A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Short and sweet. Ridiculous story, horrible CG makeup, but the saving grace was Jackie Earle Haley. Could not have been a better Freddy Krueger other than Robert Englund. He was so perfect for the role, just wish he had a better screenplay and director.

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.

Once, the production house of New Line Cinema meant new and groundbreaking films, especially the Nightmare On Elm Street Series, and excluding the terrible part VI - Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, were pretty decent at doing that.So they decide to try and breath life into a long dead Kruger and bring the nightmares back to life for a new set of fans...... er... No.This is a travesty of a reboot. Mistake number one - they try to remake the first film with a few "adjustments" to the storyline to make it fresh and bring it up to date. This isn't fully utilised, as we're living in a modern world with internet, cell phones, and all types of other gizmo's that should have featured in the nightmare-scapes of Krueger's victims. See the tongue, out of the phone in the original part two, Freddy's Revenge, and Freddy's knives becoming syringes in the original part three, Dream Warriors.Mistake number two - Bad direction, Samuel Bayer relies on sound bursts way too much to make his audience jump. This is sloppy directing. With a story most people know, if you're not going to give your audience something new then you have to do a good job of being able to really scare them. There's NO build up of tension or suspense and this creates a lack of atmosphere that was very tangible in the original run.Mistake number three - Bad characterisation. None of the cast appears to have any depth, they all feel more two-dimensional than three. This isn't too bad a thing with the minor characters, but with the main characters, it's essential to create empathy and to feel sadness and terror when their situations take a turn for the worst. The major calamity in this instance is Freddy Krueger, where Robert England made it his own, Jackie Earle Haley comes nowhere near. This is more than a shame as Haley is a good actor, who did a splendid job as Rorschach in Watchmen. If he had produced a character similar in mannerisms, as the Nightmare Krueger, this would have helped make him a more terrifying and powerful character, which Freddy IS. However, this Freddy isn't anybody to be scared of Robert England is still KING!Everything that a horror film should be is missing from this movie.What could have made the movie better?Do Not remake the first film; use a completely different story. Skipp and Spector, two great horror writers helped pen the original part five, The Dream Child. It was also reported they'd wrote a story for the sixth film, "Bastard Son Of A Thousand Maniacs", which is one hell of a title and it went all the way back to Freddy's conception. This would have been an awesome place to start. Add in better characterisations and you're on your way.Then you would have to get a director that understood horror, terror, and suspense, as well as Wes Craven, did.Next, add imagination, which was rife in the original series... a bed cloth twisting and turning itself into a noose, a boy's veins pulled out of his body to make him a human puppet. Come on people nightmares are people's imagination dropped into the Darkside.I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, save your money... or better yet spend it on buying the original film series box set and see how it should be done.

Being a child of the eighties, it was Jason, Chucky and Freddy being our Mummy, Frankenstein and Dracula, they were the ultimate entertainment culture icons. The Mummy and Chucky got a reinvention and returned to being fearful and the same treatment happened with this production with Freddy Krueger. I know the older generation want to dismiss this movie because now Jackie Earle Haley is picking up the razored glove, and Robert Englund was happy to pass on the role because it is good to experiment with a character to be taken to another light. If it was such a big deal that the role should be played by Robert then more contracts would be made that no Actors are allowed to play Freddy. The big difference is what the Actor would feel behind the latex mask. Robert Englund brought comedy to the role and has this Loki personality as a dangerous Child Killer, but along came the Series the New Nightmares and the horror is missing. Don't get me wrong, Robert is good, but Jackie Earle Haley was shocking like an animated corpse and countenance from Burned casualty Ward with vacant eyes, and has the concept that Wes Craven would want to portray Krueger was a Child Molester. Jackie was vile and perverted with his Victims and pulled it off well. The cast of the Teenagers were excellent, unlike the original who were fun loving and carefree with a habit of debauchery a bit annoyingly immature, the cast in this movie has expanded, the high school kids of Springwood that came across Freddy looked aged and troubled, you can tell they been through a lot with a secret past. The Script is well written, the special effects are a crescendo of cinematic dream-fest, welcome to trance world. This movie is so underrated and should be watched to be enjoyed otherwise it is a waste of time to judge a movie with expectations before seeing it. Forget the original for while and DO NOT expect anything that you normally want from this movie. Watch it without counterattack, you will see a master piece all over again.