Movies: 18470 | TV Series: 3282 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 65898 GB

Genres: ThrillerFantasyHor

Starring: Kyle Gallner, Connie Britton, Clancy Brown, Kellan Lutz, Jackie Earle Haley, Katie Cassidy, Thomas Dekker

Director(s): Samuel Bayer

Available Quality: Hi Def

Country: USA

Year: 2010

Available Quality: DivX, DVD, Hi Def, iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def

IMDB Rating: 5.1 out of 10 (35957 votes)

A re-imagining of the horror icon Freddy Krueger, a serial-killer who wields a glove with four blades embedded in the fingers and kills people in their dreams, resulting in their real death in reality.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (iPod)	Resolution: 480x208 px	Total Size: 222 Mb
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (Hi Def)	Resolution: 852x352 px	Total Size: 472 Mb
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (Hi Def)	Resolution: 1920x800 px	Total Size: 7145 Mb
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (Hi Def)	Resolution: 1280x544 px	Total Size: 2499 Mb
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (DVD)	Resolution: 720x304 px	Total Size: 1474 Mb
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (DivX)	Resolution: 576x240 px	Total Size: 697 Mb

Movie Photos:

We have taken some photos of "A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)". They represent actual movie quality.

Visitors Review

mikeb302 (23 May 2012)

Oh The Horror?

I saw this movie in the Redbox and had to see it. Of the reviews I'veread on this movie I haven't seen one that likes the changes and I haveto say that I agree completely with them. This is the first time I'veseen a Freddy Krueger that seemed to have downs syndrome. The liveFreddy was scarier than the dead one. When they decided to changeactors they killed this movie. No one will ever replace Robert Englund.I do think there were a few things about this movie that made for animprovement but they are overshadowed by the bad. I don't mind cgi buteven with cgi the kills seemed pretty lame. When I saw the original atthe age of 8 i couldn't sleep that night. When i saw this one i couldhardly stay awake. I didn't love every Freddy movie but they were atleast entertaining. This one was just frustrating. From the bad makeupto the new "scary" voice and lets not forget about the lack ofpersonality in the new Krueger. This movie was a bust. I would notrecommend this movie to anyone, especially a fan of the original.If you cant make a movie better than the original, leave it alone.

rockinkettles-1 (23 May 2012)

A Scary Elm Street

Let me just say that I honestly didn't expect much from this movie. Istill like the original better but it is very good for a remake. Ithought Haley was good as Freddy. He did his own take on the characteras anyone else would. Just like Ledger did with the Joker, he made ithis own. There are some genuinely scary scenes in the new Elm street. Iwas startled a few times. The cast of teenage victims are nothingspecial. That is all they are there for, to be victims. The story ofcourse if you don't know by now is when these group of teens dreamabout the burnt killer Freddy Krueger, if they die in their dream, thenthey die in real life. Freddy was a molester at a pre school Theparents got revenge by burning him to death. Freddy comes back forrevenge years later when all the kids are teenagers. He haunts them intheir dreams, and one by one, kills them in their dreams. I honestlythought the original Elm St.was one of the most original horror films Iever saw. It is still a creepy classic. My favorite death scene in thatone was with Johnny Depp (his debut). He gets swallowed by his bed andbuckets of blood come shooting out of the bed and all over the ceilingand bedroom. That is one scene that could not be topped in the remake.There is plenty of blood and gore though in the new Elm st. that willsatisfy horror fans. Well, that is my opinion on Elm st. If you see it,try not to compare it with the original and with Englund's Freddy. Ifyou don't then I think you will like it. And I still think the veryfirst Elm was the best with Englund. I didn't care much for the sequelsexcept maybe Dream Warriors.

JoeB131 (19 May 2012)

Another Remake we could do without

It's become fashionable to take all those cool horror movies of the1980's and remake them. So with Michael Myers and Jason Vorhees gettingreboots, why not Freddy Krueger.In some ways, the new era of CGI special effects were an improvement.Things I suspect Wes Craven would have liked to have been able to do in1984, but the technology wasn't there yet.Sadly, what movies like this gain in technology, they lose in storytelling. Freddy in this movie is played by Jackie Earle Haley, whoplayed Roscharch in the adaptation of "Watchmen". The problem here isthat he tries to play Freddy straight, not as the wise-cracking findinginventive ways to kill you maniac we saw in the later movies. Even themakeup is less scary, making him look more alien than monster.The original film had some iconic images including the scene in thebathtub with the clawed hand coming up between the legs of the heroine.(Or as I referred to it at the time, the "Gyno-exam from Hell". Mygirlfriend slapped me.) They are all reproduced here, but the theproblem is, you don't care about the characters.Clancy Brown is in the movie as the father who is the ringleader of themob that kills Freddy. A waste of a good actor.Then they had the mother who is obviously a Sarah Palin lookalike... Ijust have to ask why.Again, I think this is another example of the video-gaming of movies.The special effects are the stars, the actors are just there to markwhere the story is... and it doesn't work.

murf81 (19 May 2012)

Jackie Earle Haley is the man!!!!!!!!!

Apparently, all of the other people who've written reviews on thismovie either have no appreciation for the term "remake",,, or just haveno imagination at all. First of all,, I am a huge fan of the originals.Robert Englund brought Freddy to life and made us all enjoy him. I willalways enjoy the originals,,,,,,, but when it comes to remakingsomething,,,, the last thing you want to do is the exact samething!!!!!!!! When I saw Jackie Earle Haley as Rorshach,, I knew no oneelse could play Freddy like he would,, and I was not disappointed inany way. I haven't jumped that many times during a movie since,,, well,ever. Robert Englund made Freddy fun,,,,, Jackie Earle Haley madeFreddy EVIL!!! and that's exactly what I was hoping for.

xxjennyfajaxx (15 May 2012)

One, Two, Freddy's coming for you... Three, Four, but it's... such a bore...

Much to my delight, whilst I was browsing Youtube last October, Irandomly typed in 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' to recall my nostalgicmemories of the film and what appeared in front of me was 'A NightmareOn Elm Street 2010', and after confirming the trailers in the websitewere accurate and real, I was overjoyed. Not because by the time thefilm came to the cinema I was actually old enough to go and see it onthe big screen, but the fact that producers such as Michael Bay hadre-created my all-time favourite horror film. I had seen Bay's work for'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' re-make in 2003, and couldn't help butfeel excited about the idea. However. When I went to see the new'Nightmare On Elm Street', I couldn't help but feel disappointed. Yes,I had been forewarned about the dreaded results of a 'new and improved'version of a classical film after hearing dreadful reviews about there-make of 'Friday The 13th' and 'The Omen', but I taught myself toignore the desperate cries of dismay from these examples. And I regretit. So, the plot is very basic: A bunch of teenagers are haunted by amaniac in their dreams. Couldn't be simpler. That's what I love aboutthat particular plot. It's psychological horror. The fact that thedeaths occur in their dreams are much scarier since anything can happenin dreams, in which we don't, naturally, expect to happen in real-lifesituations. Yet, here is where the movie went down-hill. If you've seenthe original movie and it's many sequels, you know what to expect. It'stedious and rather annoying the fact that the film runs in a particularorder: Night, then day. A funeral. Then night. Then day. Then night.Then day. So horror fans, overall, become bored during the daytimeshots, eager for Freddy to appear to scare the living Hell out of us.As for Jackie Earle Haley - He was... sufficient as Freddy Krueger. I'mnot saying he is BRILLIANT, because he does have flaws. If you've seenthe previous 'Nightmare In Elm Street' films and read the books basedon the franchise ("Suffer The Children" by David Bishop in particular)you can easily visualise Robert Englund saying the dialogue and doingthe actions instead of Haley. For example, in "Suffer The Children",Freddy's dialogue is rather much like Englund's characterisation ofFreddy - no offence to Haley's acting, but I could NEVER imagineHaley's portray of Freddy Krueger saying particular lines in hisdeliberately slow, low-pitched voice. It was as though every line andaction for Freddy Krueger was specifically made for Englund, andEnglund only. There's his flaw - Haley deliberately slows down theaction of the film. For example, when he chases Kris in her garden...sorry, did I use the word 'Chase'? I actually meant 'stood there behindher deceased dog - killed by him - whilst she made a run for it'. I beghis pardon, but what happened to the tension in this scene? Because itis NOTHING like Freddy and Tina in the original, where he actuallytaunts her by chasing her slightly and appearing out of random places,and actually trying to slash her whilst they wrestled on the ground.And when Quentin appears in Freddy's world, Freddy doesn't jump on himand slice Quentin to pieces - like he SHOULD do - he instead shakesQuentin about shouting, "YOU. CAN'T. SAVE. HER!", and only after Nancyarrives in his world after about 5 minutes of menacing glares betweenthe two characters, Freddy then decides to lean towards Quentin andwhisper, "Tag... you're it", and - FINALLY - slice Quentin on hischest. What happened to the Freddy Krueger we once knew who attemptedto kill somebody at every chance he had? Where he claimed his successby slicing a pillow in the original movie whilst battling Nancy, inwhich the feathers of the pillow obscured our point-of-view, but heSTILL tried to kill Nancy regardless, and we all knew it. However...I'm not saying Haley's characterisation of Freddy Krueger is allgloom-and-doom/End-of-the-world. There are a few interesting aspects tothis. For example, he doesn't emphasise the black comedy in dreamswhere he deliberately went to extreme lengths to torture teenagersthrough specific dreams where the teenagers' interests are reflectedfor example, a jock = A dream which involves football where they arekilled, which we see in the numerous sequels. No, in the re-make, thedreams all refer to a nursery and the characters are killed in slightlyunexpected ways. Another factor which was slightly interesting was thesurprisingly intriguing sexual attractions between Freddy and Nancy. Inmy opinion, I found this quite amusing particularly when Freddy askedNancy what game she wanted to play to which she replied "Fuck you!",and he replied, "Ooh, sounds like fun! It's a bit fast for me, though".This builds to the background of the plot where Nancy was alarminglysexually abused by Freddy before he was burnt to death, in which Freddynever forgot her. The final scene in the film where Freddy nearly rapesNancy, in my opinion, was quite dramatic if not slightly predictable,but it DID distract us slightly and engaged our curiosity over whatwould happen next. Not to mention hints of humour within the scriptwhich are quite hard to grasp at the particular moments. In conclusion,yes I was rather disappointed by the film, overall. However, those whodid not have the advantage of seeing the original or haven't seen ityet, I suppose the re-make would be OK for that particular audience.But perhaps I am slightly exaggerating - I admit there ARE some scarybits in the films which are slightly unexpected the majority of thetime, and the plot is quite stable, and it is quite easy to get into.

p-patanjali (15 May 2012)

A great movie must watch for the first timers

This is a great movie well directed and a bit scary.I don't know whyothers underrate this movie.Its a very good movie especially who didnot watch the original film.Acting is OK not topclass.Direction is verygood.Although it is no where near the standards of original movie stillit is a worth watch.Freddy character should have been more scary.Makeup to the freddycharacter is not upto the mark.Remaking a movie like this requires alot of risk but i think director did a good job,wish actors should havecomplemented director by there acting but they really let down directorby there mediocre acting.I give 7/10.

(12 May 2012)

Who's going to kill Michael Bay already?

As you can see by reading any of the other reviews for A Nightmare onElm Street (2010) was a terrible film. The issue that nobody'saddressed, however, is that there was no way that this could possiblybe good. The deck was stacked against it from the beginning.First off, it is a remake of an American horror film, which alreadypaints it into a pretty ugly corner, where the Maverick Auteur of thegenre is Rob Zombie. It follows the tried and true formula of theAmerican Horror Remake, pioneered by Michael Bay: Music video director,no- name cast (except the guy who played Freddy in this case), bigbudget (but not huge enough to do anything really interesting), new"darker" (not scarier) look, lots of jump scares, and a script thatsticks very close to the original, bringing nothing new to the tableexcept more exposition. Some aspects of this formula should work fine, in fact many of the besthorror films are first features with no-name casts (Texas ChainsawMassacre, Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead). The other aspects ofthe formula are much less forgiving. The overly dark atmosphere of these films seldom plays to theiradvantage, as most of the originals had scenes with comedic relief, andin the case of the original Nightmare, took place in a very bright,colourful, idyllic suburb, which made both a bigger contrast betweenthe dark nightmares, and created more realistic and dynamic characters.A good horror movie shouldn't just take something scary and run with it(ie. Nightmares), but take something normal (ie. going to sleep,suburbia) and make it terrifying. The other reason the "darker re-imagining" doesn't work is the samereason the other Freddy films became campy. What makes a horror flickwork is the fear of the unknown, and once the character becomes as wellknown as Freddy Kruger people know what to expect. If almost any of thesequels had been the first film in the series they would have been muchscarier than they were as sequels because it would have been a newconcept. As a child I saw the Simpsons parody of nightmare on elmstreet before I saw the original, and was terrified of that because itwas still a scary idea, and I had never seen it before. With horrorsequels it is almost inevitable that they descend into camp when theyreuse a pre-established idea, and they can either roll with it, tryingto up the ante with increasingly extreme variations on the original(like the Nightmare sequels), or resist it, and try to scare you againwith the same old stuff (the remake).As far as the much maligned reliance on jump scares goes, they can workeffectively if they're used sparingly, but they become monotonous aftera while, and at the end of the day, nobody gets scared of somebodyjumping out of nowhere with loud music suddenly coming on after theyleave the theatre.The most puzzling part of all of these remakes, is the amount of timedevoted to exposition. It should be assumed that even people who'venever seen a nightmare on elm street film should know what it's aboutwalking into it, but for some reason they always find it necessary tospend the entire first half of the movie explaining what's happening.The only way to keep a remake like this interesting while sticking soclosely to the plot, is to play on what the audience already knows andexpects (ie, the 90s night of the living dead remake), not explain itto them.On a positive note, this is the last truly classic horror film left tobe remade, unless someone has the balls to redo The Shining, or out offormality makes an official Exorcist remake, instead of just ripping itoff and using a different title.

collipal-1 (12 May 2012)

A horrible new version of a classic horror film

I perfectly remember the first time in which I saw the trailer of ANightmare on Elm Street in the cinema back in 1984, because it had leftme perplexed and intensely interested in that strange villain withsupernatural powers, who had nothing in common with Jason Voorhess,Michael Myers and the uncountable clones who were part of the "slasher"cinema from that time.I remember that even after going out of thecinema, instead of thinking of the movie I had just seen (I do notremember at all which one it was), I was thinking of the trailer of ANightmare on Elm Street, at the same time I was analyzing theoriesabout the origins of the mysterious monster.I first thought he was asorcerer; then, my theory was changed, and I thought of a ghost.Anyway,I had never seen scenes like the one of the tongue going out of thephone, or the one in which the stairs become into a viscous liquid.Ihad to wait various months to see the movie, but I was sure it wasgoing to be something special.I mentioned those old memories because I think it is impossible for thecontemporary spectators to feel the same anticipation for A Nightmareon Elm Street (2010), the new version of that extraordinary horrorfilm.The first mistake from this pathetic remake is trying to re-inventa too famous character, with a solid presence in the popularconscience, and whose most recent film is only 7 years old (theunmemorable but entertaining Freddy Vs. Jason).Besides, as dictated bymodern tendency, director Samuel Bayer stays away from the style evokedby 80's horror cinema in order to make a more violent, brutal and"realistic" movie, ignoring the sinister personality from the villainand the grotesque surrealism from the original film.So, the result is abland and totally unnecessary rehash which fails on its attempt ofresurrecting the franchise, and at the same time, it is absolutelytedious.I will assure you that I went to see A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)without prejudices or unfair comparisons with the original film, butwhen the movie started, it was very difficult for me not to make them,because it insists on reproducing classic scenes without any othermotive than satisfying the fans of the original film (needless to sayit did not achieve it).What is more, the movie never provoked on meeven the minimum levels of emotion, horror or suspense.I will attribute a big part of the problem to Bayer, whose poornarrative sense cannot integrate the scenes on a fluid whole.That is aclassic symptom of directors with a wide experience on TV commercialsand video-clips, where the emphasis is on the images, and not on theflow of a story.So, his efforts on the visual aspect from A Nightmareon Elm Street are irrelevant, because they never complement a storytold with a good rhythm.And besides of that, the juvenile cast iscomposed by inexpressive and bad actors.Between all of them, theycannot construct even a pinch of personality, and their poor attemptsof drama are reduced to shouting, groaning and saying the "F" word asmany times as possible.As for the rest of the cast, the competent actorClancy Brown is absolutely wasted with a too brief and almost invisibleparticipation; and I now have to talk about the new Freddy: JackieEarle Haley.After the good answer he had with Watchmen, there were bigexpectations on his interpretation of the new FreddyKrueger.Unfortunately, the screenplay did not give Haley too much spaceto develop his character, so he stays on the typical "monster of theweek", buried under a stylish make-up which is something like acombination between a turtle and Gary Oldman in the film Hannibal.My expectations for A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) were pretty low,and the movie ended up being even worse than I expected because of itslack of ambition, hollow direction and the pathetic performances fromthe juvenile cast.This remake is one of those movie in which I reallyfeel I wasted my time and my money, and which as a consequence, Iregret having watched it.And what is more, it is hugely boring.So, donot make the same mistake I did and do not watch it.

Robert-Isaac Hernandez (11 May 2012)

Never Seen the Original

I'm young, OK? So I did got scared in a few moments of this movie. Withthe bad reviews, I decided to see it myself. You don't like it? Fine!But I did.I thought the acting was great! They all did a great job in theirroles. Especially the girl who played Kris (I forgot what her real nameis). Jackie Earl Haley who played Freddy Krueger was actually good! Ididn't know it was him! But I do understand people who found his voiceannoying. I know. It is a bit weird.I don't know if this movie is better than the original or not becauseI've never seen it but from seeing the trailer of the original, thereis an obvious change in the CGI. *SPOILERS* (maybe): When Freddy wastossing the girl around the room (you couldn't see Freddy), the CGI wasgood. In the original, it was pretty bad. It looked like she was beingpulled from a rope. But I know it's because they got stuck with a smallbudget of 1.8 million dollars while this remake had 35 million dollars.Anyways, it's a pretty good movie and certainly enjoyable. I had acouple of jump scares in this movie but my brother found thempredictable. So is it scary? It all depends on you. See this movie foryourself. I'm not asking you to watch this movie or not but decide foryourself.

Perry Bee (11 May 2012)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Zzzzzzz is all that comes to mind for this one, I am so over theHollywood remakes, have they really run out of new ideas? I triedwatching this horror of a film, but found it really hard to stay awake,but damn falling asleep wile trying to watch Nightmare On Elm streetcould be the wrong thing to do! The good thing about this terribleremake is that I will not watch any more remakes that might come fromout of ideas Hollywood. What are they going to butcher next? 1 out of10Zzzzzzz is all that comes to mind for this one, I am so over theHollywood remakes, have they really run out of new ideas? I triedwatching this horror of a film, but found it really hard to stay awake,but damn falling asleep wile trying to watch Nightmare On Elm streetcould be the wrong thing to do! The good thing about this terribleremake is that I will not watch any more remakes that might come fromout of ideas Hollywood. What are they going to butcher next? 1 out of10

(06 May 2012)

worst

This is the worst remake ever. Not scared not anything...lousy....I can't even put it into words. Robert Englund is the man....This SUCKS.

johnd28 (05 May 2012)

great remake

I am an eighties child. I grew up watching all great horror movieseries. By the end of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, the movieshad become very campy and not so much scary or even dark. This newreinvention of the franchise brought me back to the original. Freddywas a bad guy, he's a freakin child molester, but buy the end of theoriginal movie series, Freddy is like this guy we all root for becausehe ends op killing all the kids who have sex, do drugs, or are justannoying. This movie brought Freddy back to the dark side for me; hebecame scarrier. It did a better job than Wes craven New Nightmare,which wasn't a bad movie just not that remeberable. I also like theaddition of the back story. Even though other movies did give more ofFreddies back ground. I like the angle this one took. I was veryimpressed with this remake in the time when everything is being remade;Heaven forbid an original idea.

Ali Catterall (04 May 2012)

Zzzzzzzzzz

The best horror movie remake of recent years is Alexandre Aja's take onWes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. This is basically just a fact. Bycontrast, one of the foulest is the 2009 retooling of Craven's equallyiconic Last House On The Left - a slicker, and thus even sickerprospect, in some respects, than the censor-baiting, Mansonmurders-inspired original. Lacking any meaningful context, thisreactionary, conservative flick exists purely as a hard-nosedcommercial venture, yet more grisly grist to the multiplex mill.This third re-imagining of a Craven classic isn't quite as queasy aprospect - but it's also nowhere near as effective as Aja's effort. Thereal problem with A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 is: it's reallyunbelievably dull. Bloodless, we guess, being the apposite term. Andthat's problematic for a slasher film.In fairness, we're given plenty of warning. For many, the phrase "AMichael Bay production" denotes the exact opposite of a seal ofquality; Bay being the accountant behind a rash of duff, deeplyunwanted horror re-runs including Texas Chainsaw Massacre, TheAmityville Horror, The Hitcher and Friday the 13th. Not to mention hisown duff, self-directed efforts like Pearl Harbor, The Island, and theforthcoming Transformers III (deep joy). Films that shriek and gurn andwoof, from a producer who must have a personal account at Homebaseowing to all those kitchen sinks he keeps flinging away.For Bay, a film isn't quite right unless all character, subtlety andnuance has been hacked out, and an audience left with partial deafness.Essentially, he's the wrong guy to entrust with horror movies, in whichinsinuation, suggestion and sickeningly slow build-ups rule the hour.Bay is remaking Hitchcock's The Birds for 2013. They'll probably be thesize of dragons, with H-Bombs for guano.Yet, oddly, Bay and Bayer's Nightmare isn't even powered with that kindof bombast - just shot-for-shot, scene-aping filmmaking, as if allconcerned were rendered paralysed with reverence for the source. Theremake tells the same story, more or less (we're not going to botherrepeating it - remote Eskimos could reel off the basic set-up);although this time round our superannuated-looking teens wise-up totheir predicament a hell of a lot faster. Access to things like cellphones and the Internet obviously helps, 25 years on, although the filmwould also have you believe that Googling will allow you to pinpointanybody you like in seconds. Especially if their name is as unique andesoteric as 'Lisa Harper'. Still, there's a cute joke about computers''sleep modes'.Talking of jokes, one of Freddy's trademarks was an admirable abilityto find humour in the most awful situations, albeit ones he'd usuallycaused in the first place. However, Krueger didn't start out instand-up mode, and the producers have respected that here. Trouble is,we're so used to Mister Melty cracking gags every time he offssomebody, like some psycho James Bond, that you really miss his waywith a terrible one-liner. "I was just patting him" he comments, afterripping a pet dog to bits. What? Is that it? No "It's a dog's life"? Or"My bite is worse than my bark"? Not even "I bet that gave you 'paws'for thought"? (I'm here all week.) This film may carry an 18 certificate, but it's really just the usualexercise in PG-13 thrills and jump-scares, further replacing somerather creepy, organic effects (those celebrated bendy bedroom walls)with perfunctory CGI. There's the interesting addition of 'micro-naps';tiny waking dreams affording Freddy (Jackie Earle Haley) even moreopportunities to flex his fingernails. And there's a half-hearted stabat a deeper, more topical issue (certainly a 1980s issue, thoughglossed over in the first version) that of witch-hunting adults, whomay be just as monstrous, if not more so, as their prey; a subtext thatpeters away again soon after it's raised. Moral ambiguity hurts Gumby'sbrain! For modern audiences, with instant access to horrors fictional andreal, this cannot hope to carry the same impact Craven's genre classichad on that more innocent Pepsi-swilling, Atari-jabbing, Rubik'sCube-wrangling generation.In fact, it's all about as alarming as a woozy post-prandial Sundayafternoon spent leafing through the magazines with the telly on in thebackground and a moment of vague annoyance when one of those littleleaflets wafts out and you pop it back in or more likely leave it onthe sofa with all the other supplements and the noise from the TV hasbecome so ambient that you barely even register it until your eyelidsstart drooping and the roast and red wine you've consumed an hourbefore is settling nicely and wouldn't it be lovely to have a littlenap right here and - careful!! He nearly had you.

Raymond Melendez (03 May 2012)

The night terror continues in the new Nightmare on Elm St.

The night terror continues in the new Nightmare on Elm St.Freddy is back with more rage than ever. This time is not just aboutthe killings... This time it's about Revenge.Jackie Earle Haley takes on the character of Freddy Krueger , a man whothe town has condemned as a child molester. With more disfigurementthan the original Freddy, Jackie really does a very good job as theKiller of the film. So good in fact that I had to continue to remindmyself that this is not Robert Englund. Keeping with the same mannerismas the original, gives the film a very creditable feel. Not to takeanything away from Jackie who added his own twist to the character tomake Freddy a new Villain for the new generation. So we ponder thequestion, Is there anything Jackie Earl Haley cannot do? Answer: I'mafraid not, the guys is as good as they come...The movie seems to have a new direction, a different point of view ifyou will, perhaps to give the movie a more modern feel. Even thou theychanged it enough to make it seem like a new film, I was very impressedwith director Samuel Bayer, who decided to keep the killings verysimilar as the original Nightmare on Elm St. More to his credit, TheStudio had said that the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street was goingto be converted to 3D during post production in which Bayer Refused tolet Nightmare on Elm Street be 3D saying: "This was shot in 2-D and wasmeant to be shown in 2-D. Just like I don't want to see a lot of greatmovies remade - I don't want to see a lot of them in 3-D" Bravo!!! Avery good decision in my opinion.The story of the film is more sinister and disturbing this time around.Giving you a glimpse of what the real backstory was and why they didn'ttell us back in 1984 when the film was first released. Far too morecomplicated to visualize back in those days.With way crazier dreams and mind games, including collaboration of thecharacters within the same dream, Freddy still taunt his kids just asgood, if not better than before. I found this movie to be far moresuperior than the sequels that followed the first installment of thefranchise and I hope you do too. So, stay up late and go see this NewNightmare on Elm St.One, Two Freddy's coming for you. Three, Four better lock your door.Five, Six Grab the crucifix. Seven, Eight Gonna stay up late. Nine, TenNever sleep again.Raymond MelendezMovieFloss.com

revgutterat (01 May 2012)

Not your cute and cuddly Freddy.

For a remake I think they did a fantastic job on this movie. Eventhough it isn't the most original plot ever conceived, the content,effects, and gore more than make up for the lack of originality. Freddydoes look more like a burn victim and even though he still has a senseof humor they have up played the negative aspects of his character (hisattitude toward young children... the teenage murders are why we lovedhim in the first place) which makes it harder to root for him. Some ofthe people at the show thought this ruined the Freddy character but Ibelieved it gave him a much more savage edge that his cute and cuddlycounterpart lacked. Don't get me wrong, Englund put his heart and soulinto Freddy and has flavored the franchise since 1984 but Haley puts ina very respectable performance for a character that we are veryfamiliar with. It appears that more concentrated energy was put intoset design, which was beautiful, than original kills, which were savagebut mostly homage to movies throughout the original series. Our newFreddy did add some new flavor to some of our old favorites but fans,and especially fanatics, of the old school will spot many nods to theold films. Finally, even though latex and buckets of Karo are myfavorite mode of delivery, the updated CGI gore was extremely well doneand didn't have that plastic edge that tends to ruin these types ofmovies. Horror fans both old school and new school should drop whateverthey are doing and go see this film. Freddy fanatics, even though theyhave taken Freddy away from us Haley carries the torch with honor andwe should judge him on his own merits, not on a "he's ruining RobertEnglund's character" basis. Robert Englund, we doff our fedora's inrespect, the king is dead, long live the king.

Hylia (30 April 2012)

The Nightmare on Elm Street Returns!

This was hands-down, the best horror movie remake I have ever seen. Ithad all the right ingredients, a frightening antagonist, a scary storyand well made characters to boot! It starts on the titular Elm Streetwhere a group of teenagers including the infamous Nancy are all bondedby a strange event that occurred in their past, one that they cannotremember. To refresh their memory, enter Freddy Krueger the Nightmareof Elm Street. Once a gardener at a preschool turned child molester, hehas come back from death to haunt the dreams of the children belongingto the parents who burned him alive all those years ago. He kills themin various ways, from making one girl thrash on the ceiling of herroom, to stabbing a boy through the chest in a jail cell. All the killsare creative as are the ways in which he comes to haunt them before hedoes them in. There are several nods to the original Wes Cravenclassic, including the bathtub scene and the bedroom kill scene. Allthe kills however involve the gruesome clawed glove for which Kruegeris best known. The movie itself had many good jump scares, most of which wereeffective enough to cause me to jump a few times. Some of the sceneswhere you see Freddy haunting the teenagers were well done as well. Agreat example of amazing blurring between the Dream world and Realityis the pharmacy scene. In this scene Nancy is trying to go into thepharmacy to find Quentin when she suddenly has a micro-nap and isforced to run from Freddy as the pharmacy becomes a dank boiler roomaround her. She manages to escape from Freddy but she is foreverscarred as she finds out that she was his "Number One". I also loved the scenes that showed Freddy's past. It made Kruegeralmost likable, one might even say pitiable, until you find out hisdisgusting secret. He was molesting the children of Elm Street bytaking them to his "secret cave". The scene where he is burned aliveand is running out of the boiler room on fire is also quite striking. All in all this is a great movie! GO FREDDY!

Neil Welch (29 April 2012)

Remake which adds nothing

It has been many years since I saw the original Nightmare. I don'tremember many specifics, but I do remember that it was both originaland scary. I think one must accept that a remake is, as a matter ofnecessity, likely to lack originality, but one can hope that it will bescary, and also that it will bring something new to the table.If you've never seen a horror movie before and you're keen to see one,then this Nightmare remake will probably fit the bill quite nicely -things suddenly appear behind people, or just out of vision, there aresudden loud noises and so on - all the horror techniques are used. Plusmost of what made the original movie is also there, updated a little interms of current movie-making technique (ie. more blood), but otherwiseas one would expect.And that's the problem. It brings nothing new to the table. Even JackieEarle Haley, an actor who I greatly respect for his work in LittleChildren and Watchmen, can't add anything of any great significance tothe depiction of Freddie Krueger (admittedly he is hamstrung by afacial prosthetic which is particularly unhelpful to facial acting, andFreddie's backstory, an area where he could have added an additionaldimension to the character, is skipped through so fast you nearly missit).The kids are no more than slaughter fodder. The only one I had everheard of is Kyle Gallner who, by virtue of the number of places wherehe pops up, must really appeal to casting directors although he reallyirritates me.This is adequate, but no better than that.

(29 April 2012)

fair

First of all let me mention something before discussing the movie. My first ever nightmare happened when I was only 5 years old back in 1986. In the dream I was walking outside my school alongside the parking lot, it was nighttime, and I remember a cool, yet intimidating breeze was blowing. I go to walk down the parking lot some more, feeling uneasy and anticipating something horrific to appear at any moment, and upon glancing in the distance at the sidewalk beside the school building where I used to walk every morning before school, stood Freddy with his sharp claws looking directly at me! Let me tell ya- THAT was truly a terrifying ordeal! I woke up praying it wasn't a reality, or that I haven't actually slipped into the unavoidable nightmare world, aha. I mention this because some of the events in the movie really match up with the dream, such as the playground scene which hit a little TOO close to home for my liking.My biggest problem with this new updated version of Nightmare on Elm Street is that it's not NEARLY as frightening as the original series. Also, the guy portraying the Freddy Krueger character is absolutely horrible. For one thing, his voice is too monotone which means he's not the least bit scary whenever the teenagers enter the nightmare world. It's like he's simply carrying normal conversations with the teens while in the nightmare environment instead of making an impact and actually *scaring* them.At least he's fairly violent. In fact, he's perhaps *more* violent compared to the original Freddy Krueger. There's a ton of surprisingly bloody moments that really were gruesome and exciting to watch.There's a *somewhat* frightening atmosphere taking place for the most part, however it's not nearly as impactful as it was back in the 80's. It just feels a bit corny. Perhaps it's because I'm an adult and can't appreciate such an atmosphere anymore, or perhaps I've finally gotten used to the entire horror genre so it can't strike me on a more personal level anymore. Or perhaps the directors and producers just didn't offer enough suspense.Either the storyline has been completely revamped or I can't quite remember what it was like back in the day. Without spoiling anything, let's just say Freddy has an interesting history. I actually enjoyed the storyline, but I can't argue with those who believe it doesn't (or shouldn't) stand in the same league as the original series. This storyline does tend to lean more towards a detective/mystery.Overall it's alright, but please, give more respect to the original series which is honestly better.

(24 April 2012)

Just alright; not as scary or creepy as original

This review is from: A Nightmare on Elm Street (DVD) There are many problems with this movie, one of them not being that its a remake. If this weren't a remake of an even more popular film then it would be just another been there, done that fiasco. The original film gave Johnny Depp his start. There doesn't seem to be anyone in this film that is on their way to the kind of career that he's had, but then again let's give it time. His career took off immediately and this film is already a few years old. The actors in this are your typical pretty boy and pretty girl where your job is to just look pretty on screen and we don't care if you can act. Unfortunately, audiences are much smarter than filmmakers believe and want a character to be convincing. The actor, Kyle Gallner, seems to be the only actor in this that demonstrates a bit of depth with weak material to begin with. Jackie Earle Haley spends the entire film with his face hidden under a burned mask as the new Freddie Krueger. He brings ominous tones to the character with stale one liners from this stale script. People will be soon wishing the old Freddie with his hideous face and comic timing were back that Robert Englund brought to fame almost effortlessly. The other problem this movie does is it reveals a more horrific past involving Freddie Krueger and the teens he's gutting one by one. The more the film starts to reveal Freddie's history the less scary the movie starts becoming. The movie is okay and that's merely because it's another one on the bedpost ad to the series. It'll make for a great background on a Saturday night, but may not be as entertaining as you hoped.