Product Details

• Actors: Jackie Earle Haley, Kyle Gallner, Rooney Mara, Katie Cassidy, Thomas Dekker
• Directors: Samuel Bayer
• Format: AC-3, Dolby, DTS Surround Sound, Dubbed, NTSC, Subtitled, Widescreen
• Language: English (DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1), French (Dolby Digital 5.1), Spanish (Dolby Digital 5.1)
• Subtitles: English, French, Spanish
• Dubbed: French, Spanish
• Region: All Regions
• Aspect Ratio: 2.40:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rated: R (Restricted)
• Studio: New Line Cinema
• DVD Release Date: October 5, 2010
• Run Time: 95 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 2.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (256 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B002ZG9724
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #32,508 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
• Learn more about "A Nightmare on Elm Street [Blu-ray]" on IMDb

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com

Michael Bay (Transformers, Pearl Harbor) produced this remake of Wes Craven's 1985 horror classic A Nightmare on Elm Street, which means updated shocks, computer-driven special effects, and a brand-new Freddy Krueger, this time played by Oscar nominee Jackie Earle Haley. Unfortunately, it also means a mechanical, largely scare-free carbon of the original film--the same fate suffered by Bay's remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the 13th. Director Samuel Bayer, best known for helming videos for Nirvana and Green Day, does well by the film's visuals, which hew toward stylized doominess, but the film itself limps from set piece to set piece, with the ones borrowed directly from Craven's original scoring the most impact. What's left are a group of dull teens on the run from Haley's Freddy, who proves unsettling, if not the dynamo that Robert Englund was in the previous franchise entries. Speaking of which, the picture ends on a note that suggests a follow-up is imminent, though some more inspiration is clearly needed if Bay's Nightmare intends to have the longevity of the first series. --Paul Gaita

Product Description

Five teenage friends living on one street all dream of a sinister man with a disfigured face, a frightening voice and a gardener's glove with knives for fingers. One by one, he terrorizes them within their dreams--where the rules are his and the only way out is to wake up. But when one among them dies, they soon realize that what happens in their dreams happens for real and the only way to stay alive is to stay awake. Buried in their past is a debt that has just come due. To save themselves, they must plunge into the mind of the most twisted nightmare of all: Freddy Krueger. Jackie Earle Haley plays the legendary evildoer in this contemporary reimagining of the seminal horror classic.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

75 of 86 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Bring back the Springwood Slasher! July 24, 2010

By Mr. Loco

Format:DVD

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 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 little 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 (even though most people would love to kill somebody who had done something terrible like this and I'm a father myself and I know if something that terrible happened to my kid I would definitely want to see him dead). 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[...] Read more ›

50 of 62 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars 1, 2, Freddy's Gonna Bore You.... April 30, 2010

By Barry

Format:DVD

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. Read more ›

20 of 23 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars The Man of Your Dreams is Back April 30, 2010

By Chris Pandolfi

Format:DVD

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. Read more ›