A Nightmare on Elm Street
The film that brings back horror icon Freddy Krueger as a darker and more sinister character than ever before. While Freddy is on the prowl, a group of teenagers being stalked soon learn they all have a common factor making them targets for this twisted killer.
-
- Cast:
- Jackie Earle Haley , Kyle Gallner , Rooney Mara , Katie Cassidy , Thomas Dekker , Kellan Lutz , Clancy Brown
Similar titles
Reviews
Touches You
Brilliant and touching
This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
This is a pathetic remake of a beloved classic. I do like the Friday The 13th remake and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake but this is weak. The script is the same as the original but a crappy/modernize version, poorly executed story, and block of wood characters (aka emotionless acting). Nancy in this movie is so bland but I think the writing ruined it. THE JUMPSCARES!! Knock it off already they're not scary, they're ANNOYING!!!!!! I use to defend this movie for 5 years since 4th grade and as a freshmen at High School it's poorly directed. Overall bad remake I don't recommend it. Watch the original instead.
I don't get it. How did the kids fall asleep while doing important things like swimming or walking? At a funeral? Why would Freddy all of a sudden be a killer when he was simply a child molester before? If he was coming back to haunt them and didn't kill anyone before, why would he kill anyone now? Wouldn't he just feel them up a bit? And how did the parents make the kids forget everything? Yet, almost all of them live in the exact same neighborhood where they grew up? All of these horrible plot holes and convenient tactics just scream lazy writing. Don't they workshop this stuff before they submit it for finals? They broke their own rules repeatedly with the whole hallucination/micro sleep stuff they did, by taking stuff out of the dreams, and on top of that, the kids did weird things that normal kids probably would or wouldn't do. For example, the kids knew the parents knew about Freddy eventually, but why did none of them mention the said dreams they were having? Poorly written characters and dialogue on top of this crap sundae; where the teenagers would solo it out instead of staying together to keep each other awake, and a lack of empathy towards the victims, as they were mostly boring cannon fodder for Freddy's claws. None of the characters interacted all that much, and they didn't seem to care all that much when the others died.Also, the cliche usage of jump scares, the wooden acting, the boring protagonist and antagonist, and the complete copycat massacre scenes of the first film. I guess it's hard to be original in Hollywood.
Fellow commenter Vaughn Fry gave an excellent review of Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 that is worth reading. Do check it out. In a the Hollywood tradition of remaking classics, somebody thought that it might be a good idea to redo Nightmare On Elm Street to millennials. But, there's a huge problem with this. The 21st century is the age of skepticism and godlessness; the new generation do not believe in all powerful being in the sky, much less a ghost with scissor hands that haunts you in your dreams. Horror movies about ghosts, demons and spirits, aren't scary in the 21st century. So, this iteration of Nightmare On Elm Street while technically accomplished, is an exercise in futility. That doesn't mean that it's not a good show, it just means that you shouldn't expect to be scared. Hollywood relies too much on visual effects and shock value; through loud noises and make up which are basically equivalent to dad tricks. It is childish. Good horror movies require atmosphere, making the audience immerse themselves in the feel of the film's dark, mysterious, creepy ambiance. Nightmare On Elm Street 2010 has none of this. To be fair, the original didn't have it either but it was novel, appropriate for it's time and it had Wes Craven. So, here's the thing.If you don't approach Nightmare On Elm Street as a horror show, but instead as a normal film, it's actually a fun watch, like watching an episode of X Files or Supernatural. Was it boring? No. Was it scary? No. Is it a must watch? No. Is it a waste of time? Only if you have better things to do.
This is a pretty movie. Its apparent from the start, that this remake of the 1984 classic, has a pretty good sized budget to work with. In fact the budget for this incarnation was $35 Million according to Wikipedia. The budget for the Wes Craven original, $1.8 Million. You don't always get a better movie if your budget is huge, look at Avatar. You just get a really pretty movie that looks polished and has flawless special effects. Again, see Avatar. That movie was nothing but flash. The story is unoriginal and weak... and don't try coming at me with this whole "Shut up man! Avatar proved itself!" shut up! The larger budget in this case makes the movie look too polished to be takes seriously. Why the hell are we caring about watching clones of the Twilight teens being chased by Freddy Kruger? Were not. This movie didn't need a budget of $35 Million. It feels wasted. Some of the appeal of the original came from watching the director be a director and figure scenes out. This movie didn't do that. It felt trite and forced.Freddy Kruger is less of a movie villain in the horror industry and more of an icon. Everyone I knew growing up all had Freddy Kruger nightmares when they were a kid. Perhaps this new version of Freddy will serve to scare the poop out of kids these days. I would hope so. Maybe when they remake this movie again in twenty years they will bitch about it then as well. Who knows.