IMDb > A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
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 11 of 66: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]
Index 654 reviews in total 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

michael bay needs to be stopped, stop ruining horror!!!

1/10
Author: nicole10221991
30 April 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

where do i begin? at the start of the film i was hopeful because it was very gruesome, kellan lutz stabs himself in the throat even though hes sleeping and we as the audience knows freddy did it. then it just got awful. the lines freddy (jackie earl haley) says are absolute awful ripoffs of what freddy (robert englund) always said throughout the original series. to make it worse though, im pretty sure jackie was not wearing makeup but they used CGI for his burnt face. im tired of CGI im sorry but you can tell its fake. most of the acting was good but and i cant stress this enough when it comes to movies, i couldn't believe most of them. i need to be convinced of whats going on and i need to feel sorry for the victims. this didn't really happen in this movie. then again i don't expect anything but bullshit from michael bay, remake after bad CGI and bad acting remake! how this man has a career is unbeknownst to me. the only thing i liked about this movie was that freddy had a messed up back story, he WAS a child molester and abuser and the parents killed him. in the original he was a child murderer who got off and the parents killed him in revenge. so i say good job for coming up with an original and screwed up idea for the killers back story but everything else is a thumbs down. watch the original movies with a GREAT actor!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

No Fun At All

4/10
Author: statuskuo from United States
17 March 2015

The issue with this remake is that the original came out at a time when teenagers REALLY were ignored. In this reboot, it seems they attempt to give us a reason why. Who cares? is the answer. There is just nothing fun about this movie. And no...it's not because of all the sequels that went campy, it's because you can tell EVERYONE involved was miserable. You would think people involved in a franchise would at least be fans. It didn't seem like anyone knew why they were making this movie.

There's actually a moment in the movie where they attempt to justify Freddy's past by victim blaming. And this isn't even coming from the parents!

It's just an overall miserable experience, capped off with resonance from the original that makes it more frustrating.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Unnecessary remake

2/10
Author: Mark McCorkell from UK
30 December 2014

I'm all for remakes when the people behind them think they have something new to add to the original tale. That's not the case here. Every aspect of this retelling is somehow less than the original.

Let's start with Freddy. As an original horror creation, he was iconic for the time and quite rightly became an instant pop culture figure (quite a feat for a murderous paedophile). In the later movies he devolved into a wise-cracking almost-camp figure, so maybe he did need a reboot. But the Freddy in this film isn't that reboot. From the Christian Bale Batman voice to the fish-faced inexpressive look spouting out cliché after cliché, this is not the Freddy we want or deserve.

Next, dreams. The earlier movies played tricks with the viewer. Often we were never sure whether what we were seeing was real or a dream sequence. In the original we didn't even know for sure if Freddy was a real threat or just the fevered imaginings of the protagonist. Not here. Freddy is there in all his glory 5 minutes in, and the switches from reality to dream are so ham-fisted that only the addition of the Inception vroooom noise could make it more obvious.

Killings. Yeah, it's a slasher movie; it needs a section about killings. The deaths in the original were wildly imaginative, pushing the boundaries of what was achievable on a limited budget. Here they're dull affairs and badly paced, leaving the second half of the movie killing-free and dogged down by needless exposition (we all know the Freddy back-story and this film adds nothing to it).

Aspects of the original such as the underlying theme of teenage alienation from parents, or the sins of the father being paid by the next generation, are completely dropped here. The original was never exactly deep, but this is as hollow as movies come.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Additional flaws

3/10
Author: Pie CatLady from Georgia, USA
25 November 2014

If I'd never seen Wes Craven's wonderfully original and scary film, this offering would have been barely passable. Compared to the first (and best!) Nightmare, the remake is an utter failure. Other reviewers have nailed many of its flaws. Nobody has mentioned the lack of the creepy musical theme that so effectively built tension in the original. The remake seemed determined not to use it. It sounded just once in the opening sequence. That's the music that says "A Nightmare on Elm Street." It was missing with nothing to replace it. Likewise, the children's jump rope chant (so innocent at first, until its implications become clear) was clumsily used in this reboot. It was never even said in its entirety. This remake lacked the classic elements that defined the Nightmare. Very disappointing!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

This movie is indeed a nightmare. A nightmare to watch. It's so bad!

4/10
Author: ironhorse_iv from United States
21 September 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

One, two, Freddy's coming for you, Three, four, better lock your door, Five, six, grab your crucifix, Seven, eight, gonna stay up late, Nine, ten, never sleep again. Directed by Samuel Bayer, A Nightmare on Elm Street is a remake of Wes Craven's 1984 film of the same name, which revolves around a group of teenagers who are being stalked in their dreams by an enigmatic man named Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley). You know that production for the film is heading the wrong way, when Craven expressed his displeasure in the remaking of his 1984 film, primarily because the filmmakers chose not to have him as a consultant to the film, unlike with the 2009 remake The Last House on the Left where he help the film toward production. Indeed, without Wes Craven's blessing or help, 2010, A Nightmare on Elm Street felt like a bad cash-in on the Slasher flicks of the early 80s. It was given little thought, and felt like a waste of time, watching, as the film didn't give much to hook the audience, in. How could they go wrong? Freddy Krueger is a horror icon. The film series is a unique blend of darkly comic and horror with a great premise – the monster is the ghost of a murdered pedophile who kills children/young adults in their sleep. It's a terrifying notion! The reasons why this movie fail is very clear. First off, the direction, the movie doesn't do much of anything new to the series. Yes, it's nice to see, Freddy Krueger's backstory, but is it really what fans really wanted to see?! NO! The reason, why, Freddy Krueger got popular was how supernatural, he was. He was like the devil. To make him seem human, is eliminating the scare factor from his mythology. This film marks the first time Freddy has not been portrayed by Robert Englund. While, Jackie Earle Haley plays Freddy Krueger in a decent performance, but his character has little to no charisma. It's not his fault, but the direction of the studio. He would forever, be overshadow by Robert Englund in this way. I know, for the remake, Freddy was brought back to his darker roots and away from the comical character he had become in later Nightmare on Elm Street sequels, but it's like ripping away the reasons why he became so popular in the first place. People love the dark humor, and one-liners. I'm glad, they didn't use campy liners, here, but the whole movie lacks a lot of entertaining values. His voice sounds a bit off, as if it was recorded and voice over post-production. It doesn't have that much of a menace feel to it. The make-up is a step down when the 1980s versions. He looks a burn gerbil face. It's really off-putting, not in a good way. The teenagers in the film are a little more memorable as they're more likable than your typical mean-spirited disposable teenagers of the past movies. The film generally remains close to the origin of Freddy and the overall events of the original film, though it does make some superficial changes to both. Nothing too major to stand out of its own. It really felt like re-hash retelling of familiar scenes sequences. It's a shame, that they didn't do much to make it, look differ than the other film. Still, there was an interesting swerve with the victims that was pretty interesting. Remind me of 1996's Scream where they killed off protagonists at the start, so you follow other victims. The special effects were hit and misses. There were some good examples of good special effects like the blood exploding, but others like Freddy coming through the bedroom wallpaper looked particularly cheap. They really did miss the entire concept of the franchise. The best part of the Freddy's nightmare scenario is that his victims don't know if they're asleep or not. Freddy intentionally melds the dream and real world in the victim's mind. In this new room, they have a visual cue – green/orange lights flicker, telling you the victim is dreaming that really kill the suspense for the film. The film overly relies on shock-horror, not actual scares or atmosphere. Lots of jump scenes to the point that they're pretty worn-out and obvious. There is little to no suspense, so shock horror really dies out, here. The new music by Steve Jablonsky isn't that good. It does good to set one the eerie atmosphere, but the film score sound so genetic or trying to retune the original. The theme should had the creepy touch of a nursery rhyme, but in Freddy's school it's always naptime. There is no way to keep these teens wholly safe, and the music is the marriage of the innocent and the nihilistic, increasing the goosebumps for the longer you listen. Sadly, this theme is lacking that. Still, I did like the creepy version of "All I Have to Do Is Dream" by the Everly Brothers. Overall: This film has very little redeeming qualities. It defines a cash-grab on a famous franchise. It's such a wasted opportunity, with today's special effects. Horror fans deserve better. Avoid, unless you want to be really disappointed.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Not Freddie.

1/10
Author: Agnetha Icelandica from Australia
24 April 2014

Only Robert Englund is Freddie. It doesn't matter that Robert Englund may have supported the choice to cast someone else, or even that he felt he was too old to re-play the character. He is the Freddie whom we all know and love to fear. He brought such a presence to the character, and it showed his versatility as an actor (see Willie, in "V" the original - and best - series). His face is the Freddie face, and we love him as he is. Another actor could not bring the same atmosphere of dread to the role. We love Freddie Kruger, the REAL Freddie Kruger. The franchise is fine as it is, and Hollywood needs to get over the idea that they can improve on a cult hit. They can't. It's been proved time and again.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Avoid Platinum Dunes!!!!!!!!!

2/10
Author: MikesIDhasbeentaken from United Kingdom
3 April 2014

This company are out to ruin every great horror film I loved when I was younger, Nightmare on Elm street, Friday the 13th, the Hitcher, Texas chainsaw Massacre... twice, The Amityville Horror,

Has anything survived? Halloween?? NO, they have just bought the rights to completely destroy that too. Every single reason you could ever have found the originals scary have been completely removed.

The thing is they buy the rights to these well loved films and make hundreds of millions because people like me just can't help going to see it. well no more!

Aside from the ruining of the horror genre, I'd also advise other film fans to avoid the upcoming Teenage mutant ninja turtles move, which will undoubtedly ruin any fond memories you might hold of the previous films \ cartoons.

As if it couldn't get worse.... what's platinum dunes releasing in 2015??? Bad Boys 3.... nuff said.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

The reboot has potential, but lacked plot depth.

3/10
Author: epsilondefute
28 January 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddie Krueger has potential, but the character's personality was highly underplayed. Jackie could be profound at the part, but his role was downplayed too much. The movie's graphics were OK, but not for a 2010 movie, no matter how low the budget was. The plot was kind of original, but it really ventured too far from the story. It was linear and the movie really seemed like there wasn't much effort into visual quality. Even some of the original ones were a lot more visually impressive. There is a lot to improve and I believe another reboot is necessary due to the lacking quality over all of this iconic film's reboot. An improved sequel wouldn't make sense because its like having the original Godzilla come out when it did and then have the one coming out in this year (2014) be it's sequel. I think Jackie is a great actor, but the other ones leave a lot to be desired, and the movie had some interesting new concepts, but over all the three things that bugged me most were: (in order of significance) Underplayed Character Personalities, Plot Depth, and Visual or Graphic Quality. Nightmare on Elm street has always been my favorite horror movie franchise and I feel like the reboot took great potential and butchered it brutally.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Awful remake.

1/10
Author: teryolaw
11 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Im not a guy who senselessly hates remakes. I like them when they have something new to offer to the original movie. A different way to tell the story perhaps, a different aspect. A great example of a good remake is The Day The Earth Stood Still. It is very different from the 50's original and it made sure to make a new interpretation of the original.

This however, is just plain awfulness. Complete sheit. It has bad actors and lacks ANY kind of feeling/atmosphere whatsoever. I don't care about these people, the movie makes no effort to give them any kind of personality or complexity whatsoever. I know that this is a horror movie and maybe it's not supposed to do that, but damn it, the original had characters that felt like believable individuals with personalities. These characters are just completely plain.

At first I thought that they had something good going with the whole "Freddy wasn't a pedophile, you parents just thought he was and murdered an innocent man, and now he wants revenge through your kids" storyline. It had a certain kind of poetry to it. And I thought to myself "Oh, well at least that's something good about this movie".

But then it turns out that Freddy is just a really evil and persistent pedophile and the movie then has nothing. The only thing I liked was the ending, because it came out of the blue with something so brutal and then immediately switched to something so sweet and ironic which is the song in the end credits. "All I have to do is dream" by The Everly Brothers.

Other then a few seconds of the end, this movie isn't any good whatsoever. It's sad and almost annoying that a remake of a classic can be this awful. And when I saw that there is gonna be a sequel to this, I actually thought "No, JUST NO". And usually, Im the one to defend anyones right to make a remake of old classics.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

This movie sucks!!

1/10
Author: NOLDaemon from Canada
8 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Out of all the movies Hollywood could butcher, I never thought they could ruin Elm St this badly.

- I loved the original Freddy movies. Even though it's been a while since I've seen them, I remember them being some of my favourite horror movies. However, I don't remember Freddy being a child molester. Even if it was hinted he was a child molester, that's not the picture I got of him. He was a child killer before he died, and a child killer after he died. In the new movie, Freddy was a child molester (NOT a killer) before he died, but turned into a child killer (NOT a molester) after he died. WTF??? Why did this sudden change of character occur? Nobody knows. They didn't have to create this plot hole, they could have made Freddy both a child molester & a killer. But Freddy didn't kill anyone until after his own death. Also, what made Freddy stop being a molester? Did he see the error of his ways after his own death? - What's the point of the Freddy claw? Freddy didn't cut the children while he was alive, and didn't even get the claw until after his death. Where did he get the claw from? What was the purpose of the claw? (These questions were answered in the original film) - The script failed to capture the basic plot of every Freddy movie. The premise is Freddy gains strength in 2 ways. By creating fear in his victims, and by having more victims to terrorize. (In the original movies, the only way Freddy could gain access to someone's dreams is if they were told about Freddy by someone who was already being haunted by Freddy.) This whole plot element was eliminated from the new movie.

- The original Freddy had a sense of humour, and enjoyed killing his victims. He would use people's weaknesses against them. (Such as killing a drug addict with needles) The new Freddy has no fun, and doesn't personalize any kills. He uses the same boring claws every time.

- I remember more of the plot line from the original movie I saw 20 years ago than new movie I saw last night.

- The Freddy mask was the most popular horror mask of its generation. Not only does the new mask look worse, but who wants to be a child molester for Halloween? That's not how you build a good merchandising brand.

Why remake a movie if you're going to change or eliminate everything good about the old movies? Not because the changes make the story better or give a new twist on old ideas. The changes only serve to create plot holes or ruin what was a very good story (by horror movie standards). They managed to take a likable killer and turn him into a boring creepy pedophile.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 11 of 66: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [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