A Nightmare on Elm Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Nightmare on Elm Street

User Reviews