Dan Franzen

(2012-04-30 06:15:18)

It's better because it's grittier and darker

I'm happy to say that, in my eyes, this "reimagining" isn't bad at all.In fact, it's gloriously scary in ways that the 1984 original simplycan't match. It's unmarred by cheesy special effects and delves alittle more into the psychology of Freddy Krueger, and as a result itdelivers a stronger punch than you'd expect from rehashed horror.For those who don't know, here's your story: many moons ago, a mannamed Freddy Krueger was burned alive by angry parents; now he hauntsthose parents' kids in their own dreams, and when he kills in theirdreams, they die in real life. You can die in your dreams, you know.Just ask Mario Mario.The original Nightmare on Elm Street was mostly about high school kidsdying in increasingly gruesome ways, which is where we are today with alot of horror – Saw, Hostel, House of Wax, and so on. The new one stillshows plenty of gratuitous and creative violence, but Freddy is evenmore diabolical and menacing, less of a sideshow freak and more of aterrifying monster. This is in part due to Jackie Earle Haley, whoseems very much a living, breathing demon, every raspy syllable. Haley,so great in Watchmen, Little Children, and even unwatchable dreck likeAll the King's Men, has turned out to be one hell of a good actor, andI hope that one of these days he gets some real recognition as such.The plot is basically the same as that of the original. If the kidsfall asleep, they encounter Freddy, who kills them. So some of them trynot to fall asleep (missing, for the most part, is the ghostly nurseryrhyme about Mr. Krueger), either by popping pills or just drinking waytoo much coffee.The protagonist is played by Rooney Mara, sister to Kate Mara andgreat-granddaughter to New York Giants owner Tim Mara. She's a hell ofa lot more believable than any of the other "good guys," which is fine.If anyone in a horror movie should be plausible, it should be the maincharacter. The others can be fodder if they want.The mood is appropriately dark, almost trembling as it backlights thescenes. And although there's plenty of spilled blood to go around, itfeels almost more like a psychological thriller and less of a gorefest,and I think that shows some bit of maturity in the genre. Who's to say?Maybe these old franchises will get rebooted intelligently. It couldhappen.

(2012-04-29 14:15:52)

A Complete Insult To My Generation!!

This review is from: A Nightmare on Elm Street (DVD) I wasn't expecting much from this remake because I am a DIE HARD Nightmare on Elm Street fan, and was biased when I found out they were actually remaking one of my favorite horror movies/series of ALL TIME. I was right. I couldn't even finish the film. I fell asleep after the guy or "Freddy" sliced 'that dude's' throat. I didn't feel anything for the characters during the funeral scene right afterwards, either, and turned off the movie shortly after. There went my interest factor. And I've actually been ENJOYING most of the remakes that have been coming out. But no Robert Englund? No low-growly funny jokes or crooked face, and NO S--T-eating grins??? This "Freddy" was just not funny AT ALL. He was boring and had no style whatsoever. UGGGHHHH!!! I could go on forever being such a fan of this series. I was also deeply and untterly disappointed when the scene that scared the living crap outta' me when I was younger (when Tina gets sliced and diced and falls on the bed into a pool of her own blood from the ceiling *SPLAT!!*) had only a few 'droplets' of blood in it. WTH??? Once again, I didn't feel for the characters, and I definitely felt no passion for or from them, either, and I'll watch ANYTHING. ANYTHING. This remake is simply insulting to my generation that grew up watching these wonderfully awaited horror movies... and one of the most successful horror movie franchises (if not THE NUMBER 1 horror movie franchise) of ALL TIME. Lord, I'm SO glad I got to experience the 80s with the REAL Nightmare movies. A simply disappointing and utterly pathetic attempt to remake a legendary horror movie!And BTW, who is giving the die hard Nightmare on Elm Street fans low reviews? For what reason? Their honesty doesn't suit you? Grow up. We know what we're talking about, so if you come from the "new millenia" generation. You need to take your NO DOZ and your caffeine pills PRONTO!

David

(2012-04-28 02:27:07)

We all knew it was never going to beat the classic, but we were all expecting a good movie!

Let me start off by saying i thought this movie was decent. But Iexpected a lot more.We all know the story of Freddy Krueger. How he got burnt etc. In thisone it's the same, but it's the change of Freddy's character thatreally lost my interest. Jackie Earle Haley is about as best as you canget at playing Freddy Krueger. No one will ever beat Robert Englund.He's just Freddy Krueger! I don't really need to explain the plot, youall know the plot, BUT, let me explain the changes. In the oldNightmare On Elm Street, Freddy Krueger would always mess with peoplebefore he killed them. In this one he just kills them and doesn't messaround. Nothing humorous to say, nothing, just kills them. In theoriginal he was a psychopathic killer who hurts children. In this onehe's just a pedophile. Loves to screw all the women and girls. To me,that put me off. All this put me off. So Freddy's character changed alot, but did it work? Not for me. Didn't work for me.All the acting was decent and there's some gory scenes, all in all, notthe remake I was expecting and had hoped for. Everything about it isdecent, but nothing great. 5/10

sidekicknick43

(2012-04-27 11:26:54)

Another Remake of a Classic Slasher Film is Upon Us.

Alright, first, we have Halloween- Bulls***. Next, we have Friday the13th- In my opinion, a good film. Now, we have A Nightmare on ElmStreet.People keep saying that the film is very dull. I disagree. Every timesomething happened, Freddy would pop up. However, that's where mybiggest problem comes up. I get really annoyed with jump scares and Idon't remember why Hollywood still does that. You get one, Hollywood.After that, I don't want to see another one until the film is over.Maybe an extra one right at the end, if you want. A positive point isthe performance by Jackie Earl Hailey, which I feel was a worthyfollowup to Robert Englund's performance. I like the darker, moresinister Freddy more and I didn't think that any of his puns were tosilly or out of place. They even borrow a few toward the end from theprevious Nightmare films. I also forgot to mention that I like the waythey turned his backstory into a mystery. One last point is the acting.I know I'm going to take a lot of heat when I say it wasn't that bad.Although, Rooney Mara didn't do it for me. She was just kind of boring.And even the parents were kind of bad.All in all, if you're a Nightmare fan, I would definitely recommendgiving this a shot. And don't make any comments like "I didn't likethis. Robert wasn't in it." Because you should have known that beforeyou bought your ticket! If it had a few less jump scares, and maybe afew more clever killings, I could have given it a higher rating, butthat stuff really bugs me so...8/10

(2012-04-27 07:20:51)

Gave it a shot!

Like many of the new horror film remakes that have come out over the last few years, I approached New Nightmare with a little bit of apprehension, however unlike the other horror movies to come out, Friday the 13th and Halloween being the two biggest culprits, New Nightmare was actually refreshing.First: To start, all of those that are approaching Freddy with a "you're not Robert Englund, you'll never be Freddy" are not giving the film the chance it deserves. Haley isn't Englund, but he does decently in his own right. There was a creepy atmosphere from the film without a complete reliance on blood and shock value, (Halloween) Which to me harkens back to my first time seeing A Nightmare on Elmstreet as a kid. It was creepy and to me New nightmare covers that particular ground quite well.Second: The characters in horror movies are rarely fleshed out enough for the audience to like them, otherwise the audience would be upset when they are killed off. If you go back and actually watch the old classics, I'm sure you'll notice that the characters that get killed off are woody, without a strong background. You aren't supposed to love them, they're fodder for the wolves. The only characters that the audience is supposed to feel a strong connection to are the ones who will "hopefully live." It's not always the case but for the most part the well developed characters are the ones who live. Nightmare did a decent job with Quentin and Nancy's story line, not great, but better than most.Third: The problems I found with New Nightmare; The back story doesn't fit as concise as the originals. Keep in mind that I love that they tried to view the back story through new eyes, and absolutely loved that they made me question all that I thought I knew about the story, even if it turned out that what I knew all along was correct, but the back story was patchy in places and to me fell apart in a few places. All of that could have changed with a few tweaks to the over all line, but again it wasn't as horrible as it could have been.Last: I'd like to take this time to say that I overall enjoyed the movie, thought it was a breath of fresh air, one of the few that have come out recently that were worth watching at least once, and it made me want to go back and watch the originals. Freddy wasn't meant to be funny, the direction the old movies went felt wrong to me, and like a few other commentators on this site this movie felt like a step back in the right direction for the franchise. All in all I'd recommend the movie at least as a rental, on the condition that you view it in its own light. It's not the Original, but it's not bad either.

epic-reviews

(2012-04-26 19:04:37)

A Nightmare On Remake Street

Freddy Krueger, a name which, in days gone by, struck fear into theminds of children worldwide and resulted in months of sleepless nights.I would know, I was one of them. 26 years after the release of theoriginal iconic movie by the mastermind that is Wes Craven, SamuelBayer, a relatively unknown in the movie world, attempts to retell thehorrific tale in this 2010 remake. Unlike in many other attemptedremakes, Bayer sticks very close to the original story, only differingvery slightly at points in an attempt to bring the story up to datewith modern life, unfortunately though, this could be its largestdownfall.Looking at the movie on its own, it really isn't all that bad. Thestory has a good flow to it although as previously stated, it is veryclose to the original that made the franchise so famous. As with itspredecessor, the story follows a group of high school teenagers whobegin having the same recurring nightmare about a man called Freddy whois trying to kill them. After a few of the group are picked off intheir sleep, the remaining members become very much aware of what ishappening. Fighting a losing battle against both sleep and Krueger, thegroup attempt to find out what is going on and why. Eventually thegroup is whittled down to just two surviving members who eventuallyfind out the truth about the chilling man baying for their blood. Ifyou have seen the Craven version, you will know the ending; it ispretty much the same.The cast selected for the movie are also fairly solid. Haley, who playsKrueger, is simply a stunning actor and really attempts to make thecharacter his own but still keep in tune with the original story.Unfortunately though, Haley has massive shoes to fill and I reallydoubt anyone could make a more convincing psychopath than that RobertEnglund moulded Krueger into in the original. The supporting actorsplaying the teenagers are also fairly complacent. Everyone gave a solidperformance throughout and in a way the film was convincing. The actorshelped build the tension in scenes well and Haley added a differenttwist to his character which helped also a bit of comedy to parts ofthe movie, but it really was not enough to bring this up to par.Although I admire the nostalgia it was slightly disappointing watchingthe film, leaning over to my friends and openly discussing what isabout to happen. There was simply no way to get over it, this remake isalmost a carbon copy of the original with just some scenes altered togive it a fresh new look. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a goodfilm but it simply is not in the same league as the first telling ofthe story. Looking at it as a single entity, this film would very muchdeserve a win, perhaps better, but it is impossible to overlook thefact that this is a remake and does not even come close to being asgood as Wes Cravens masterpiece.Final verdict: Fail

(2012-04-22 03:29:32)

Oh my goodness!

This review is from: A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (Amazon Instant Video) First of all with His dolla store mask yes dolla store.Robert England should sue.The mask was off the voice the everything.Proves there is nothing like the classics.I am so glad I did NOT pay movie theatre prices I would have been so p'd.This Freddy Kruger would have been running from me trying to get my money back.As you would say in the 90's HATED IT!

(2012-04-21 15:47:16)

Oh, No---Not Again!

Here we go again--the remake of a beloved classic that should never have been touched. Why do the hacks still persist in gutting everything that made the original so unforgettable--replacing all these ingredients with a "New Look" and a "New ReImagining" that totally fails? Can't any of these hacks come up with new and original ideasthat would thrill a modern audience-just like the classics that thrilled us the first time around?I'm still a sucker for nearly any movie at the multiplex that falls into the horror/slasher/sci-fi genres.That means I've seen all the "remakes", "re-imaginings", "re-boots" of beloved horror franchises.And that means I've usually staggered out of the theater after seeing hideous results of this steady stream of abominations and alas, this "new look" at one of my all-time series "Nightmare on Elm Street" totally buries everything that made the originl so unforgettable.For one thing, a genuine movie classic will always be the lode star that we fanatical horror buffs will always compare the latest version to.This latest attempt looks so cheap and flat that it makes the original looks like Gone With the Wind. It's like some filler you'd catch on the SyFy Channel on a Saturday afternoon.You get no sense from the characters that they even know each other. We all fell in love with adorable Heather Langenkampf as Nancy and Johnny Depp as Kyle. In this remake, Rooney Mara is hard looking and humorless and has zero charisma and just as bad is Quentin O'Grady as her anti-sleep buddy.Jackie Earle Harley is scary looking as Freddie Krueger but all he does is suddenly appear, scraps his razor-tipped fingers along blackboards nnd walls and doesn't register as a nightmarish villain.We're never sure when reality ends and the dreams begin.The appearance of the little girls in white dresses, skipping rope, has been done to death in countless rip-offs after their introduction in the first movie.When we read that the budget for this remake was nearly $40 million, some of us wish that budget could have gone ino the creation of a brand new horror franchise. The only horror remakes that have actually improved on their originals are "The Thing," "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "House of Wax" and "My Bloody Valentine.""The Amityville Horror" was a good one, too, but this "Nightmare" remake joins the likes of Rob Zombie's abominable "Halloween" disasters and we wonder what the hacks will do now that they've redone and destroyed all the magic that made the originals so treasured.

whatsyourfavouritescarymovie

(2012-04-19 10:42:25)

nothing compared to the original but not as bad everyone says

call me strange, call me stupid, i could not care but in my opinionthis film was not as bad as all the ratings and reviewers have beensaying, it has good and bad bits but this film wasn't necessarily afailure. there are a few things in this version that i really like andrespect the writers on including into the story and those things werehow darker it was compared to the original, and giving us more of aback story too what actually happened to Freddy, these are over allgood things because we learn why he is after the kids specifically andbeing darker makes the film just that bit more edginess to it andmaking it more scary than comedic horror like back in the original(that opinion is mine and others may think differently if they feel theoriginal was nostalgic, as for me i have only recently watched theoriginal and felt the need to watch the newest one to see what isreally that bad). There were a more than a few things i really didn'tlike and the first is the lack of Robert Englund, he was the classicFreddy and had been for 8 god damn movies no one can replace Freddy andall though Jackie Earle Haley was a good replacement i just felt he waslacking the characteristics that were performed by Englund back in '84.the next thing that annoyed me was the budget and the special effects,the budget for this film was $35,000,000 and it didn't need to be, cgiis not the way forward it just looks over produced and tacky, and thatis not cool, if you have seen any of the originals you will understandhow cool the special effects were for instance the bed blood scene inthe first one and Freddy coming the the stretchy wall all done increative ways , and now it's done with cgi which is meant to be morerealistic but in my opinion looks like horse dump. overall you willenjoy this film if you see it as just another nightmare film and not are-make, it has it's own dream sequences, although some similar, andit's own way of presenting the story behind the kids of elm street, sosee it how you will, but this is not a bad film. although, final thing,if you are considering to watch this over the original please don't,watch this second if you must, but don't hit on it because it's notfaithful to the original or anything else, because come on when arere-makes ever as good as the originals, in my opinion it's a good filmworth a watch try not to compare it to the original too much, justenjoy.

xxjennyfajaxx

(2012-04-19 03:24:24)

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.

Dazz Camponi

(2012-04-15 06:06:46)

An entertaining remake but it's not scary like the original

Freddy's back and updated for the modern times for today's teenagersbut is this a dream come true for Fred Heads or is it their worstnightmare? The story isn't bad but it's almost the same as the firstmovie except for Freddy and his past, which they have changed. Thecharacters aren't really very well written, as half of them didn't seemto have much personality whatsoever and you didn't care about them atall. The acting wasn't very good at the start but it soon picked up andfrom the middle to the end, it was mediocre but the teenagers lookedlike they should have left school a good few years ago. The characterdevelopment started picking up towards the end and didn't pace itself,which was another problem with the movie. The pacing was too fast atthe start and felt very rushed as within the first fifteen to twentyminutes, the teenagers found out who Freddy is and what he does, therewas no shock or nobody denying the fact he can kill you in your dreams.Even though the start was rushed, the middle and end started to paceitself and it became a little slower. The special effects were okay andthe nightmares were cool to watch but the one thing that didn't lookgood was a couple of scenes which didn't look believable as the CGIlooked cheap, however the rest of the CGI was okay. The direction andthe script were average. I didn't like Freddy's new look so much, Iprefer Englund's look.The question most Fred Heads would have on their mind is can JackieEarle Haley match up to Robert Englund? After watching the entirecollection, I can give you an honest answer. While Jackie Earle Haleymakes quite a creepy Freddy Krueger, I don't think he could ever matchup to Robert Englund, he is Freddy Krueger. It's better and more funthan 'remakes' such as Friday the 13th and Halloween, but just likethose remakes (or re-imaginings) it's just as pointless too. Therewasn't really any need to reboot A Nightmare on Elm Street as nothingneeded to be fixed. Why fix something that isn't broken? Luckily, itwasn't disastrous and it did a good job. I didn't find this scary inthe slightest because it was like any other slasherremake/re-imagining. People who are new to the Nightmare experiencewill probably like this but for people who loved the original like Idid, I'm not so sure. What those fans must remember is that this isn'treally a remake, it's more of a re-imagining. While it's the same asthe original, it's different too and I think that if the fans can enterthe cinema with a clear head and not compare it to the original, theycould actually find it to be an okay movie.Read more reviews at: www.dudedazzmoviereviews.wordpress.com

(2012-04-14 20:18:36)

Absolutely awful

I don't even know where to begin with this review, since I'm so appalled at how bad this movie was. I was thinking of maybe starting with a positive thought or two, then going to the negative, but there's honestly NOTHING good about this movie. The new character who plays Freddie is awful. He looks like the kid from that movie Mask. Just really, really bizarre looking. I spent more time analyzing how weird his face looks, than anything else.The casting for this movie was miserable, the storyline was predictable, bland and boring. Jeez, I don't even know what else I can write. If you haven't seen this movie, don't even waste your time. It's probably up there in the Top 5 WORST Horror Movies I've ever seen. Maybe even Top 3.The many 1 and 2 star reviews on here seem to be the only things telling the truth. I've read a few respectable 3-star reviews as well, but the 4 and 5-star reviews are off their rockers! There's no way this is anything above a 2-star movie. I personally think it's as 1-star as a movie can get, but I can see giving it an extra star or something, because you love the concept of Freddy Kreuger. Watch this movie out of nostalgia if you'd like, and then get back to me and let me know how bad it is!

(2012-04-12 17:11:17)

Not As Good As The Original

I really like what Micheal Bay has been doing with the popular franchises, Texas Chainsaw, Friday The 13th, All 3 have similar traits in that they put more emphasis on the character origin. At the same time he is brilliant the way he makes these characters more human, but at the same time manages to make the character far more sinister than their predecessors. Friday was pretty damn good, as was Texas, now granted none can live up to the originals and thier creators as they were truly ahead of their time. Tobe Hooper, Wes Craven, Sean Cunningham. Out of the 3 though Nightmare is a the "Weak Link" compared to the others Bay has done. While it is enjoying to see more character development with the antagonist, the bloodshed isn't even nearly as close in this one compared to the original, Englund made the character and what he brought to the table really defined the franchise with his great 1 liners. It isn't hard to do Jason or Leatherface considering they had no real personalities specch wise, but seeing someone other than Englund as Freddy just doesn't cut it. Like I said he played just as an important role in the success of the franchise with the way he played the character as Craven did writing it and directing it.

biohazardehw

(2012-04-12 02:05:22)

Hollywood strives for failure and succeeds.

I'll cut right to the chase and explain what is wrong with this movieinstead of wasting your time setting anything up. I know how awful thatfeeling is, because it's exactly what this movie did for nearly 2 hoursof my day - waste my time.SPOILERS Focused too much on the secondary characters at the beginning, whichwas a problem because it was excruciatingly obvious that they were alljust Freddy Fodder. I actually wanted to see them die quicker insteadof spending a half hour with the plastic Barbie chick that couldn't actto save her own life and the annoying kid that went to jail becausesomeone did in the first movie.In the original, the group of four was together a lot of the time. Theyall shared the same plight together. The whole purpose of the sleepoverwas so that they could be there for each other if something badhappened. Here, we still have the same four roles, but two of them dotheir own thing and the other two are only communicating by phone, ifthey communicate at all. The inability for this new film to create aconnection between the kids causes a disjointed feel and makes itimpossible for us to care about anyone.In this one, that kid going to jail means nothing and his demise meansnothing. Not to me or the actual heroes of the story: the curly haireddude with the dirty sanchez and the winner of the Emily Bluntlook-alike contest. They never saw it happen, never grieved over it,never even seemed to give a hell. It almost seemed like something froma different movie. In the original, the kids went to the jail, watchedit happen, and Nancy's father was a cop. They were much more involvedand therefore, the death meant something. It wasn't just killing timelike it is here.When we do get the actual heroes, it's so far into the movie, Icouldn't help but wonder why not start the movie at that point? Theother two dying did not have any effect on what the heroes were doing.The only constant was Freddy, who seemed much less threatening in thismovie than in the original. Emily and Sanchez just kept doing what theywould have if Barbie and the criminal didn't die at all.The micro-naps part was not necessary and added nothing to the movie.It was just an excuse to get Freddy into the film more. But when youshow him for no reason other than to sit around and taunt the kids,perhaps slash at them once or twice, the fear goes away. The more Isee, the less I'm afraid. Bringing Freddy into the picture when thekids are still awake completely defies the concept of the movie! There were several inexcusable moments of what can only be described as"****ing ****ty writing". The dude falling asleep in the pool and thenwitnessing what happened to Freddy years ago for absolutely no goodreason was the worst. It was insulting and nothing more than a plotconvenience. The girl sets the alarm on her phone to wake herself up inthe bath, but never thinks of using it later on when she asks the dudeto wake her when trying to bring Freddy into the real world. Why? Thisis life and death and you didn't think of a contingency plan when therewas one that you already used sitting in your pocket? Another plotconvenience. Then there's the kid with the adrenaline, which doesabsolutely nothing to him - an obvious plant for a later pay-off.This is a movie for idiots. Plain and simple. There's actually a scenein this movie where the girl pulls a piece of Freddy's sweater out ofthe dream world and into the real world, and the first thing she saysis "Freddy's sweater". Really? Are you kidding me? What kind of spedwouldn't understand that scene if the dialogue was omitted? It's sad, because the original Nightmare is not a very great film. Theconcept is absolutely brilliant, but it could use an update. Evensadder than that is the fact that Hollywood's mission is not to makemoney by providing the public with a quality product. It's just to makemoney.There were some things about this film which I liked, but were mostlytoo brief or underdeveloped. The other kids in the school picture, thehospital sedation, etc. Just not enough to bring this turd out of thesewer where it belongs.It's better than the new Halloweens and Friday the 13th, but that isabout as close to praise as a racial slur. It's kind of hard to screwup with such a brilliant concept. However, that didn't stop Hollywoodfrom trying.

DaynaSu

(2012-04-05 05:37:28)

Dare I say this was better than the original?

Oh, I know. This movie has been BLASTED by movie snobs everywhere, andI must admit that my expectations were so low that I waited over a yearto watch it. I was very pleasantly surprised.I'm going to go ahead and do it. I'm going to say it. THIS ONE WASBETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL.I'm not a fan of remakes. Usually, if a classic movie is remade, Idon't even bother watching it because it will inevitably disappoint me.But this one was so much more than a remake. It seemed like acompletely different movie to me, with much more depth.In this version, we get more of the back-story. We get to know thecharacters better. On top of that, the technology we have availabletoday allowed for much more in the way of special effects and gore.Lots of gore! I watched it in broad daylight and still got spooked. Ieven jumped a few times.I've never heard of most of the cast in this movie, but every singleperformance was believable. The script was well written, easy tofollow, and made for an all-around great scary movie.

(2012-04-04 17:56:13)

Don't Sleep Or Freddy Will Come After You

A Nightmare On Elm Street was originally released in 1984 and to this day remains one my favorite horror movies, it's a great classic slasher and it remains without a doubt the best of the series. I heard there would be a remake of the film about a year ago and of course I wanted to see it if not just to see if they would totally screw it up like many Hollywood remakes. I can say that while it doesn't really have that feel of a classic Freddy Krueger movie it's still pretty decent and the result is different and worth watching. If you've seen any ANOES before then you already know the story, Freddy stalks some teenagers in their dreams and kills most of them, he's constantly on their minds and as soon as they fall asleep he's there, when they're awake he's waiting. What they wanted to do with this remake was to bring the horror icon Freddy Krueger to a new generation.I feel this "remake" is hard to categorize because it's not entirely a true remake but I wouldn't consider it a re-imaging of the series either because it keeps the original aspects intact, they kept the story the same and played around with it but at the same time it ends up being a very different movie. It's not a traditional remake; kind of how Rob Zombie's remake of "Halloween" not quite the same as the original. Fans will find that this is not the same movie, for one thing the "slasher" aspect with body counts is pretty much gone in some way, yes there are many kills but it's not the same. This movie is much more psychological and focuses more on Freddy's story of how he came to be the monster he is terrorizing children and teenagers in their dreams. I found that was something great, to see how it all happened, we see the kids in the movie in preschool and Freddy as a human and the good times he had with children until he sexually abused them and the parents burned him which made him become who he is. They made Freddy creepier and less amusing, he's very much become a monster in order to scare the audiences better I think. This ANOES is more disturbing, I mentioned it's more psychological and that's true, I always thought killing people in their dream is great concept for a villain and that alone should be disturbing enough but this time it's even more. Some dream sequences and deaths are borrowed from the original movie as well as the music in the beginning, little girls with jump ropes and Freddy singing "1,2...". I feel this remake pays homage to the original one but brings up fresh things and that's what makes it a good movie in my opinion. As for being scared I did jump a few times and it was scary to me at many points, there were some great cinematic effects with the score, sounds and all.I'll give them credit for not ruining the franchise and not involving something stupid in the story, it all relates to A Nightmare On Elm Street and doesn't add anything that doesn't make sense, it sticks to the story. I think if I had never seen any of the ANOES movies I would probably have enjoyed it much more but I have to say this version does have its moments and turned out better than most of the remakes I've seen. If you're expecting too much out of this remake you will be disappointed because it's not the good old Nightmare, it's clearly different. What I think would have it better and perhaps more appreciated by fans of the original would have been if Robert Englud played the part of Krueger once again, I mean I don't see anyone doing Freddy other than him and he portrays this character to perfection. Jack Haley did an excellent job playing Krueger however and I thought his performance was really good, once again a little different from Englud's (there's no jokes like there used to be as they tried to make the character of Krueger much scarier) but still appreciable and I've got to give it to him he played some great roles in the past so he was a great choice for this movie. A Nightmare On Elm Street(2010) doesn't deserve a five star if you're a fan of the franchise or at least the first film, and it doesn't deserve a one star either because the movie turned out to be interesting, I'd say it's a little more in between for me with a three maybe three and a half pushing it a little. It will be better for those who have never seen any of the original films.

all_about_sandra

(2012-04-03 01:15:58)

Sandra Hua

A Nightmare on Elm Street is a story about a group of high schoolstudents are killed one by one by a horribly disfigured killer, namedFreddy Krueger, in their dreams. Freddy Krueger, is the biggest horroricon in this whole serial of films. His burned face, he wears a glovewith four blades embedded in the fingers, his low and cool voice, hissweater, and his old fashioned hat are all contributed to build hishorribly disfigured image. Though out the film, A few popular symbolsare used; those symbols reflect the American's horror film cultural.For example, the main character, Nancy, draws paintings of one scaryimage, a man's face; these paintings are shown in a lot of scenesthought out the film. Another symbol is there are three little girlswearing white dresses without any face expression; they appeared fewtimes in the film too. Paintings and little girls with white dressesare common symbols in American horror films, examples: Silent Hill,Orphan. In most of the cases, paintings are used when the maincharacters in the films are children, they paint to express theirfeelings and the paintings served as evidences of what they "seen" inreality. However, paintings are used differently in this A Nightmare onFilm Street; first of all, Nancy is not a little girl, she is ateenage, she can talk with her friends to express her feelings;secondly, the paintings are not used as evidences to alert her parentsthat their daughter is dreaming straight things; instead, the mother inthe film ignores her daughter's paintings, she knew Nancy is havingnightmares and draws a lot of horribly images, but the mother has noresponse to all of these. I feel that the writers have done a terriblejob in the story development of these little details. Industry analystsgenerally agree that the remark of A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 isdesigned to reboot the serial's franchise. This American horrorfranchise consists of nine slasher films, a television show, novels,and comic books. This kind of Media Convergence, which allows cult fansto search the similar kinds of entertainment in different types ofmedia. The first movie of this serial was introduced in 1984, the sameyear that I was born, just like many other young horror movie lovers,most of us have not seen the 1984 version of the film, and we arelikely not going to judge on whether the new version of the story hasimproved or whether the director uses the same old scary elements ineach scenes; as long as the film can impresses us, and gives us enoughsensory stimulation, we will purchase the ticket. Although A Nightmareon Elm Street is a slasher film, but it also has some science fictionsense in it. The switches between dreams and reality are very straightforward in the narrative process perspective. As audience, we can tellwhen is in reality and when is in a dream. For example, there is ascene, when Nancy though she wakes up, but she actually is still in adream, the way I can tell this is, the water drop in a cup was goingup, instead it should be sliding down; when Nancy finally wakes up andthe scene changed back to reality, the water drop is sliding down tothe bottom of the cup, which represents it is the reality. Thisactually reminds me of another Sci-Fi film, Inception, where LeonardoDiCaprio relies on using a spinning top to figure out whether he is ina dream, or in the reality. A Nightmare on Elm Street is both a Slasherand Cult film. It is a Slasher film because it "involving apsychopathic killer stalking, and killing a sequence of victims in agraphically violent manner, often with a cutting tool," (Wikipedia,2010) in this case, it is a glove with four blades embedded in thefingers. It is also a cult film, because it has a specific group offans, who are highly devoted to the A Nightmare on Elm Street serial.As a first time viewer of this film, I do not think it attracts orconvinces me to watch the next film of the same serial. Reasons forthis are: firstly, I think the writers have used many American's horrorfilm cultural symbols, but they are not connecting to the story,examples: Nancy's paintings and the three little girls wearing whitedresses. Secondly, the scary points are not scary at all, they failedto impress me; for example, there is a scene, where Nancy is hidingaway from Freddy in a closet, and it turns out that Freddy was standingin the closet besides her. Does this sound familiar? Lastly, eventhough the writers have left some unexplained points throughout thefilm intended to leave an undeveloped story for future films of theserial. However, the ideal of a person's inability to control his/herbeliefs causes insomnia, sounds unattractive to me, so I will notlikely to go see the next A Nightmare on Elm Street unless LeonardoDiCaprio invents me to go with him.

Prolox

(2012-04-02 20:31:47)

Okay, but easily the weakest of any of the ELM STREET movies.

When A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010) was first released, I heardmostly negative thing about it, so I decided to skip seeing it intheatres & wait for DVD & I'm glad I did! although A NIGHTMARE ON ELMSTREET (2010) isn't terrible, it's not very good either & is furtherproof that the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" still holdstrue, especially when it comes to remaking films that didn't need toremade to begin with. Now true, I understand there was nothing left todo with the old franchise that starred ROBERT ENGLUND, especially afterFREDDY Vs. JASON, which despite it's box office success, did nothing tobring the A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET series back from it's cinematicgrave, it found itself in after NEW NIGHTMARE, but still if they weregoing to remake the 1984 original, they could have done better & Ithink the filmmakers realize that now too. Like ROB ZOMBIE'S HALLOWEEN1 & 2, the film has no suspense or scares, just lots of blood & tedium.What made Craven's original, work so well, was the fact that we seenthe kids all together, we knew they were friends, here, they could haveall been strangers, since we never see any of the friends hang out,much less talk to each other, they all seemed like random kids thatKruger decided to pick out & kill, I just wasn't buying the fact thatthey were all close nor the fact that they all attended the samepre-school as kids yet not remember each other years later I meansurely where they went to school before came up in some of theirconversations. Secondly, Kruger is shown way to much & up close, in theoriginal you hardly saw his face & he always remained in the shadows &was used sparingly, to make him creepier & his presence was prettyterrifying as a result as was the chilling explanations that came nearthe end of the film as to who Kruger was & why he did what he did. Theremake's score was uneven, the direction mediocre & the acting was verybland, with JACKIE EARL HALEY is a poor substitute as Freddy, everytime he appeared on screen & talked, it sounded like he was chewing onwet toilet paper, mind you that's not a dis on HAILEY'S acting, sincehe is a fairly decent actor in his own right, I just couldn't buy intohis performance of Freddy, he seemed to be miscast. The kills arepretty much the same as in the original, just done extra bloody, butfeels so rushed, with no build up or creepiness that accompanied themin the original & worse, there was no connection between the characterof Nancy & a potential boyfriend character, no chemistry between thetwo leads at all & the family unit Nancy had in the original is alsoabandon here (Save for the mom character) & I felt that also knockedthe film down, since there was no actors here we can feel for orbelieve in. The ending is very rushed & is not scary or suspenseful.The back story on Kruger is equally disappointing, the Kruger in theold series was a child murdering maniac, here he's just a childmolester. There was a twist about midway into the film after a kid isknocked unconscious & transported back in time, where he watchesKruger's horrible demise at the hands of the parents of the kids Krugerhurt & realizes that the whole thing the kids said about Krugermolesting them might have been a lie fabricated by the kids & Krugerwas wrongfully accused, & that he may very well have come back from thedead to seek revenge on them for wrongfully accusing him of a crime hedidn't commit, that eventually led to his death & that the parents soon realized the kids were lying & tried to cover up their horriblecrime, but that is all quickly abandoned when we realize that Krugerdid hurt the kids & now he was killing them for telling the truth! Thefilm also re-enacts many key scenes from the first & believe it or not,even rips the ending off of FREDDY Vs. JASON! (there's also a couple ofscenes & dialogue moments ripped off that film as well & a line ofdialogue uttered in ANOES 4: How's this for a wet dream?) which initself ripped off the ending to the original Friday The 13th!, Theclimax where the kids confront Kruger is not suspenseful either, withdirector SAMUEL BAYER showing that he has no idea how to set up shockscenes & I could care less for any of the characters, especially Nancy,who is portrayed as an high school outcast, the actress playing herisn't bad but is no HEATHER LANGENKAMP. Seeing the film also furthergoes to show how much love & care for the story that original directorWES CRAVEN & his cast & crew showed for the original compared to thiswhich was just a quick money grab by the studios hoping to squeeze cashout of NIGHTMARE fans with no love for the source material or respectfor the franchise & it's fan base (Heck they were even going to postconvert the film to 3D following AVATAR'S success at the box office totry & pinch more money from the fans!) Hopefully this will be the lasttime we see Kruger or another ELM STREET movie, unless of course theycan find a way to bring back Director Craven & star ROBERT ENGLUND,otherwise I say good night Freddy!**1/2 stars

bilgeboybob

(2012-03-31 03:30:24)

A Nightmare to sit through

I keep telling myself that if I just went to see good movies, how can Ijudge a truly bad one? Even so, "Nightmare 2010" stretched my patienceto the very limits.It's fundamental problem as one shared by many modern horror movies -it just wasn't scary. In fact it was dull, dull, dull! the only reasonI sat through it was because I couldn't honestly write a review withouthaving done so.Like a lot of the pointless remakes of the last few years (Wicker Man,Omen, The Fog) it's a visually and technically slick production withalmost no substance whatsoever.It has 2 minor redeeming features 1) Jackie Earl-Hayley's creepy voice2)a genuinely chilling reveal involving the main characters digging uptheir personal past.Save yourself the trouble, don't bother with this hum drum piece ofrubbish.

Christian_Dimartino

(2012-03-30 14:45:21)

Lacks scares, but a very mild recommendation do to Jackie Earle Haley.

Jackie Earle Haley stars as Freddy Kruger, that burned face S.O.B. inthe re-imagining of A Nightmare on Elm Street. Yes, Hollywood has runout of ideas. Yes, they have to stop redoing every classic scary movie.I haven't seen all of the re-imaginings. But I did see the most recentone, and to some surprise, I won't bash it.I know that nearly anything Michael Bay touches dies. But what keeps ANightmare on Elm street alive is the inspired casting choice of JackieEarle Haley. The is one creepy guy,as we've seen in the past. And he isthe main momentum that this film has.Everyone has seen the original. So I ain't going into the plot. I thinki'll start with it's flaws. Well, the main flaw that A nightmare on ElmStreet has is that this movie lacks scares. And we need them in a scarymovie, obviously. The film lacks scares. But it is an OK hour and a half spent. There isworse. Like if I have to sit through Rob Zombie's Halloween again. Thatwould be worse. Hollywood has got to stop with these remakes. They aregetting too much for me. This one is rare. The others blow. Why keepremaking every damn movie? Why don't you let genius' like Paul ThomasAnderson, Christopher Nolan, or Quentin Tarantino or Spike Jonze dosomething? They are the best there is. Again, there is worse entertainment out there. So if you don't haveanything else to see, then enjoy watching Freddy slice up retardedteenagers for an hour and a half. It's kind of fun. Otherwise, ifyou're a smart person, go see Iron man 2. You can't go wrong there.Depends on what you're into. Freddy is OK this time, thanks to Haley,and if they make a sequel, I wouldn't mind showing up.A Nightmare on Elm Street: B-