IMDb > A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
A Nightmare on Elm Street More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 66:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 654 reviews in total 

428 out of 570 people found the following review useful:

Jumpscare on Lame Street

Author: The_Ruins ( from Appleton, WI
1 May 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I figured this would be an entertaining remake if nothing else, I was wrong. Dead wrong. There was a much richer mysterious element to the original film and to my surprise, much more creative. I thought the kills and nightmare sequences would be vastly improved upon, but alas, gigabytes, greenscreens and CGI cannot compete with hands-on creativity.

The biggest question is of course whether a new Freddy is/was a good idea and I tried to give Jackie a chance; ultimately you can interchange actors playing Jason, Leatherface and Michael, they are suits and masks but you can't replace a personality. Known personalities such as Pinhead and Freddy Krueger ARE Robert Englund and Doug Bradley with prosthetics. Robert Englund brought us a believably creepy and demented sadistic killer where Jackie looked and acted like a pedophile. There were a handful of lines I enjoyed such as the 'body dying but brain living on' speech, but the rest seemed like plagiarized, recycled and poorly delivered lines selectively stolen from all the Nightmare films. (ex. Robert's "Your eyes say no, no, but your body says yes, yes." From Freddy vs. Jason)

I don't understand why everything needs to be explained in full now. I hate that. I didn't need to know what the force was, Michael Myers mom was a stripper? Oh, okay, his killing is justified. I don't care that Jason Voorhees played hockey and was prolific in archery and I don't care that Leatherface has no nose. Some things are more frightening if you don't know why or aren't given a chronological map of where everything went wrong. Where was the creepy nightmare goat in this film? Did they have to cut the sequence showing a young Fred Krueger as a goat-herder on his family farm? In the 1984 film, what Freddy did with kids was implied but never told in full. That gives the viewer the right to view him in any matter, even as an anti-hero. The new film stamps it on your forehead that he was doing unsavory things to children which more or less made me sick and made the character less likable. (I always did find it funny that Freddy had such a cult following and appeal with kids as a child killer, but it worked. Here it does not.)

The CGI becomes a distraction here; it's when things look too perfect that they lose believability such as Freddy bending the wall above Nancy. The original was creepier and it was produced in camera. The kills were boring. "I fall asleep, Freddy shows up, Freddy says something, I'm stabbed, I'm dead." Remember Rod (1984) being slowly strangled by bed sheets? That was scary, creative and left people thinking that perhaps Nancy was imagining Krueger and that Rod had hung himself. The new 'Nancy in the bathtub' scene was a boring cop-out and seemed more or less to be suggesting that it could be frightening. Even Tina's death being dragged across the ceiling was more vicious and sadistic in the original. EVERY 'scare' in this film is the cliché loud music and somebody jumping into frame.

I couldn't care less about the kids in this film, they are bratty and almost apathetic/nihilistic to the idea that they were being stalked in their sleep. Forget about brewing coffee in your closet, these kids are popping pills and using needles to stay awake this go around. I didn't buy that they were sleep deprived as the actors had shaggy or ratty hair and clothes, baggy eyes and looked strung out on heroin since the beginning of the film. The unnecessary 30 second video blog cameo by the likable Asian stoner from the Friday the 13th remake was the only time anyone seemed like they wanted to live.

The simplified story, CG, and casting aren't the only problems, the screenplay seems to be jumbled as certain characters have been blended and displaced. The 'Tina' character or 'Kris' in this film seems to take on most of Nancy's research early on in the film imposing the belief that she was the lead actress. I'm not sure if that was the goal of the screenwriter, but it wasn't a very clever or effective trick if that was the intent. The altogether renaming of the characters and traits begs the question of why even do it in the first place? Why not just make a new sequel with a great script and high production value?

This film, to me, was more like a terrible modern high school cliff-notes adaptation than a remake. It brought nothing new to the table and improved on nothing. As a film it was outperformed on every level by it's 26 year old predecessor. I truly hope this dies terribly at the box-office and that talk of a sequel gets slashed from the mouths of New Line and producers of this sacrilege. Shame on everyone involved in this crap. Even the worst sequel to the original series has more entertainment value.

I am not a purest, I was looking forward to this and I have enjoyed most of the remakes to a certain degree.


Was the above review useful to you?

409 out of 579 people found the following review useful:

Incredibly disappointing, a slap in the face to true horror fans

Author: Rick Gershman from Denver, CO
30 April 2010

Picture the 1984 horror classic A Nightmare on Elm Street. Now picture that film if it was produced by bombastic Michael Bay, director of Pearl Harbor and the Transformers films. Now picture all of the worst possible outcomes of that marriage.

You don't have to. You could just plunk down your hard-earned cash – better yet, don't – for this lame remake.

Not that I can stop you from seeing it. No number of bad reviews (and this will be just one of many) would have kept me away. Curiosity alone demanded I see the new Elm Street, so when a critic buddy asked if I'd like to tag along to a screening, I did.

I mean, it couldn't be awful, right? It's a darker take on a character that had fallen into parody. Its screenplay was co-written by Wesley Strick, who has worked with Martin Scorsese (1991's Cape Fear). And supernatural killer Freddy Krueger is played by Jackie Earle Haley, an Oscar-nominated actor who was so creepy as Rorschach in Watchmen. How bad could it be?

Really bad, it turns out. Astonishingly, amazingly, how-could-you- possibly-screw-this-up-any-worse bad.

Samuel Bayer, a longtime music video director making his feature-film debut, accomplished his stated goal of draining away all the cheeky fun of the Freddy films. Unfortunately, he also drained away all the scares. What's left is a dreary, poorly-lit slog with uninteresting characters, wooden acting and a complete lack of tension, suspense or energy.

We could spend all day talking about the problems, but two big ones sink this new Nightmare all on their own.

The first is the new Freddy – he's not scary at all. (Robert Englund's original Freddy at least was creepy for a couple of films before falling into camp.) Haley's tiny frame makes Freddy look puny and his voice sounds like an even-more-ridiculous take on the raspy Christian Bale "Batman" voice.

Haley's not helped by the terrible new Freddy makeup, which presumably is supposed to look like a more "realistic" burn victim, but it robs him of any expression. Freddy's not scary; worse, he's not even interesting.

You'd expect the new Nightmare to provide some creative new "kills," but that's the second huge problem. There are only a handful of kills throughout, and the better ones are taken directly from the 1984 original. In fact, fans of the original will note several virtually- identical scenes, all of them done on a higher budget but without a whit of artistry.

Special note has to be made of the acting, which (with a couple of exceptions) is dreadful. I'll blame Bayer, because a few of these folks have been decent in other things, but they're laughable here. (I'm pretty sure Thomas Dekker was attempting to portray Casey Affleck if Casey Affleck had suddenly completely forgotten how to act. And he's one of the better ones.)

Of all the leads, only Kyle Gallner manages to bring some desperately- needed personality and humor to the proceedings. Gallner single-handedly makes the final act interesting, since you'll have wanted every other character dead from the opening minutes.

But he can't overcome Bayer's clueless direction, which telegraphs every shock and dream sequence from a mile away. One of the most effective elements of an Elm Street film is the subtle slide back and forth from the real world to the dream world. Bayer doesn't get this at all. Every dream sequence is clearly defined, completely destroying any suspense.

The film spends two-thirds of its running time having its leads uncover Freddy's "story," which is ridiculous because it's a story everyone already knows. It momentarily plays with a slight twist on the original plot – a second of creativity, emerging like a flower through a crack in the sidewalk – then immediately chucks it.

Don't get me wrong: I love horror films. I don't even ask too much of them. I only ask that they be either A) scary or B) fun. If they can be both, that's awesome.

But with none of A and far too little of B, the new Elm Street barely rises above an F.

Was the above review useful to you?

191 out of 297 people found the following review useful:

Where was the whimsical world of nightmares?

Author: Justin Case from United States
29 April 2010

The first scene was my favorite part. Through the remainder of the movie Freddy's voice became more of an annoyance and distraction than a cause for fear (very similar to Christian Bale's Batman). I entered the movie expecting to get whisked away to the wonderful dream-world of Freddy Krueger but was instead pulled into a high school slasher film promoting a typical killer with a grudge and thirst for blood. The fact the victim was trapped inside a dream battling with Freddy wasn't quite enough to satisfy the sense of a nightmarish killer's dream world. The movie lacked the demented mental toyings a character like Freddy should possess (e.g. Pennywise). At the premier, the entire theater let out a "Boo" at the end of the movie. I recommend watching the original Freddy movies instead.

Was the above review useful to you?

176 out of 275 people found the following review useful:

Plagiarism: A $100Million Industry

Author: Frosty_RSIFX from United States
1 May 2010

When I left the theater last night, I couldn't help but ask myself one simple question: Why? Why did they remake this movie? Especially if they have nothing new to bring to the table, in terms of story or character development? Even the worst Hollywood Horror Remakes (House of Wax, The Hills Have Eyes, etc.) Have SOME SORT of interesting twist to include, but this movie had none. It's as though Michael Bay was watching the original and thought to himself "Man, I wish I had thought of this." Then, instead of using his inspiration to go make something fresh and original, he just hijacked the classic franchise and then dulled it down to its most basic and crappy form. And now, when I refer to A Nightmare on Elm Street, I have to specify whether I mean A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) even though they're essentially the same thing. Now I have another question: When is the next "genius" in Hollywood going to "reimagine" 2001: A Space Odyssey? Or Pulp Fiction? And for that matter, when is Nickeback going to come out with their own version of Abbey Road?

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) is a charming, entertaining and occasionally-terrifying romp. It is the Crown Jewel of a Golden Age of creative and energetic horror films. A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) is a bastardized Hollywood rehash with no soul. It was completely pointless, even by Horror-Remake standards. Hollywood ran out of Japanese horror films to remake, and decent comic books to adapt, so now they've victimized another American Classic. There's one interesting sight gag, and they blow that load five minutes into scene one. The horror is not psychological, or even tangible. It is just a bunch of spooky, ominous whispering for minutes at a time, followed by the obligatory jump-scene, where the bad guy jumps out of nowhere, makes a startling hissing sound and the victim screams. The audience jumps, a bit, and then let's out a little giggle. But they're never actually scared. Cheap and Lame.

Before the film started, they showed a preview for Robert Rodriguez' upcoming film "Predators" When the title flashed across the screen, I couldn't control myself. I shouted "Boo!" A few people in the theater laughed. I hope they were laughing because they feel the way I feel: I am sick of remakes, and prequels and sequels. I am sick of Hollywood executives making hundreds of millions or dollars, without ever actually coming up with any ideas of their own.

Was the above review useful to you?

126 out of 177 people found the following review useful:

A Remake on Elm Street

Author: Vaughn Fry (Legendary_Badass) from United States
30 April 2010

With remakes being inevitable, I'd prefer that they be based on flawed originals. The new Clash of the Titans, in concept tried to do this. This is my stance on remakes. The trouble is that Hollywood green lights remakes of popular, good, movies because of their justifiable built-in fan bases. The 1984 A Nightmare on Elm Street was a refreshing, novel, approach to the slasher subgenre film. I can understand why Platinum Dunes would have was well-known music video director Samuel Bayer helm its remake.

A Nightmare on Elm Street focuses on a group of teens that share haunting nightmares. When they go to sleep, they have demented dreams of a maniacal burn victim named Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley). Freddy chases the kids through his world and if he can get his knife-tipped glove on them, they die in the real world. The remaining teenagers are then tasked with insomnia as they search for the reason why Freddy wants them dead.

I'll start with the positives. From an acting and casting standpoint Jackie Earle Haley is the guy you want in this role. He has a haunting voice that he modulates with perfection, coming up with his own unique take on the notorious Mr. Krueger. When combining his talents with the usual high production values (for horror films) provided by Platinum Dunes, you get a workable formula. Unlike the other films, but like Platinum Dune's other remakes, there is an attempt at a Freddy Krueger origin story. It just so happens I like the way this part of the movie is told and having the cursed teens see it in their dreams is interesting.

With these elements working in the film's favor, there are many conflicts elsewhere. Notable among these are redundant dream sequences. The settings sometimes change but they almost all play the same way: teenagers walk through eerie environments followed by a Freddy attack. For a screenwriter to be so lacking in imagination is mind-boggling. Freddy's costume is easily recognizable, but the new burn victim look of his face is unappealing. Chances are a real life Freddy would look more like this than he did in the '80s, but The English Patient is not a frightening countenance.

What mars the first half of the film is an insistence on not developing characters. We assume these are high school kids, who mysteriously are devoid of personalities, and then they die. I understand the concept of an ensemble cast, but when main players take such a backseat that when they finally move to the front of the minivan we don't know them.

Despite a rocky start things do turn around, but our unfortunately thickheaded protagonists are slow to put things together. They should be going on about a week of sleep deprivation, but the new Nancy (Rooney Mara) seems only mildly annoyed. When Heather Langenkamp played Nancy, she was just as active but with more lines we had a better understanding of her frustration.

The biggest problem of all is that the 2010 A Nightmare on Elm Street is not scary. Scare tactics all center on sound effects and it gets old fast. Every time Freddy appears there is a scream of some kind that pierces the ears of the audience. No one is jumping at fright; maybe some will jump at the surprise. This is silly, outdated, and uncreative.

After Remake on Elm Street, Platinum Dunes is seemingly out of horror franchise fodder. Almost all of their remakes have been critically lambasted, but most of them managed to be profitable. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they plan to shell out as many sequels as the original franchises generated, but I'd prefer that action since it would keep them busy and off of more esteemed films.

Was the above review useful to you?

130 out of 186 people found the following review useful:

As A Long Time Fan of the Series, I Hated This One

Author: Brendan Takash ( from Chicago
30 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me start out by saying that I first saw A Nightmare on Elm Street when I was 6. Ever since, I've loved every sequel (well, maybe except the 2nd). A Nightmare on Elm Street is my favorite film of all time. That's not an exaggeration. It was not a perfect film, but it was suspenseful and gory.

The remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street was terrible.

You're hearing it from a hardcore fan. I was not someone against Platinum Dunes making the remake. I was fine with letting Robert Englund go. I was just excited to see Freddy once again on the big screen. I wish I hadn't. This was worse than the Halloween remake. Worse than the Texas Chainsaw remake. Worse than the AMITYVILLE HORROR remake. Stay far, far away.

You know you have problems when Freddy is revealed five minutes into the film. Not in a silhouette, but in full make-up. Right away we know the writers aren't looking to create suspense. That's what made the first one work, so why in the hell would we keep it here? It's never a mystery as to who or what Freddy is. Granted, with all his popularity, it might seem pointless to keep him hidden, but it would've made his character a hell of a lot scarier.

The acting is on par with the Twilight series. It's a one-note job for everyone available, even for Freddy. Robert Englund made it work because of his unpredictability. Jackie Earle Haley, a very good actor, is clearly given a poor script to work with. His one-liners aren't scary. They're not funny. They're just terrible. Haley had just as much to say as Freddy in his funny-days, but the difference here is how contrived his dialogue is. I watched "Freddy's Dead" right before the premiere to lower my bar for this film, and I found myself wanting to watch that one all over again. THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

The original didn't have the best actors by a long shot (not even Johnny Depp), but they felt real enough to root for them. Here, Rooney Mara and her good-looking cast create no sympathy. They just don't feel like real people.

The whole mystery IS FREDDY A GOOD GUY plot? Terrible (word of the day). I don't want to spoil anything but...come on...this is Freddy Krueger we're talking about. He was scary because we didn't know much about him. As soon as you throw in a back story, he's just any other killer. Remember when Freddy wasn't just any other killer? Good days...good days...

Oh, and SPOILER ALERT....there's only 4 deaths. But, unlike the original, they're poorly placed throughout the story. You shouldn't have to sit through 40 minutes of a phony, pointless mystery in order to NOT see anyone get killed. And the deaths themselves are unimaginative, perhaps the most boring of all the 7 films. Thanks for playing it safe, Platnium Dunes, that should rake in a few more target audience members.

The original Elm Street is beginning to show its age. Still, nearly 30 years later, the original is still more terrifying than this play-it-safe-and-by-the-numbers reboot. I'm appalled by the wasted talent of Haley. This new series won't draw in any new fans like the studio hoped. This new series doesn't cater to the original fans. This new series is...well, just like every other reboot in recent memory; it was created out of greed, not entertainment. As a lifetime Freddy fan, I find myself sad to say that this franchise is dead.

And my coupon for a free ticket I got in the blu-ray edition of ANOES isn't eligible at AMC theaters. I hate you, Platinum Dunes.

Was the above review useful to you?

100 out of 134 people found the following review useful:

Nothing 'New' about this Nightmare

Author: marijumanji from Canada
4 May 2010

When it was announced that Jackie Earle Haley would be taking on the role of Freddy in the new Elm Street franchise reboot, a collective sigh of relief went up from the fans of the originals. Haley's Rorshach was one of the few redeeming qualities in the abysmal "Watchmen" movie. When pictures of Freddy's new face were leaked, the excitement grew. This Freddy promised to drop the silly one liners and be a return to the frightening, sadistic killer from the first film.

Haley does what he can with what he's given, but even a game performance from him and Rooney Mara(Nancy) can't save this film from mediocrity. The male lead is played by Kyle Gallner. He could generously be called a poor man's Robert Pattinson. He does a serviceable job here but the weak writing and directing don't do him any favours.

Fans of the original will be disappointed by the brief treatment of Freddy's origins, and it's unlikely new viewers will understand what is going on or even care for that matter. My hopes of a scarier Freddy were dashed within the first few minutes. The film doesn't even try to build an atmosphere and Haley spouts the same tired one liners that the later films leaned on so heavily.

Even as the original series aged, one could always rely on the excellent special effects and make-up work to carry the films. The highlight of each film was the creativity of the different "Dream Worlds" that Freddy would take his victims to. Each dream world was unique because it reflected the thoughts of the character Freddy was trying to kill. This new iteration strips away any of that creativity and takes place almost entirely in one location (I'll avoid spoilers, but if you've seen any other film in the series you can easily guess where). The makeup work that looked promising in production stills doesn't hold up well on screen, failing to be as frightening or iconic as the original. The effects aren't great, it would be easy to beat the dead horse of 'computer graphics' being inferior but I think the real problem here is directorial. Samuel Bayer simply can't hold a candle to Wes Craven.

If you want to disregard my comparisons to the original films and simply take this one for what it is, a brainless slasher flick, it still fails. None of the 'kills' show any creativity at all and audiences already fed on a steady diet of graphic violence won't find anything all that shocking or disturbing here. It's just boring.

Adding to that is an over reliance on cheap scares. This film is this the cinematic equivalent of someone shouting "boo!" in your face every ten minutes. This technique becomes annoying almost instantly and becomes increasingly more annoying because it is used in every single scene. It's like the director realized he didn't know how to direct a scary movie and instead of quitting and finding a new job, he decided to edit in sudden loud noises and hope no one would notice.

By the end the audience I saw it with could hardly hold back their titters of laughter and I don't mean that in a good way. This is one franchise that had some potential for rebirth, but I will be amazed if this one makes it to part 2.

Was the above review useful to you?

109 out of 159 people found the following review useful:

An Atrocious Mess

Author: tshoffie
30 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Once Again Platnum Dunes have Raped another Classic Film in the name of the almighty dollar. All i can say is that they should be apologizing to the fans for this unbelievable piece of crap.Freddy looked Retarded and even worse his voice was so annoying i wanted to yell shut the hell up at the screen every time he started to talk..This movie couldn't figure out what it wanted to be in places it completely Copies scenes from the original and at other times it goes off somewhere else entirely. Compared to the Original Cast i didn't give a damn if everyone died or not because none of these Wb types were anywhere near sympathetic or even halfway developed right.The Cgi gore effects in places were downright shoddy and the ending was completely predictable well the whole movie was really.The only people that could enjoy this film are todays generation of film goers who don't really have anything to call their own since this generation will be known as the generation of hacks and copycats. People that Truly loved the original first and Second Film will hate this. As for which Kreuger is Superior well hands down Robert England. I noticed someone saying how this movie is better then the rest of Platnum dunes films which isn't saying much because Crap is crap and the bottom of the barrel is the bottom of the barrel. Horror is in Serious Need of Creativity and Originality . ITs a Shame Movies like this can be put in theaters and Good Quality horror films those that have lots of Creativity and originality Such as Trick R Treat and Frontiers and Martyrs to name a few get shoved directly to Video

Was the above review useful to you?

86 out of 125 people found the following review useful:

Hollywood strives for failure and succeeds.

Author: Egg_MacGuffin from Pennsylvania, USA
30 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'll cut right to the chase and explain what is wrong with this movie instead of wasting your time setting anything up. I know how awful that feeling is, because it's exactly what this movie did for nearly 2 hours of my day - waste my time.


Focused too much on the secondary characters at the beginning, which was a problem because it was excruciatingly obvious that they were all just Freddy Fodder. I actually wanted to see them die quicker instead of spending a half hour with the plastic Barbie chick that couldn't act to save her own life and the annoying kid that went to jail because someone did in the first movie.

In the original, the group of four was together a lot of the time. They all shared the same plight together. The whole purpose of the sleepover was so that they could be there for each other if something bad happened. Here, we still have the same four roles, but two of them do their own thing and the other two are only communicating by phone, if they communicate at all. The inability for this new film to create a connection between the kids causes a disjointed feel and makes it impossible for us to care about anyone.

In this one, that kid going to jail means nothing and his demise means nothing. Not to me or the actual heroes of the story: the curly haired dude with the dirty sanchez and the winner of the Emily Blunt look-alike contest. They never saw it happen, never grieved over it, never even seemed to give a hell. It almost seemed like something from a different movie. In the original, the kids went to the jail, watched it happen, and Nancy's father was a cop. They were much more involved and therefore, the death meant something. It wasn't just killing time like it is here.

When we do get the actual heroes, it's so far into the movie, I couldn't help but wonder why not start the movie at that point? The other two dying did not have any effect on what the heroes were doing. The only constant was Freddy, who seemed much less threatening in this movie than in the original. Emily and Sanchez just kept doing what they would 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 you show 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 I see, the less I'm afraid. Bringing Freddy into the picture when the kids 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 then witnessing what happened to Freddy years ago for absolutely no good reason was the worst. It was insulting and nothing more than a plot convenience. The girl sets the alarm on her phone to wake herself up in the bath, but never thinks of using it later on when she asks the dude to wake her when trying to bring Freddy into the real world. Why? This is life and death and you didn't think of a contingency plan when there was one that you already used sitting in your pocket? Another plot convenience. Then there's the kid with the adrenaline, which does absolutely nothing to him - an obvious plant for a later pay-off.

This is a movie for idiots. Plain and simple. There's actually a scene in this movie where the girl pulls a piece of Freddy's sweater out of the dream world and into the real world, and the first thing she says is "Freddy's sweater". Really? Are you kidding me? What kind of sped wouldn't understand that scene if the dialogue was omitted?

It's sad, because the original Nightmare is not a very great film. The concept is absolutely brilliant, but it could use an update. Even sadder than that is the fact that Hollywood's mission is not to make money by providing the public with a quality product. It's just to make money.

There were some things about this film which I liked, but were mostly too brief or underdeveloped. The other kids in the school picture, the hospital sedation, etc. Just not enough to bring this turd out of the sewer where it belongs.

It's better than the new Halloweens and Friday the 13th, but that is about as close to praise as a racial slur. It's kind of hard to screw up with such a brilliant concept. However, that didn't stop Hollywood from trying.

Was the above review useful to you?

73 out of 101 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: David ( from Az
21 May 2010

Let me start off by saying i thought this movie was decent. But I expected a lot more.

We all know the story of Freddy Krueger. How he got burnt etc. In this one it's the same, but it's the change of Freddy's character that really lost my interest. Jackie Earle Haley is about as best as you can get 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, you all know the plot, BUT, let me explain the changes. In the old Nightmare On Elm Street, Freddy Krueger would always mess with people before he killed them. In this one he just kills them and doesn't mess around. Nothing humorous to say, nothing, just kills them. In the original he was a psychopathic killer who hurts children. In this one he'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 a lot, 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, not the remake I was expecting and had hoped for. Everything about it is decent, but nothing great. 5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 66:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history