Customer Reviews

A Nightmare on Elm Street

5 star:		(38)
4 star:		(32)
3 star:		(50)
2 star:		(41)
1 star:		(44)

 

 

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[...]

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.

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.

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....

*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!

Remakes of classic horror movies almost always fail completely. The remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is no exception to that rule. Wooden acting (especially the dork who played Nancy's boyfriend) and nightmare of a script make this one poorly executed movie. Many remakes attempt to be exactly like the original like the remake of "Psycho" and then there are others that mix creativity while stealing the basic storyline like the remake of "Halloween". The remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is more in line with the latter. However, like the poorly conceived remake of "Halloween" this remake also tries to explain too much about Freddy's past. The movie leaves nothing to the imagination whatsoever. What is the point of trying to explain why Freddy is doing what he is doing to these kids? The original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" made it clear to the viewer that Freddy was a terrible child murderer and he was just plain evil, but the remake tries to humanize Freddy, and it really dilutes the horror to a puddle of wet rubbish. My advice is to skip this garbage, and stick with the original classic. You won't miss a thing.

I had so many hopes for this; I was among the first in line on opening day to see it in the theaters. And immediately afterward, I tried to convince myself that it was great. But there were some things about it (and it applies to a lot of other horror remakes) that gnawed at me and, after a while, I accepted that it wasn't anywhere as close to good as the original. It wasn't because of Jackie Earle Haley's performance as he gave a very interesting interpretation to the character Freddy. Here's why it fell apart:

It tried to be so different from the original that it even excluded all the charm that made the original so popular. In 1984, Nightmare was displayed, at least in part, as an imaginative fantasy with a daydream feel. The remake instead opts to displaying it as a damned established mythology right from the very start. The mythology is the main character. Freddy takes back seat to it. Telling "The Story" is the main point to the remake and thus they make it boring. In the original, the story is incidental and is only revealed in enough an extent as to keep you held to the screen until the next kill/confrontation scene. This is also why the Halloween remakes sucked.

The original movies weren't held back by the pretentiousness of having to Tell It As A Story.

I know you Hollywood guys see remakes as the new big thing and there's no way to talk you out of it. But just remake the damn movies and leave the self-important mythologies at home.

In the original, Nancy pieces it together that the injuries Freddy inflicts on her in her dreams carries over to real life. So we see an actual linear, logical deduction take place during the course of the film. In this recent version, there is no gradual realization of the horrific circumstances. Quite literally in one scene, out of the blue, the nerd guy just says, "Stay awake! If Freddy kills you in your dreams you're dead for real!" We did not see him gradually learn how this could be true. How did he make such a logical leap from the few fragmented pieces of information we saw him discover?

It was lazy writing. Or perhaps they tried so hard to be different from the original that the logic suffered.

My only other gripe (as a fan of the original for all my life) is that they made the Nancy character a hollow, peripheral husk of the original. She was in a couple of scenes here and there at the beginning to establish her existence (as a moody emo kid no less), but she wasn't even the main character until halfway through the film. But then the film makers expect me to have an attachment for her as she gets caught up in the craziness of the last half. This is like anti-writing 101. I can only have an emotional attachment to characters I've been through good and bad times with, which for an average movie, requires she have more than two scenes before the halfway mark.

Despite the ostentatious attitude, and the handling (mishandling?) of the story and characters, the movie wasn't /terrible/. If you've never seen the original then it might serve as some good, mindless entertainment to pass the time on a boring evening. If you're a fan of the original, it might serve as some amusement to see how they handled things in this version--just don't jump into it with your hopes too high like I did.

Don't waste any money on this movie. It is like a shell of its really scary original. Reminds me of a friend trying to tell me the plot of a movie but missing a lot and not understanding the original material.

First problem. Freddy is not scary. How any man in a red and green sweater with a burned face and razor fingers and be so bland is beyond me? Just not scary at all. Then the main character Nancy seems to have some socialization problems. She barely talks. Her character is so ill drawn, I still can't understand why should be be Freddy's favorite or why she would be looked to by the others. Plus there is no explanation as to how she would figure anything complicated out about how to destroy Freddy. She isn't that bright. I love that in this version they go to the internet to figure things out. While in the original they went to a hospital specializing in sleep disorders and they explained how the character came to figure things via a lot of time and research. Here, it just happens. I guess she found reviews of the original movie.

Much of the time that should have been spent on characterization is spent telling the story of Fred Kruger. Not worth it, it could have been taken care of with a few lines and the audience could have figured out the rest. I heard someplace they had planned on making Fred Kruger innocent in this version but took it out at the last moment. That would explain why so much of the movie is focused on Fred Kruger and then there is a quick change tacked on in the end.

Next problem, in the original Freddy was smart enough to make sure all the deaths appeared to be suicide / murder or at least unexplained. Here people are knifing themselves in public, while asleep, in front of many witnesses. Dying via exploding chest in a locked prison cell. And no investigator is concerned? No parent is concerned? No one ? Really? The list of "Freddy's" kids in this movie is considerably longer and no one is the slightest bit concerned that all the kids are dead - when the movie starts?

Then, the rules of the dream world keep changing. Freddy brings in one of the characters and tells him what the parents did. Huh? Are dreams ways for Freddy to chat with the kids? NO no they aren't for the rest of the movie and they weren't in the original. Why would Freddy care if the kids understood. NO no, he wants them dead. In the original it is Nancy who unravels the mystery on the outside of the dream world. Freddy doesn't help her out. Geeeze... lazy writing.

The ending of the movie is just as bizarre as the original but lacks the power of that scary ending. We were led to believe there that Nancy held the power based on her will while, here, it seemed like an accident or pure luck that Freddy was defeated. So when the tables turn here is is like - whatever. The whole time leading to that twist you are waiting for it to happen because things ended so quick and lucky for this Nancy. But in the original you are sure that the heroine has won and so it is that much scarier and creepy when the twist comes about.

In the past couple of years Hollywood has managed to remake the big three in horror.
Halloween, which turned out to be a complete failure.
Friday the 13th, while better than the Halloween remakes really wasn't that good or necessary either.
And now we come to my beloved Freddy.
I think we're all in agreement when I say, there is only one Freddy.
Past, present, future...Robert Englund.

I popped this in the player determined to hate it...
That opinion changed about five minutes into it.
It's not that the movie was good, this lightbulb just sort of went off in my head and I thought...

Would I have enjoyed the original Nightmare now as an adult?
Do kids now a days like the original?
The answer to that is, probably not.
I loved the original because I was a teen at the time.
Bad acting and all, I hold that movie dear becasue I was at the right age at the time I saw it.
Kids probably watch the original and laugh at all of it.
So with that in mind I really wanted to watch the remake with the eyes of who it was intended for.
The diehards are going to hate it no matter what, but just try and pretend the original never happened and this was the start of a brand new franchise...

With that attitude adjustment in mind here are my thoughts...

The good.
Jackie Haley turns in a chilling performance as Krueger.
No one, and I mean NO ONE could have done this character justice besides Haley.
The rest of the cast was decent, nothing memorable or spectacular.
The FX were also decent, maybe a tad overdone and phony in spots.

The bad.
The story itself just isn't that good.
The original had quite a bit of build up to the final fight.
This one....it just felt like everyone went though the motions to get the film done.
Nothing new, nothing innovative except Haley.

Sigh...by the time the movie was over I was glad.
It's not that it's a bad movie as a stand alone.
I really tried to watch it though the eyes of someone who's never seen Freddy before but that just didn't work.

Aside from Haley there is no real reason to see this entry.
Rent it if you must otherwise I can't really recommend it.
Typical slasher remake that fails to live up to the source material.
Bring Englund back if you make another, just find a talented cast, director and a decent script.
It shouldn't be THAT hard.

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.