apr 19, 2015
I loved the original. It is probably my favorite horror movie ever. This remake is just a lame copy. For the most part all the exciting parts and characters are ripped off the original movie. I liked the idea to reboot Freddy Krueger with aI loved the original. It is probably my favorite horror movie ever. This remake is just a lame copy. For the most part all the exciting parts and characters are ripped off the original movie. I liked the idea to reboot Freddy Krueger with a new actor after Robert Englund made the character famous but it just didn't work. I hope they don't try it again.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
DartboardJan 20, 2015
Glossy production design and cinematography have added a certain glamour to what should have been a depraved film, which just doesn't work. It barely feels like an attempt at something sinister. Freddy Krueger - who once transcended theGlossy production design and cinematography have added a certain glamour to what should have been a depraved film, which just doesn't work. It barely feels like an attempt at something sinister. Freddy Krueger - who once transcended the boundaries for a slasher villain - is boiled down to a mumbling entity with no personality and no wit, almost as if the screenwriters believed the lack of would create a creepier, "distinct" Freddy. Completely misses on what made Krueger a compelling and enduring figure in horror cinema, and its characters exist solely to rush the story along. This is a movie that has nothing to say, nothing to justify its existence, and nothing worthwhile to see. The only silver lining to come from all this is that it didn't rake in enough dough to greenlight a sequel.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
geo333Oct 31, 2015
The remake of the classic horror film Nightmare on Elm street is a nightmare of a film. Due to lackluster of story, intense and horror; the remake only points to one direction that is Elm Street is not scary anymore at least in this film.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
2
robertoiglesiasJun 18, 2017
This is a horrible movie! The new Freddy Krueger sucks, the deaths suck, Nancy sucks, and so does everyone else! This is an insult to the original movie!
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
JustinTMay 5, 2010
If a deranged killer is haunting your dreams, do not watch this movie. It will put you to sleep. Like most other horor remakes, ANOES takes out what was charming about the first film and replaces it with loud noises intended to startle If a deranged killer is haunting your dreams, do not watch this movie. It will put you to sleep. Like most other horor remakes, ANOES takes out what was charming about the first film and replaces it with loud noises intended to startle instead of scare. Plus, Kruger was always interesting because he had the ability to shape-shift into... well... pretty much anything: a television set, a snake, friends of the victim etc. This time around, he just chases his victims (all of which are plagued with terrible acting skills) and kills them which is reminiscent of countless other horror movie icons. Freddy may not be dead, but to me he is.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
TimothyDMay 5, 2010
The first thing I say is always see something for yourself, I might not like it but you might. In today's horror movie world, this will most likely please young people and teenagers equally since remakes are aimed at them but I agree The first thing I say is always see something for yourself, I might not like it but you might. In today's horror movie world, this will most likely please young people and teenagers equally since remakes are aimed at them but I agree with a lot of people downing this. The new guy gives a mildly decent performance as a reinvented Fred, the bad news is the new take leaves your skin crawling instead of laughing and fearing the guy simutaneously. This isn't good because the back story makes you feel bad for the man's disturbia, you're not sure what he is and what he did and that makes it awkward and weird. I found myself wanting to walk away from the movie because I wasn't sure what I was watching. Secondly, the dream sequences are boring as sin. I was waiting for those creative scenes where you really are on the edge of your seat wondering what was about to happen and instead I just wondered how long before the kid would be killed. That brings me to the kids, the guy in the beginning seemed promising as a potential leading role since we don't often see the male survival rate in hack and slash then you're led to believe the blonde is our female heroine. So much random time was spent on her that when they got to the real one, well, I was confused again. Not to mention we learn nothing interesting about her aside from the obvious connection she makes. Then our real female heroine doesn't really have much of a personality,while she's an average girl which is good to see I found myself wanting her blonde friend back instead. Overall on the teen playing cast, their deaths and quick stories that add nothing do not allow you to empathize with them. Characters in the past Elm Street movies actually made you wish they didn't die because they were interesting even in those few seconds they had on screen. I leave it with three stars because the new guy does make your skin crawl, and confused about how you're supposed to view him. I'll even admit I kept comparing him to old Fred, and just couldn't see him as our favorite villain. Though a child killer is no better, it somehow just lessens the squick factor. Anyway, It really could have been better done, they could have taken some pointers from the old school instead of leaving it so unimaginative. And that's all I have to say about that.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ChrisGMay 4, 2010
I am a fan of the series. I had high hopes that this would reinvigorate the franchise and give a new generation a Freddy to be scared of. Boy was I wrong, jackie jo whatever his name is just used his Rorschach voice from watchmen and his I am a fan of the series. I had high hopes that this would reinvigorate the franchise and give a new generation a Freddy to be scared of. Boy was I wrong, jackie jo whatever his name is just used his Rorschach voice from watchmen and his make up effects left him looking more like voldemort than Freddy. The film as a whole seemed thrown together and rushed to production with little care for character development or good directing. Wes Cravens was the better version, when compared to this half hearted attempt to recapture the horror of dreams and a man with a claw.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AnthonyC.Apr 30, 2010
Take every word that means boring and stick it here. Jackie is great as Freddy but the script was terrible and the death scenes unimaginative. Go watch the old ones instead stay away from this borefest.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AaronGApr 30, 2010
A terrible movie that stumbles through the ruts that effectively killed the series in the first place. Oh, lest not forget that it wasn't scary.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ChadS.May 1, 2010
Of equal pertinence, once the moviegoer is done with vying Jackie Earle Haley against Robert Englund in the battle for Freddy Krueger's avenging black soul, exists the fact that Krueger becomes the ex-Bad News Bear's second Of equal pertinence, once the moviegoer is done with vying Jackie Earle Haley against Robert Englund in the battle for Freddy Krueger's avenging black soul, exists the fact that Krueger becomes the ex-Bad News Bear's second go-around at playing a child molester in less than five years. Todd Field's "Little Children", the 2006 film based on the novel by Tom Perrotta, starred Haley as Ronald James McCorvey, who like Freddy, was a school custodian with a pedophilic streak. A monster lives on 44 Blueberry Court by Larry's estimation(Noah Emmerich plays a neighborhood watchdog who orchestrates a witchhunt), which incites the suburbanite mothers and fathers to treat Ronald accordingly, in a scene meant to conjure up Steven Spielberg's "Jaws", where Ronald is ostracized at the community pool with a hysteria usually reserved for great white sharks. Seen through the prism of the Kate Winslet vehicle, Haley, because he was so sympathetic as Ronald, lends a presence that demythologizes Krueger's reputation as the very typification of a sick and depraved sex offender, because this sad-eyed actor makes Freddy seem more pathetic than evil, vulnerable even, thanks to a misguided sequence where we see his real face, untouched by burn scars, in the previously unfilmed backstory of Freddy Krueger's origins. It's a mistake to show Freddy being chased down and burned alive by a parental mob, especially since this new version of Wes Craven's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" opts for being coy about the extent of the school custodian's malfeasance. The film restores Freddy's humanity. Bad move. In order to eradicate any poetic justice from the grudge that gives Krueger the licence to kill, this latest installment of the wildly popular franchise needed a scene like the one in Amy Berg's "Deliver Us From Evil"(the 2006 documentary about the pedophile Catholic priest Father Oliver O'Grady), where an angry father, concerning his young daughter, cries out, "He raped her!". The moviegoer never knows for sure if Krueger was deserving of the little children's parents' vigilantism. This wholly unnecessary remake raises the possibility that the previously one-dimensional killer from the original series, like Ronald McCorvey, could have been deemed worthy of rehabilitation. Worst of all, nothing this revamped "...Nightmare..." is scarier than the scene between Haley and Jane Adams(in "Little Children"), where Ronald caps a reasonably successful first date with Sheila by offering the maladapted waif something more idiosyncratic than a goodnight kiss.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
RyanSMay 3, 2010
Another pathetic brain-dead remake of a classic horror movie. It had zero creativity, bad acting, a terrible script, and NO PERSONALITY. It was obviously hatched up in a boardroom somewhere by a bunch of faceless suits. I hope Freddy haunts Another pathetic brain-dead remake of a classic horror movie. It had zero creativity, bad acting, a terrible script, and NO PERSONALITY. It was obviously hatched up in a boardroom somewhere by a bunch of faceless suits. I hope Freddy haunts their nightmares for what they did to him.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
KyleSMay 4, 2010
The creators did not watch the original. Why is the story changed?? The loud noise scare tactic is getting faking annoying also. Half the movie wasn't on Elm Street. They should change the title to "A Nightmare in the next township over The creators did not watch the original. Why is the story changed?? The loud noise scare tactic is getting faking annoying also. Half the movie wasn't on Elm Street. They should change the title to "A Nightmare in the next township over nowhere Near Elm Street Because it is all about the Preschool"... Too much??… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
KrystalRMay 2, 2010
It was the worst movie that I have ever seen, they might as well have gone up to Wes Craven and spit in his face. Don't buy the tickets to see the movie, it is a huge waste of time and money.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
GabbyG.May 3, 2010
Isn't as good as the original. Bay does not have a good talent of remakes especially for the horror industry. Bay leaves his mark by over animation maybe someone should think of original ideas instead of taking the old ones that would Isn't as good as the original. Bay does not have a good talent of remakes especially for the horror industry. Bay leaves his mark by over animation maybe someone should think of original ideas instead of taking the old ones that would be a real director.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AaronMMay 5, 2010
Don't go see in theatres and don't even bother to rent this one. There is nothing refreshing about this new Nightmare on Elm Street. Creators need to realize the joy of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies is the nightmares Don't go see in theatres and don't even bother to rent this one. There is nothing refreshing about this new Nightmare on Elm Street. Creators need to realize the joy of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies is the nightmares themselves and the characters own beliefs that they can defeat Freddy at his own game. Instead, this movie goes the "I have amnesia" route and tries to set up Nightmare on Elm Street as a mystery that everyone already knows the answers to! What a waste! And Jackie Earle Haley plays Freddy the same way throughout the entire movie - very disappointing - and the movie just seems distant. Distant to its audience, distant to its fans, and even fans with amnesia are left with nothing to appreciate with this remake.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
WilliamR.May 5, 2010
By the book remake that doesn't do anything better or more scary than the originals. In fact the acting was terrible and the kids had no life at all. I saw it to see the new Freddy and now I wish i hadn't wasted the money...Robert By the book remake that doesn't do anything better or more scary than the originals. In fact the acting was terrible and the kids had no life at all. I saw it to see the new Freddy and now I wish i hadn't wasted the money...Robert Englund is irreplaceable.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
thelordoffilmAug 13, 2010
Why was this movie necessary I ask myself, to make money, to boast special effects? I don't really know because the movie never explains why. Is it for entertainment, no I don't think so. I know what exactly why it was made for. It was madeWhy was this movie necessary I ask myself, to make money, to boast special effects? I don't really know because the movie never explains why. Is it for entertainment, no I don't think so. I know what exactly why it was made for. It was made to dig in the pockets of fans of the series and give them a horrible product. I would know I was one of them yesterday and my wife and everybody else in the movies was. Wes Craven's original A Nightmare on Elm Street was a fresh idea. It was a new vision of horror back then. It had nightmarish visuals and gore, and one of the most charismatic horror icons ever Freddy Kruger. This remake is a perfect example of what made that original movie so much better. Let's compare scenes shall we. The famous scene where Freddy stretches the wall above Nancy's head and looks at her, the original is creepier due to its realistic effects. The remake has CGI and ruins a perfect scene where it's suppose to be tense and suspenseful it turns out that Freddy has his own line of wallpaper. Let's talk about the acting and casting choices now. The girl playing Nancy is Roony Mara a weird gothic chick who looks like she's going to throw up at every scene. Then we have Kris played by Katie Cassidy who the only thing she does is stare in the distance and "acts" (notice the quotations) dramatically. Then the boys who play every other high school kid out there are nothing really new and engaging. They say all the same thing it's not real it's just a dream yadda yadda. The original cast their appeal was that they look like everyday people kids next door their dialogue was realistic and their roles were written well so we can adapt to them. Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy, the only thing I say about that is we miss you Robert Englund where the hell are you? I do admit Haley tries to give his own style but he just falls short he so poorly written in this movie. The filmmakers said they wanted to remove all the comical stuff and make Freddy scarier. Are you trying to say Englund wasn't scary, watch Wes Craven's New Nightmare where Robert Englund goes serious and scares the crap out of you. You know what Freddy being comical is what made Freddy famous you always can tell he enjoyed what he did to people. It was black humor; this "serious" (more quotation marks) Freddy is as boring as a burnt pretzel. CGI, good looking actors, impressive cinematography does not make a good movie. Did Samuel Bayer saw the original movie did he send his actors to see it. I don't think so. This movie so bad that Wes Craven should re-release his original and basically say a statement this is how it's done people. I told five or six people not to go see it hopefully they listen to me I don't want them to see an incompetent, lazily directed film. It's just going to dig into their pockets.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
SpykeFeb 7, 2011
I new this would flop the moment I heard Michael Bay and Platinum Dunes were making it and all I can say is:

Try not to fall asleep as it is truly that bad!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
LordNasebySep 27, 2011
Acting: Weak. Very weak. Like Sidney says in Scream "these movies are all just some big breasted chick who goes up the stairs when they should be going out the front door" I'm not saying that happens here, because obviously Freddy kills youActing: Weak. Very weak. Like Sidney says in Scream "these movies are all just some big breasted chick who goes up the stairs when they should be going out the front door" I'm not saying that happens here, because obviously Freddy kills you in your dreams and you can't really stop that, but the characters have the same I.Q. level. The characters in this one are all the same: one dimensional one emotion cardboard knife fodder. It sucks. Also Freddy, what is with Freddy? We all know that no one can beat Robert Englund as Freddy but COME ON! You have to try harder than that. He also goes directly into the 'pun kill' phase. why? why!? 1/10

Plot: The same as the original just with a few changes some of them are major I will admit. One thing I absolutely hated with this film was that they had every major kill scene and scare scene, they were ALL done better with the original and they had all of them EXCEPT THE BEST ONE!!! The epitome of cool Freddy kill is not involved with this one at all. Why the heck not!?! you have all the others why not that one!? Yeesh. Ridiculous. I hated it. Retards. But frankly, they had the plot so that you didn't give a rats about any of the characters. and the changes they made were incredibly stupid. I hated them. 1/10

Screenplay: Like I said earlier: Freddy goes directly into the 'pun kill' stage. Why? Also, no one says anything good. It was all cringe worthy. I absolutely hated it. I absolutely don't even see the point of any character saying anything simply because no one is going to the movie to hear great dialogue. They are coming to see Freddy butcher retard teenagers. So teens in this movie, don't open your mouth the audience will just flinch and groan if you do. 0/10

Likableness: I didn't like it. at all. I don't want this one to exist. I feel that they missed the mark on Freddy which is the worst mistake anyone could make and they had every major kill form the original except the best one. Why is that? If you've run out of characters by the point where it has to come up, add another one. no one can tell the difference. No one really cares. There were some good kills but they weren't as good as the original ones at all. I don't even see the point. .5/10

Final Score: 2.5/40 6% (S)


TRIVIA TIME: 1. two lines are taken out of past Freddy movies that I could spot. 1. "How's this for a wet dream?" from A Nightmare on Elm street 4: The Dream Master. and "I'm your boyfriend now" From the original Nightmare on Elm Street.

2. Originally intended to be a prequel, but the idea was dropped.

3. Billy Bob Thornton was considered to play Freddy Krueger.

4. Around 15 different drafts of the script were written. The final film is a hybrid of 4 of them.

5. Jackie Earle Haley would often improvise his lines on the set, feeling this might help unease his other cast members if they didn't know what line he was going to say.

6. Wes Craven was reportedly not approached about this remake. He has however publicly spoken against it. Good choice Wes.

7. To provoke a response from the actors in the scene in "Freddy's Cave", the photographs they found were Polaroids of little girls mixed with real Polaroids taken from medical surgeries.

8. Jackie Earle Haley scratched his corneas with the contact lenses he wore delaying production for a short time. He also had the whites of his eyes turn blood red for two weeks because of this.

9. Johnny Depp accompanied his friend Jackie Earle Haley to auditions for A Nightmare on Elm Street. Instead of Haley being chosen for a role, it was Depp who was spotted by director Wes Craven, who asked him if he would like to read for a part. Depp got a part in that film, Haley didn't, but Haley would go on to play Freddy in this remake 26 years later.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
RobertOBrienAug 7, 2015
Drink every time there's a plot hole, lazy jumpscare and an actor giving a 1-note performance, and by the 45 minute mark, you'll be proper haggard.

This sure did give me nightmares. Nightmares about how they could've done so much with thisDrink every time there's a plot hole, lazy jumpscare and an actor giving a 1-note performance, and by the 45 minute mark, you'll be proper haggard.

This sure did give me nightmares. Nightmares about how they could've done so much with this story, thanks to modern technology, but did nothing with it. I was at least expecting to be impressed with the dream sequences, but even that was uninteresting. The lack of inspiration and creativity leaves me dumbfounded. The script and actors seem so bored with themselves, and it certainly transcends onto the audience.

I would rather sit in a theatre for 95 minutes, leaning over with my mouth wide open, drooling onto the floor to see how much saliva would pile up. A much more interesting event than watching this excuse for a horror film.

If your movie's only saving grace is an actress from Gossip Girl, you know your movie is a huge waste of thought. This is only getting a 2 because of Katie Cassidy, and high production values. Well made, terribly written.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
BenHawkes113Oct 2, 2015
While Jackie Earle Haley is a great choice for Freddy post Robert Englund, this film is just terrible all round. Half-assed performances, nothing that scares, over relies on jump scares that no one falls for. Over relies on CGI blood and goreWhile Jackie Earle Haley is a great choice for Freddy post Robert Englund, this film is just terrible all round. Half-assed performances, nothing that scares, over relies on jump scares that no one falls for. Over relies on CGI blood and gore as well, and just has that Michael Bay feeling to it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
EpicLadySpongeApr 22, 2016
Not even good ol' Freddy Krueger can save this movie from being an absolute mess. With a story that lacks any sense, Michael Bay once again producing a horror film, and ruining the good name of the franchise, this one falls asleep too quicklyNot even good ol' Freddy Krueger can save this movie from being an absolute mess. With a story that lacks any sense, Michael Bay once again producing a horror film, and ruining the good name of the franchise, this one falls asleep too quickly and soon.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
Castiel_AngelOct 9, 2016
A cheap knockoff version of the original Nightmare on Elm Street. This movie is nowhere near even remotely scary. Robert Englund MADE Freddy Krueger. Don't get me wrong Jackie Earle Haley did a good job but it just doesn't have that originalA cheap knockoff version of the original Nightmare on Elm Street. This movie is nowhere near even remotely scary. Robert Englund MADE Freddy Krueger. Don't get me wrong Jackie Earle Haley did a good job but it just doesn't have that original theme. Jackie is probably also the ONLY actor in this move that made it interesting the rest of it was just ughh. The writing oh my god don't even get me started on that it was freaking horrible and that is a major understatement. The only reason this is not getting a zero is like I said Jackie Earle Haley is interesting in some way just not as original as Robert Englund… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
S1r-R34lMar 4, 2017
A travesty of a reboot. Bad direction, lazy two-dimensional characters that the actors cannot breathe life into. Save your pennies or better yet but the original '80's movies box set and see how it should have been done.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
MrTacoBobJul 11, 2017
No just no! They failed so badly! The movie was so crappy. It ruined a great series. I haven't watched this movie in a while but I remembered it being boring and very awful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
FilipeNetoMay 8, 2021
For those who have seen and enjoyed the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" franchise, making a remake is, in itself, a redundant and disposable idea. Making a remake just because there are other kinds of special and visual effects withoutFor those who have seen and enjoyed the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" franchise, making a remake is, in itself, a redundant and disposable idea. Making a remake just because there are other kinds of special and visual effects without being able to be a little better than the original is a mistake.

The film begins with the deaths of two teenagers and the heroine fully convinced that there is something terrible happening, and that it kills them without them wanting to. Of course, for us there is no secret: it is Freddy Krueger who, through their dreams, is taking his revenge on those who killed him, years ago. The script, thus, recycles the story of the original franchise, without adding anything innovative or doing better. In fact, the film even copies entire scenes from the first film, reinforcing the lazy and uninteresting aspect that the film takes on.

The cast is led by Jackie Earle Haley, who replaces Robert Englund in the role of the steel glove villain... but the truth is that there is no love like the first, and Englund will forever be the ideal actor for the role. In fact, Samuel Bayer should surely be dreaming (or having nightmares) when he allowed the writers to give Haley such bad material, where the character is so mistreated. Without any seriousness or ability to intimidate, Krueger is a ghost of the character he was in the opening film. The rest of the cast does not stand out: it does what it has to do on characters who are nothing more than smoke figures, with no personality or any striking feature. Rooney Mara is the most resonant name, but she looks like an alien here, not quite knowing what she does or why she is really here.

Technically, it is an uninteresting film at all levels, clearly starting with Haley's bad makeup: it manages to be less realistic than a Carnival or Halloween rubber mask. The standard cinematography and the poor editing, with a series of badly placed and untimely cuts, also do not help, but the bad sound and the misuse of sound effects was what tired me the most: the film has more squeaks than an oil-free door and tries its hardest to use sound to make the audience jump in the chair, a feature that horror has used until exhaustion due to the director's inability to work with the atmosphere and tension. Krueger's voice also seems anything but authentic and frightening. The costumes and sets are fine, but they can't save the movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
JonSnow2049Aug 20, 2019
Worst Nightmare movie ever. It is real, real, real bad remake. This film has no atmosphere of original movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
Im_just_playingMar 27, 2020
Excuse me for my language, but what the f*ck I've watched??? It doesn't feel like an original movie from 1984. And Freddy in this version acts like a pedophile, so yea. Thanks, I hate it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
MglovesfunJul 2, 2020
While not a complete disaster, it compares poorly to the original. Fans of the original will hate it. No idea what if anything a younger audience would like about it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
James92Jun 5, 2020
This is about as bad as remakes get. Forget Elm Street, Forget Freddy, the film is a real Nightmare all
On its own.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
Toasty87Jul 10, 2020
This reboot hurts my eyes and my soul it feels very cheap and rushed a few scares but not much.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

35 Critic Reviews

5.0 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 71 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL