paulclaassen
I was overwhelmingly disappointed with this remake. Gone are the suspense and scares that made the original such a classic. It is not nearly as scary, effective or visually impressive as the original. Even the make-up looks so hastily done that it is not convincing. Jackie Earle Haley does a very poor rendition of the antagonist and is for most of the film not believable at all. Music video director turned film director, Samuel Bayer does not have the experience to revive the series. The film was just too big a task for him, me thinks.
adonis98-743-186503
The spectre of a dead child rapist haunts the children of the parents who murdered him, stalking and killing them in their dreams. Jackie Earle Harley is great as Freddy Krueger despite the terrible make up that was used on his face and his more serious perfomance as Freddy even tho it's nowhere near as good as Robert's is still really good. The rest of the cast with the exception of Kyle Gallner was a mixed back especially Mara's and Cassidy's as for Dekker and Lutz? Their perfomances were Terrible. The film has some nice scares and a nice origin for Krueger's twisted past but it's also a remake with some terrible over the top kills (like the Ending) and some awful cgi (like the one with the wall). Overall it's better than most of the previous films but it's nowhere near as good as the first or Dream Warriors and New Nightmare. (5.5/10)
IkhwanArif
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.
Caroline Phillips
This remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street might not reach the terrifying and imaginative heights of the 1984 original, but it has enough charms of its own to keep it from being a complete disaster.While in the original, we know that Freddy's a bad guy from the start, this film plays around with the notion that Freddy was possibly innocent and used as a scapegoat. It's a fascinating story line that could have really been something special, but it's thrown out by the end completely.The idea of micro-naps - tiny little moments where you think you're awake, but your mind is asleep - supply a few of the films scarier moments since these are the only dream sequences in the film that use the rubber reality that made the original franchise so suspenseful and scary. In those films, you never knew what was real and what was a dream until things slowly started to feel off. In this film, the entire color palette changes when characters into their dreams and it starts snowing in bedrooms and things like that. It's obvious and kills the suspense.Katie Cassidy is wonderful and charming as the "Tina" character in this film. Unfortunately, she's so appealing and the film gives her the first 30 minutes almost all to herself that when the film starts to turn its attention to Rooney Mara's Nancy, the film falls apart.Mara seems to be channeling a sullen Kristen Stewart with her performance, which makes her Nancy incredibly dull and unlikable. She's given great support by Kyle Gallner and Thomas Dekker, but they only make her performance appear flatter than it already is.The outrageous use of CGI makes everything look like a bad video game from the early 90's. They definitely haven't gotten the memo that less is more.All in all, this isn't the disaster you might be lead to believe. In fact, the first half hour or so is rather interesting, but it can't sustain a 90 minute movie. This is a rental or late night cable viewing at most.
AD
