A Nightmare On Elm Street Bluray

Posted In: A Nightmare On Elm Street

Jenifer Hornig says...

I am admittedly a long standing "A Nightmare on Elm Street" fan I have seen and own all of the films. I admit that the first was by far the best and the second was by no means bad but it wasn't up to the standards of the first. Beyond the second film in the original series the films are incredible campy and for a lack of better description not very good. Although I know this to be true I have always loved the concept and even the older campy films can be enjoyable as long as one realizes what their walking into. With this in mind I was very pleased with the remake of the movie. Although some of the actors lack the quality that Jacky himself has it was still very enjoyable. I think for many fans were bound and determined to hate this film before it was even through being made. They shuttered at the idea of the recasting of Freddy and they didn't appreciate the more mature and dark style the movie possessed. If you are a fan of the older films and want a throwback to the less than stellar campy films then this will disappoint or if you are looking for a film that will revolutionize horror this isn't it. If you are however looking for a stylish, cool and eerie retelling of one of the biggest names in horror you won't be disappointed. I like my Freddy Kruger scary and menacing not comical and ridiculous. The later films in my opinion spit in the face of a truly scary and thought provoking concept. This film doesn't follow in those footsteps but also doesn't make the absolute best use of the legacy it takes its name. I feel for a first try it was quite good and well worth 4 stars for horror fans. I would have loved to have seen this movie get a fair shake unfortunately it simply wasn't to be. If you like any of the Nightmare films at least give the film a try. I wager you'll find all of the negative publicity it gets is unwell founded. It was a cool stylish movie with some minor acting and execution problems. But it wasn't the botched mess you read from most reviewers. If you want Robert England watch the older films , if you want funny Freddy watch the older films , but if you want a more scary new take on the series this might be for you. If you loved the original then you may like the film, I know I did.

Posted on June 4, 2011

Brigida Sherraden says...

Okay, as a long time fan of the original series of A Nightmare on Elm Street movies, I like most people, was very skeptical about this latest version.I own ALL of the original movies, and I do mean ALL.I even own New Nightmare and Freddy vs. Jason.I bought this movie without even seeing it first because of the low price thinking that if I didn't like it I would just give it away to someone who does.However, I gave myself a little pep-talk before sitting down to watch it.I told myself, this is what I'm going to do - Watch this movie with an open mind and judge it on its own merits as if it were its own movie and not a remake.I decided I wasn't going to watch it, constantly comparing it to the original.



I know some people have a strong sentimental attachment to the original.They have fond memories of going to the theater with their middle/high school friends and being scared out of their minds.I fortunately was very young when the original was first out, I didn't even get to see it until it had been around for about 10 years, so I didn't have the emotional attachment for the original to shed before seeing this one.But, as I said, I'm still a huge fan.I was instantly hooked by Freddy in all of his twisted glory and now own every original movie they ever made.



I actually enjoyed this version very much.The trick to enjoying this movie is to not judge it as a mere remake, but instead as it's own movie.That's really not a difficult task, as many elements such as the backstory for Freddy have been changed.They kept a few pivotal scenes from the original here, but a lot has changed, and I found it refreshing.I cared about the characters, I felt the fear that they felt and through much of this movie I was on the edge of my seat, which is something that hasn't happened in a long time.



This is definitely a darker, and in some ways, more sadistic Freddy than we've seen before.He still has a few wise-cracks here and there, but long gone are the cheesy one liners.Again, no disrespect, but I personally don't miss the humor or hilariously bad dialogue.One thing even to this day that often makes me cringe while watching the originals is the horrible acting and deadpan delivery of lines.The bad acting often made me laugh more than Freddies witty satire.I love this one for the scare factor, this genuinely creeped me out, which is what I want in a Horror movie.If I want to laugh, I watch a Comedy.



A classic is always going to be a classic.I feel that many people are giving this bad reviews without actually seeing it, because in a way they feel it's some kind of blasphemy to have redone it in the first place.Give it a chance.Watch this movie with an open mind and judge it on its own merits, and you'll see that it's actually a very good movie.

Posted on June 5, 2011

Saturnina Zupfer says...

*sigh*



All right, I've said many times in my reviews how I'm a purist when it comes to film, ESPECIALLY horror films, and even MORE especially when it comes to what I (and most others of my ilk) consider to be classics of the genre.I've often slammed other remakes (or the more PC "re-imaginings") as gimmicky attempts to use modern special effects to make a bundle of money riding the coattails of other's originality...



I suppose a lesson in humility is good for the soul.



This vision of the unredoubtable 80s staple of the horror genre has received a lot of bad press from the horror community; many cite the new backstory (and ANYone other than Robert Englund playing the role) of the iconic Freddy Kruger as blasphemy; many think the characters are pale, one-dimensional shadows of the originals who are merely fodder for the film's sake; Wes Craven himself has spoken out against the film.



I myself, before seeing the film, made the comment on many occasions that I felt this movie would be a bland attempt by the producers to simply cash in on the new 're-imagining' kick, and refused to pony up ten bucks to see it in the theater.



Well, I found myself at a friends over the weekend, and his fourteen year old daughter had rented the flick, so I saw an opportunity to watch it at no cost to me, and honestly settled in to bash the film at every turn...



...an hour and a half later, having watched his daughter cringe and huddle behind a blanket and having myself felt that old familiar cringe and sense of mystery and fear, was dazed at my own reactions...



The original movie put a new face on fear; it forced upon us a grudging fascination of the darkness that may permeate reality, and turned the genre on it's ear.Craven's masterpiece was genuinely a SCARY film in a sea of cookie-cutter teen slashers...the sequels, sadly, saw the character of Freddy become something of a mockery of horror baddies, his methods and omnipresent quips and one-liners taking a lot of steam from the fear factor (excepting of course "New Nightmare", which was the only other entry in the series to prey once more upon our short hairs rather than our funny bones)...but the original gave us something we were sorely lacking in that time...honest to God FEAR.



...and as pained as I am to admit (and spent a day or two in denial before I am writing this), this new film brings that back.



...so back to the other night; when it was all over, I was stunned.I can't help it folks, I loved it.I thought it took the franchise back to where it belonged.I'm sure I'll get crucified by my peers who enjoyed the "comical" Freddy, and those who feel he's an untouchable giant of the genre (as I MYSELF did, just a few days ago), but I have to be honest...



...I found this film downright scary, having the same atmospheric dread that the original captured, but in a modern setting.I felt it was realistic and compelling.I DID care about the characters; I was right there with them in their tribulations, all the sassy comments I had prepared taking a backseat to my silent apprehension...I had no issue with the new backstory, as to me it was just a more detailed explanation of the origins of the hated Kruger; indeed, I found myself wondering if the filmakers had chosen to make a different interpretation of Freddy's rage, and despite initial reservations, decided it may well make the character even more frightening (I can't be more detailed and still remain spoiler-free; watch the film and you can't miss what I'm talking about).This didn't happen, and the film was STILL frightening, but the fact that it made me reconsider age-old concepts was interesting and fresh.The new make-up was to me much more realistic in what it was supposed to look like, and Haley's performance was very menacing while holding onto the humor in a much darker and sardonic way.All in all, I think all due honors were payed to the original without capitalizing on them and making a mere 'copy'.



Do I think it's BETTER than the original?I can't really say that; classics are STILL classics, and Englund will always be Freddy Kruger in my mind's eye...however, I CAN say that unlike the new "Amityville Horror" and "Friday the 13th", I do NOT relegate this flick to "crappy remake" status; I can say that I consider this to be a true retelling for a new generation, and I'm not sure if I'm delighted or ashamed.



If you loved the original, you should give this one a rental and watch it with an open mind; remove your preconceptions and see it for what it is, and I think you'll find a gem...on the other hand, if you're like I THOUGHT I was and hung up enough on the originals that you're going to hate it no matter what, then my advice is to walk on...



...but if you're a new generation horror-phile, DEFINITELY pick this one up; it heartens me to know that you can experience what I believe to be the same kind of fearful feeling guys like ME did watching the original back in the early eighties.



I'm going to order myself a copy of this, then get back to eating my crow...not too bad with a little oregano...



Sweet dreams!

Posted on June 5, 2011

Shanna Balent says...

I never understood the recent outcropping of horror remakes. I've seen a number of them, and I really don't understand them after watching them. What's the point?. More often than not, they are not any good, and suck all of the originality, cleverness, spirit, atmosphere, and scares out of the original concept. They all seem to be glossy, over-produced pieces of MTV entertainment for young modern audiences with shortened attention spans. The re-boot of "A Nightmare On Elm Street" is no different. To me, this, and the replacement of Robert Englund, was the most offensive of all the re-makes. I thought RZ's "Halloween" films took the cake, but this one being remade hit home more for me. Let's get started....



A good helping of the story should be familiar to everybody. There's no need to go into great detail about it or the story since it's basically the same, but with some differences. Freddy Krueger worked at a pre-school as a gardner, and a bunch of parents chased him down and burned him alive when it was suspected that he was molesting the kids there. Now, some of those kids are teenagers(Yeah, right)in high school, and they are beginning to have nightmares about this strange, burned man in a fedora, red and green striped sweater, and razor fingered glove, who can kill you for real in your dreams. Yeah, we know the story. As Freddy picks the kids off one by one, the remaining survivors try to stay alive, and awake, and survive this nightmare. The audience will be trying to stay awake as well.



It's hard to have your review come across as honest to fans of the remakes. There is so much hate out there for remakes, but they do have their fans too. Some people will think a bashing review is just some fan boy who wouldn't give it a positive one even if it deserved it. I am a huge Freddy fan. I grew up on these movies. I love Robert Englund. But I am also honest, and I can't honestly give this a glowing review or find much in the way of positive things to say. In fact, most of it makes me angry. So, let's get into what I thought....



A Nightmare On Elm Street 2010 is a movie made for modern audiences who are all about gloss, noise, and in your face absurdity and not even the faintest hint of intelligence, creativity, or scares. This is not a movie made for the fans. The powers that be could clearly care less about them, and only seem fixated on the buck. This version of Elm Street is a dreary place to hang out in, not that the "Elm Street" has much to do with the movie. There is such a cold, mechanical, by the book product at work here, that it's even hard to enjoy as simple entertainment. There is just not a lot of fun going on here, and that extends to Freddy himself. He doesn't seem to be having any fun. There is none of the demented glee in this Krueger. Just cold, monotonous killing. The only things that might bring a jolt to the fan is seeing a few iconic set pieces play out in the new film, but even then they are completely drained of any of the impact they originally had. Case in point being Freddy stretching thru the wall. The original version was more realistic and cool. Here, it's just a bad CGI effect that looks like a cartoon. The problem here, as with most movies, horror or not, is a concern for putting in lots of CGI and less worry on atmosphere or scares. That some CGI enhanced scene would replace or compensate for lack of everything else. The movie is filled with some MTV-type cutting, fake scares, and loud noises. The mood, tension, atmosphere, and creepiness of the original is completely gone, as is the heart and passion Wes Craven and Co. put into it. Again, this is just a product. A famous name to jump on and bring in a big opening weekend. That's all they care about. This is not the Elm Street I know. I feared what it would be, and got what I expected. I was hoping there would be something there for the fan, something to hold on to to enjoy, but it's just not there. The script is silly, and the "micro-naps" concept is ridiculous. An excuse to have Freddy appear everywhere and further diminish any creep factor, tension, suspense, or anything at all. But, then again, the movie was already disappointing on every front anyways. The kills aren't that cool or inventive, the dreams are not out of this world as you would think in this day and age, and the film is just drab looking. Director Samuel Bayer hasn't made any kind of impression with his first film. He films every scene so that you know immediatley what's going to happen and what's a dream and what's not. There is nothing sneaking up on you. It's been well known that Bayer didn't really know much about Elm Street and has said himself that he was never really a fan. Well, clearly. It definitley shows. If there is a sequel, get someone with a respect and love not only for the character and franchise, but for the fans as well.



How was Freddy himself and the cast?. I like Jackie Earle Haley a lot. Great actor. But he's not Freddy, and this just isn't for him. Just like there is only one Dirty Harry, Rocky, Indiana Jones, etc, there is only one Freddy Krueger. Robert Englund. Everything that made Fredy "Freddy" is gone. You just can't replace that, or start something new and think it's going to work as well. Here, Freddy is more of a pervy killer with no charm, charisma, or interest in teasing his intended prey or messing with them. In this one, Freddy is simply out for the kill with no real character or presence. Or point. Englund is sorely missed. Only he can be the "funny Freddy", and only he can be the sick, demented dream killer we fell in love with in the original. The changes they made in Freddy's crimes when he was alive is in extreme poor taste and makes for very uncomfortable, squirmiy moments. Not only that, but it renders the glove completely pointless. The original story gave the glove a meaning. Here, it has no meaning. He cut up a girl's dress a bit?. Give me a break!. The backstory is silly and on incredibly shaky ground. It renders this Freddy even less than he already was. Like I said, Haley is a fine actor, and this isn't entirely his fault. This wasn't right for him, but the script served him with absolutely nothing either. The rest of the cast fare no better. None of them are remotely interesting, and therefore you could really care less about any one of them. Our main heroine Nancy(Rooney Mara), seems like a secondary character who is thrust into the spotlight. The original Nancy was a normal girl who became very interesting. Here, Nancy is a gothy loner who isn't interesting and becomes less so as the movie drags on. All the others are even less, although I felt more for Katie Cassidy, who is the "Tina" of the movie. Still, the film wouldn't of faired any better with her as Nancy. No, there isn't really the jock or the dimbulb cheerleader and so on, but there isn't anything here in these drab, mundane characters either.



A Nightmare On Elm Street 2010 is just soulless. It's devoid of popcorn tossing scares and entertainment, a strong script, good characters, menace, atmosphere, and everything that made the 1984 original an iconic landmark in the genre. You want to see a good movie that has everything and does it right?. Then watch the originals. This movie is a classic for a reason. And producers, if you want today's youth to have experiences that was had by moviegoers who saw the original films, then re-release those in theaters or create your own original films. You can reboot a well known product, but you will never be able to emulate it or what the movie was or achieved. It just can't be done. Elm Street 2010 is a sad affair. Even sadder is the fact that it will probably do well, and will lead to unnecessary sequels to a reboot nobody wanted or asked for in the fist place. This isn't a movie made by the fans for the fans, but a movie made by a group of people who clearly have no idea what made these movies in the first place or what has made them last for nearly 3 decades. Hollywood has simply ran out of ideas, but is still full of people and producers ready to make a buck on a known product without the sightest clue as how to do it.

Posted on June 5, 2011

Teofila Consigli says...

I was prepared to hate this movie even though the previews looked good. Horror remakes suck for the most part and I thought this film would be no different. The one big difference was Freddy had a distinct voice unlike other horror villians like Jason, Leatherface, or The Shape. I understand people would have a hard time to adjust to this but apparently fans choose Jackie Earle Haley as the new Freddy. The movie kicked off strong and it rarely lets up thru out this fun ride. Haley did a great job as Freddy his laugh was perfect and I enjoyed all his lines. However, I will admit the biggest problem with the film was the quick shocks that would only make women scream. The acting, which is a big problem in alot of horror remakes, is not bad but nothing award winning and the teens didnt run around swearing and doing drugs. The girl playing Nancy couldnt hold a candle to the original but I was too focused on Freddy. One of the smartest ideas came from within the movie, something fans probably forgot because they hated the movie. The part were they talked about not sleeping for some time will make you take micronaps and you'd eventually slip into a coma. Freddy says too Nancy that he kept her up so she would slip into a coma. Now that is smart! But alas, I guess people didnt pay too much attention to it. Overall, nothing will ever match to the original but this was still a fun ride. I dont understand all the negative reviews about it.

Posted on June 6, 2011

Rossie Siepker says...

First off I am an avid horror/thriller fan and I have all of the original Nightmare on Elm Street movies.This 2010 version was not as bad as I expected it to be but it still does not in anyway compare to the original, although some parts of the movie surprised me.



You can see where they tried to do new things and give it a modern day feel.The underlining suspense of the kids past, is one thing I really liked about this film.That added a little bit more suspense to me.



Overall, I would recommend watchin it.It is entertaining and all depening on your horror/thriller likes you may find it a surprising addition to your collection, just as I have.

Posted on June 7, 2011

Mika Keown says...

This is purely and simply truly, truly, truly AWFUL....



Take the original movie, change the backstory, screw around with the characters, remove all levels of atmosphere and pacing, ensure that all characters are purely one dimensional and of no interest whatsoever....and this is pretty much what you're left with...



The special features are simply laughable where the makers spend most of their time trying to "big up" this souless remake.Note to makers - you simply cannot use the fancy phrase "re-imagined" when what you have clearly done is lift death scenes from the original movie, remake them in a truly awful and unscary way (with a few drops of really cheap looking CGI blood) and string some one dimensional dreary predictable dialogue in between to string the scenes together - I'm sorry, that DOESN'T meet the definition of "re-imagined" at all - try checking out Rob Zombie's "re-imagining" of Halloween to see how it should be done.Also, the way the original movie seems to be inferred by the idiots who put this piece of rubbish together as inferior to this drivel is quite simply offensive to Wes Craven and all the people who worked so hard on it in the first place to save New Line's ass at the time.



All I can say is, nevermind about "never sleep again" - after seeing this, I wonder how Bob Shaye can sleep at all.....



....now, how do I get that hour and a half of my life back that I wasted on watching this rubbish....

Posted on June 7, 2011

Hester Monforte says...

OK, so let me start off here by letting you guys know that I grew up watching the original series in the 80's and have been a fan ever since. There's not one single Freddy movie I dislike, not even the cheesy ones, because I think they all brought something new and interesting to the table. Now with that said, what did I think about the remake? Well before going to see this movie, I had absolutely zero expectations knowing that Englund wasn't going to be in it and knowing that the back story of Freddy had changed. When I got out of the theater and the movie was over, I kind of found it entertaining, but not close to being as good as the originals. I liked Jackie Earle Haley's portrayal of Freddy and I think he did a good job as the new Freddy and I hope they continue using him if they make a sequel.

Now What I didn't like was that the movie felt very rushed, none of the characters really made an impression on me before they got killed and I don't even remember any of their names except for Nancy's and the girl who played her wasn't even close to being as believable as Heather Langencamp from the original. One more thing that I didn't like was the change of Freddy's back story. In this movie Freddy use to be a pedophile and after the parents found out they gathered together and chased him down and burned him alive, which makes no sense... Most of the time when something terrible like this happens, people call the cops, but here they just went to kill him right away and yes it is understandable that one would want to kill a sick guy like that, but let's be real, 9 times out of 10 these sickos end up in jail. Anyway now to the original back story, in the original, Freddy was a sick child killer who molested and used various types of razor gloves to torture his children before killing them and the town gave him the name "The Springwood Slasher". After a while, the cops finally catch him and arrest him without reading him his rights which is the reason the court had to drop the case and let Freddy go. After the case was dismissed on this technicality the parents and Springwood Police join together and hunt Freddy down and burn him alive. Now IMO that back story makes way more sense and they even mention where the glove comes from, but in this one they've changed the back story so much that the glove doesn't even fit in, it doesn't make any sense what so ever! What the hell was Samuel Bayer and Michael Bay thinking when they approved this script as the official one??

The movie had a few good kills, and Freddy was cool, but the characters were so threadbare that you don't even really care. If they do make a sequel, they need to go back in to the backstory again and bring back the Springwood Slasher and they need a better script!! This is Fred Kruger we're talking about, a freakin legend, so give this legend the treatment he deserves!!

Posted on June 10, 2011

Jaimie Troidl says...

I have to give the people behind "A Nightmare on Elm Street" credit for avoiding two mistakes that easily could have been made. Firstly, they did not try to make it a parody, which is more than I can say for last year's very disappointing remake of "Friday the 13th." Second, they remembered that Freddy Krueger is meant to be frightening; he's not meant to be a pizza-faced comedian with a repertoire of really bad puns and cheesy sight gags. After many, many years, he's once again a figure of fear, and just like in Wes Craven's original 1984 film, it's for reasons other than his melted skin, his demonically deep voice, his dirty stripped sweater and fedora, and his distinctive clawed right hand. 2010's "Nightmare" gets not only the antagonist right, but also the consistently creepy atmosphere, a blend of eerie shadows, dirty rooms, and muted colors.



The weakness is in its story, which is both routine and subject to severe lapses in logic, especially as it nears the end. The characters are also problematic; they may not be like the promiscuous youths of the average teen slasher film (and for that, I'm grateful), but they are awfully bland, having been given little in the way of personality and depth. Granted, I too would be sapped of energy if I spent all my time trying to stay awake. After the apparent suicide of a high school student in a diner, classmates Kris Fowles (Katie Cassidy), Jesse Braun (Thomas Dekker), Quentin Smith (Kyle Gallner), and Nancy Holbrook (Rooney Mara) all begin having nightmares. Strange that they all dream of the same thing: A burnt man wearing a clawed glove on his right hand.



No more of the plot need be described. We all know about Freddy Krueger, both as a dream demon and as the man he was in the waking world. Taking the reins from Robert Englund is Jackie Earle Haley, who fits into the role perfectly. None of his expressions emerge, for his face is both buried under a ton of makeup and mostly kept in shadow. And yet, the makeup and lighting are expressions in and of themselves, and they truly do convey the sheer malice of his character. You will not see this Freddy Krueger turning anyone into a cockroach and squashing them in a roach motel, trapping anyone in a video game and playing them to death, or slitting anyone's arms and legs and using their veins to move them along like marionettes - the goal of this movie is to scare you, not make you laugh.



If only the filmmakers had made more of an effort with the screenplay, which at times is incredibly inconsistent. When Nancy and Quentin confront their parents for not being forthcoming about Krueger, for example, they're told that it was only in an effort to keep them from remembering. "From remembering what?" Nancy pleads. We do eventually find out, although we may find ourselves confused, for it seems highly unlikely that anyone could ever forget events of such extraordinary emotional magnitude. And then there's the ending; I, of course, will not give anything away. But I will say that it raises serious questions as to the nature of Krueger's existence and why certain characters did what they did because of it. What rules are they playing by, here? Up until that point, the story was more or less within the realm of common sense.



Many people will see this movie and say that it was bad. I take the approach that it could have been a lot worse. That may not be much of a compliment, but there you have it. There are elements of this movie I liked a great deal - the sets, the lighting, the makeup, the special effects, the serious tone, Haley's menacing performance. Superficial, you say? I suppose you're right, but keep in mind that this is a horror movie, meaning that if it's going to play scary (and it does play scary), it might as well look scary too. As for the actors besides Haley, I will say that they do the best they can considering the shortcomings of the material. Mostly, they just go from one scene to the next with permafrost expressions of horror on their faces; that may be fun to look at from time to time, but eventually, there does come a point when we need less character and more development.



"A Nightmare on Elm Street" is by no means a great movie, but I do think it's better than some have suggested. Still, I can't help but wonder if there's going to be an entirely new series of films, and if it will only continue going downhill. The last thing I want to see is a frightful-looking Jackie Earle Haley doing something goofy on the screen, like Robert Englund had to do for five sequels and a spinoff (I exempt "Wes Craven's New Nightmare," a thoroughly absorbing example of cinematic metafiction). To be so cavalier with a well established horror franchise would truly be a nightmare.

Posted on June 10, 2011

Lorinda Eighmey says...

So, lets get it out in the open. The only real negative in this review is the fact that this was advertised as a whole different story and would show an entirely different side of Freddy Krueger. It doesn't really do this. There was dialogue that I was thinking, "Wasn't that the same line from the original? Or very close to it?" more than once. Also someone told me, "The devil is very scary in this movie." and I was intrigued by this. I thought, "Who can beat Viggo Mortensen from the Prophecy?". Now..That was a chilling Lucifer. I watched Nightmare twice and there was no devil (Lucifer/Satan). Unless I stepped out of the room shortly and missed it twice?

Sort of Spoiler:

As you watch and think about what it took to make a man like this, remember the line from the trailer. "He's not punishing us for telling lies. He's punishing us for telling the truth." Think about it. It's a chilling look at the way Freddy thinks.

PRO:

Jackie Earle Haley - (Watchmen - Rorschach) Was excelent as Freddy. No doubt about it. Seeing him as a normal man or as the disfigured dream killer, were both very well played and he should get credit for this performance.

Supporting cast: Although not the best cast, they performed well enough to merit "average" but nothing here was award winning.

CG/Effects: Well done and believable for a slasher. I espescially liked the Freddy facial burns.

If you are a fan of the original, you will not be disappointed by this movie/remake.

Posted on June 11, 2011