24 May 2012

Terrible.

I hated this remake. 10 times worse than the Friday the 13th remake. It has NOTHING of what made the original a classic. The story and cast are boring and generic, and the guy playing Freddy is no where near as effective as Robert Englund. Terrible.

23 May 2012

Haley shines, but otherwise its a sleep-inducer

While there's really no reason to remake Wes Craven's cult original, I wondered what 20 years and a pile of mediocre sequels would breathe into the franchise and, of course, who would play Freddy. Following in the footsteps of Robert Englund is no small feat but Jackie Earle Haley (of Watchmen fame) was a great casting decision, and carries out the sadomasochistic teen-slashing quite convincingly. He does this despite the script so kudos for making something out of nothing.Unfortunately, the soon-to-be-slashed teens are somewhat less interesting, and mope between the compulsory "research the plot on the Internet" scenes and high-school melodrama. The parents of the talk-back teens seem to take any amount of nonsense from these kids and their only purpose in the movie is to hide "the big secret" that for some reason was so prominent in the movie's trailer.Although it's been a while and maybe Craven's version wasn't exactly full of rich, three-dimensional characters, the shallowness is painfully obvious with the limp dialog and genuinely appalling acting. But the biggest difference between the original and the remake is that the newer version has completely lost any sense of terror, and it's really hard to figure out why. Partly it's that the obligatory CGI upgrade has the effect of making Freddy less scary, and partly it's because we're just not emotionally invested in the actors, but the overall effect is that it's really not scary at all.And I know there are some die-hard fans out there who really like this "re-imagining", but you have to ask yourself when franchise reboots come along, what would Christopher Nolan do? Using the Nolan benchmark, I can only conclude this was a missed opportunity.

Scarecrow-88

23 May 2012

A Nightmare on Elm Street

Child molester Fred Krueger was burned alive by outraged parents andnow returns to kill those kids who pointed him out as a pedophilethrough their dreams, a nightmare monster who preys on them asteenagers, having first encountered these high school students as thegardener of a preschool they attended. Nancy (Rooney Mara; The Girlwith the Dragon Tattoo remake), potential boyfriend Quentin (KyleGallner; Jennifer's Body), Kris (Katie Cassidy; Black Christmasremake), Kris' ex-boyfriend Jesse (Thomas Dekker; Terminator: The SarahConnor Chronicles) and Kris's friend Dean (Kellan Lutz; Twilight) areall seeing Fred Krueger in their nightmares, eventually each arestalked after, trying to escape from his clutches—will any of themsurvive? Soulless remake is handsomely produced with an attractivecast. But the film is absent any personality, including the characters,without any fresh ideas for the Krueger character. Even classic scenesiconic to the first film are recycled here, such as the razor bladegloved hand rising between Nancy's legs while she is about to doze offin the bathtub, the bloody body bag of a victim pulled down the highschool hall, the victim hurled across her bedroom (up the walls andceiling before Fred silences her screams with a slash down the chest),and victims running in fear throughout Fred's boileroom. The film,while beautifully shot, lulls quite a bit, lacks impactful violence,and doesn't offer a very satisfying Freddy character, either, as hedoes appear from time to time, but unforgivably is rather ever scary asmuch as sleazy (which is probably the intent; there is more emphasis onhis past and that reverberates when Fred toys with Nancy, his *chosenone*) . Jackie Earle Haley impresses more as Fred before he's burntalive (in flashback memory sequences) than as the nightmare monster,with some rather disappointing burn make-up as well. I have to admit,there were times where I almost dosed off, never a problem with Wes'film. I kind of prefer the lack of polish in Wes' film while thisremake is quite glossy—I imagine the director had a lot of money thrownat him while Craven had to work with peanuts yet delivered a thrillride with some genuine atmosphere and chills. I will say that thefilmmakers pulled a nice PSYCHO on me as I was expecting a certaincharacter to be the lead, since she is rather established from thestart as the possible "final girl", the way slashers are known to do sowhich does fall in line with Wes' film as well. Mara might have gottenthe DRAGON TATTOO gig, but I hope she shows more of a pulse in thatmovie as her performance here was lifeless. Haley, a gifted actor, justhad nothing to work with here: his lines were flat, yet he was able toevoke a level of perversity and maliciousness under the unimpressiveburn make-up. Just as poor are some instances of CGI which pale next tothe practical work in Wes' film(again reiterating how man-made effectscan sometimes leave more of an impression than creating computergraphic images in a Hollywood studio). The Hollywood machine continuesto churn these out, barely any leaving much to be desired.

atinder

22 May 2012

Ending saved me from giving this movie 1 out 10

Freddy is back and now is be redone! When i saw the 1st trailer forthis movie, i did not like it one bit and i was thinking this moviewould be really bad, then came out with the second trailer which madethe movie look really good.The new Freddy was not as bad i thought it would be, it was creepy andmake up was not to bad, as we loved the old Freddy for some many years,i think it would to really hard replace old Freddy in one.I think the main problem is movie is the script,there is no atmospherein this movie at all, there was great ideas in this movie but it failedas there was no atmosphere in at all.The acting in this movie was not that good at all, it was almost as badthe acting from The Final Destination.The Girl who played Nacey's she was dreadful, she add the same faceexpressive for whole movie, they should paid for one scene and playthat over and over again, i don't think it would make that muchdifferent.The only reason i am giving this movie 3 out 10, it did somethingbetter the old one, the ending was really well made, i did enjoy thatgory moment and it did make Freddy scary at the end!

nativecodder

18 May 2012

Pretty good, BUT

I very rarely write reviews about films, but thought I'd weigh in onthis one.Overall I enjoyed the film. I was 11 when the original Nightmare cameout in 84, so it's been some time since I've seen it so I wasn't goinginto the theater comparing it based on a memory of the original film.My biggest issue with the film is I didn't believe the actors who wereplaying the victims are really high school students. Even withoutlooking at their real birth years, they just looked like college agekids in their 20's. If the characters were suppose to be collegestudents, then fine, yet we all know the characters are in high school.I was sitting there thinking there is no way these are high school kidsso it was hard for me to take that part seriously.Another technical aspect was you could tell that Jackie Earl Haley dida lot of ADR for this film. The tone/volume replacement was a littletoo loud. Something about it just didn't sit right with me.Overall I'll watch it again when it comes out on blu-ray. Maybe if Iwatch the original I'll notice things that I didn't like with this newfilm.

Dragon_slayer124

17 May 2012

I had enough of this stupid remakes.

i was actually hyped for this, sure it had mixed reviews. But peoplesaid that it was original. So i wanted to see this badly,and now andwant my 90 minutes back and my money. Why do they keep making thisremakes? The answer is of course money. The story is what makes themovie interesting. A dream demon named Freddy Kruger is killingteenagers in their dreams.The problem with the movie is that it keeps stealing from the originalbut gives nothing back. I wouldn't mind if the movie could make meafraid and get me frightened like it is supposed to. But at thebeginning of the movie you will notice that the movie follows a reallylinear path. It keeps trying to scare you over and over again, and inthe end it just feels ridiculous.The only thing that was good with the movie was the performance ofJackie Earle Haley who did a great job as Freddy Kruger. Sure he willnever be as good as Robert but he did OK.At the end i am really disappointed . I can't see a good reason forthis remake unless money. And i hope that they let the franchise die.

kevin_crighton

16 May 2012

Another poor and unnecessary remake.

So Platinum Dunes, not content to give us dull remakes of The TexasChain Saw Massacre and Friday The 13th, give us another horror iconremake in A Nightmare On Elm Street. And guess what? They've failedagain.The plot, as before has a bunch of teens being stalked in their dreamsby a man with a burnt, scarred face and a glove of blades on his hand.It's revealed during the events of the movie that then man (FreddyKrueger) was burned to death by their parents.Now the basic plot is very similar to the original. But the start ofthe problems of this movie, relate to where they writers have madechanges. In the original Freddy was a child-killer who got off on alegal technicality, and was burnt by the parents in revenge. Whatthey've done here is make Freddy Krueger a pedophile. The reason he isburnt to death is the parents getting him after listening to theirchildren describe what he did to them. So instead of a killer gettingoff then being killed for revenge, what we have here is a suggestion inthe story that the parents killed him without involving the police, to'protect' their kids. And at one point there is a possibility Freddywas innocent. Sounds good, but this doesn't work in the tale forseveral reasons, the main on to me being none of the kids even rememberany of the events from the past You'd think one of them at the veryleast would remember some of it.There are a couple of moments where you do jump in your seat, but don'tbe fooled for one moment that this is a scary movie. If done right, anymovie can make you jump in your seat if something unexpected happens(case in point, a death in The Departed). Overall though this movie isnot scary.It doesn't help that the director, Samuel Bayer chooses to re-createmoments from the original, but with none of the flair or imaginationthat Wes Craven did. But where the film is really let down is in thewriting. In the original, Nancy was the main character. Here, to beginwith her part downplayed, until a couple of deaths occur then she movesinto the lead heroine role. As a result her character never really getsa story arc, and you simply don't care if she survives at the end ornot. Mind you, the characters are so poorly written you don't care whathappens to any of them.As for the acting, the performances are adequate, without beingmemorable. although getting a good actor like Clancy Brown as one ofthe parents and then giving him nothing to do in the movie is a waste.Jackie Earle Haley steps into Robert Englund's shoes as Freddy and tobe fair isn't that bad, and s definitely the best thing about thisremake.I hope after this movie Platinum Dunes as a company finally gives up onthe remakes of the horror 'classics.' None of the ones they've done areas good as the originals, none have imagination, and none of them willstick in your head afterwards.Get the original Elm Street, and leave this one alone.

16 May 2012

Prepare yourself

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.

mcfly-31

16 May 2012

a daymare for movie-goers...

You knew it wouldn't work. And instead of reaching redundancy with allthe other chimer-ins, I'll cut my two cents to just a cent and a half.The new Nancy was completely unappealing and had zero charm. She wasn'tcute, she wasn't spunky, and she wasn't a fighter, all three of whichwere nicely exhibited by Heather Langenkamp in the original. Mara'sNancy doesn't speak up until the last two minutes of the film! Untilthat point, she reminds one of those nerd girls who hide in the cornerat parties, darting their eyes around while clutching a cup of beer,almost daring themselves to take a sip. The shot of her holed-up in herroom, bug-eyeing her mother in a low-whisper, speaks volumes.The blonde looked WAY too old to be a high school student, but at leasthad a hint of conviction to her situation. Of course, she's the "trick"character for the audience.The guys were all Twilight/Jonas Brother facsimiles who seemed stonedhalf the time; acting was fair, but did not engage.Kills were decent, but most were re-creations with a computer, so therereally wasn't anything to add on to them. That bendy, unnaturalappearance of dreamscapes and the glove bursting through people is sooverused by this point, that it has no punch. The music, at least,borrowed a few chords from the original score (SORELY needed for aflick this lackluster).Finally, Freddy. Instead of doing the usual praising of Englund andripping of Haley, I'll stick to the basics. Haley is too short, and tooslight, to be a threatening villain. During the full body shots, or ofhim at a distance, it looked like a teenager who hadn't filled out yetwas goofing in a rental costume. And, in a sense, his make-up is almosttoo real. The fact that he looks like a burn victim sort of sends afeeling of unease because of the authentic ones we've seen on the news.Englund's original "pizza" or rubbery appearance made him menacing, butnot awkward to look at. You could go on for six years about the voiceof choice. Haley's approached a drunken Englishman, stumbling out ofthe pub, dragging his tone in a haze. Really did reek of a fan-filmFreddy getting overmatched by the material.I didn't care about the characters, there was no sense of urgency, andbasically, it just very "remakey," like your typical modern-dayslasher. Nothing significant or compelling in the slightest. Didn'tCLANGING chords and overcranked dolly shots go out with the 'Scream'movies? It's beyond acceptable anymore, and don't get me started on thefinal shot, which negates the entire ending and is completelytelegraphed.Goodnight, Fred.

stojiljkovicvlajko

16 May 2012

Boring movie with a good ending

I must admit this movie wasn't a good horror slasher.Many teens do get killed by Freddy in their dreams, but their deathsare sterile. No black humor, no exaggerated violence, no HORROR!The problem in the plot is: Freddy Krueger only wants to kill a groupof teens that he tortured when he was alive (the plot is changed abit). That erases 70% of the excitement previous movies had, becauseit's obvious who will die next. From some reasons, Krueger usuallystabs his victims only once in the stomach, although they can't runaway from their dreams!The only good part is the ending. I won't spoil the fun and reveal it,but I must say it's one of the best Nightmare on Elm Street scenes. Toobad the rest of the movie isn't!

VampireOutlaw

14 May 2012

If you must watch this, see this first and then the original.

This lacks in so many things that I think makes the original soaffective. This lacks intensity and mystery on some essential level andthis makes it all too complicated. Also there are too many "boo"moments in this. Freddy's literally in it way too much.I dislike the idea that they stripped Freddy off of the essential ofbeing a child murderer all along and having pedophile tendencies onlyhinted in his behavior. Because 1.) I don't think pedophilia should befocused on in entertainment purposes like the NOES universe. Thoughthey never ever actually say the word or in any way directly say whatFreddy was but there are clear hints. 2.) Freddy's original point wasthat he was a child murderer more than a pedophile. "The SpringwoodSlasher".Not that idea of child murders would entertain me either but I canstand its use in fiction better than pedophilia. As the NOES universeisn't made for educational purposes. I think in NOES type of films theyshould stick to the more common horror stuff (as in murder/death)instead of trying to make entertainment out of (in my opinion) a moresensitive issue. What fascinates me in NOES is the idea of a mortal manbecoming a dreamworld monster able to do what Freddy does and how hecan be defeated. But the characterization and the background story isimportant too on the psychological affect, of course.Perhaps it was the fact that I'd read the earlier script and knew whatcould be expected in some familiar looking scenes is the reason whymany scenes didn't impress me much. But I'd say it was also that theywere just averagely done with not intense enough atmosphere. Especiallywhen subconsciously I was probably constantly comparing it to theatmosphere of the original film, which is more mysterious and moreintense.IE. "the ceiling scene" as in Tina's death. I first saw that scene fromthe original film when I was thirteen and have seen it numerous timessince but I still remember clear as yesterday that very first time. Ithink the same effect might be on people who see this remake firstbecause as stand-alone scene and without any comparison, it might bekinda impressive.But to me Kris's death was a pathetic version of Tina's. I'm not fan ofgore so I'm glad there wasn't as much of that in this version as therewas in the original but something else important is missing. Tina waschased first, then we see there's clearly someone invisible under thecovers with her, we see that invisible someone *drag* her up to and onthe ceiling while she makes dying sounds, then is dropped dead on tothe bed. And the gore happened bit by bit all the way.But Kris? She isn't chased, she literally floats up into the air - (WTFis up with that?!) - is hit against the ceiling, does a few acrobaticstunts on the ceiling for like 10 seconds, dropped on the bed and thenis graphically slashed once and she's dead. Plus Jesse VS. Rod, Rod'sintense reactions beats Jesse's slightly panicked reaction any day. Butthen again, as said the guys saw a very different toned death. Theremake scene left me a bit… "Ummm… OK? That was weird and quick"instead of scared/impressed. It's the psychological effect of thescenario and length and atmosphere that the remake scene lacks bigtime.But the film has its moments and Freddy his cool lines. "Oh God." "No.Just me." That scene's perhaps my favorite in the remake because it'sintense and has an interesting discussion, ending into another coolline "Why are you screaming? I haven't even cut you yet." and then hedoes something more or less unexpected. Even Freddy's stupid voice andstupid Voldemort-looks didn't bother at all.There were some impressive scenes like the first death which I totallydidn't expect to happen the way it did. And I think the actor of Freddydid well for having to work on so much less complex character.I think these are completely different stories with completelydifferent psychological themes. I like the original's better. I fail tograsp what's the remake's psychological theme since it doesn't seem tobe same as the originals: "the boogie-men and how to defeat them"combined to a supernatural reality.Whatever it is, I think the original's theme is better because it'smore easily relateable to anyone and it has a more haunting atmosphereand it doesn't make the background storyline too complicated.The haunting, mysterious, dream-like, boogiemen theme/aspect thisremake lacks in many ways. Yeah there's a lot of dreaming and a lot oftalk about insomnia and all that but they just lack in the atmosphere.I think it's partly because they put in the whole "micro naps" thingwhen one falls asleep without knowing it and thus they could not changethe atmosphere between the dream moments and the waking moments.I think this remake's makers were focusing too much on the backgroundstory and leading the characters and story into the source instead ofputting effort in making the current situation's horror moreeffective/atmospheric.So in the end I guess the remake can entertain but likely the bestthose who don't know the original story/movie and/or haven't seen it. Iwould recommend to watch the remake first if you're going to watch itat all. But in my opinion, you're not missing out on anything specialif you choose to ignore it and just see the original.

darkraven_109

14 May 2012

A generic slave of the original

After waiting for so long here (the Philippine release of "Nightmare"was a few weeks late), I finally got to watch one of my (personally)most awaited movies of this year; the remake/ reboot of the classic"Nightmare on Elm Street" films. So after watching everything from the1984 original to the pathetic "Freddy vs. Jason," was this new one anygood? Does it do justice to one of the most memorable horror films ofthe 80's? Well, sort of but it still falls to mediocrity. This movie isnot as horrible as many critics put it; it's just mediocre.If you watched the 1984 original, it wouldn't be hard to guess whatwould happen to this character and the next. The movie seems more likea word-for-word copy of the original rather than a reboot. For thefirst half of the film, majority of Freddy's first appearances arehighly similar to how he makes his presence felt in the original. Iknow it's a remake but at least try doing something new like how the2009 "Friday the 13th" executed its kills. Simply copying the killsinstead of creating new ones removes the sense of dread you get whentrying to guess what happens next.Another complaint is about the dreamworlds; they all look the same. TheNoES series may be known for bad sequels but it's also known for thecreative dream sequences where Freddy screws with his victims beforekilling them. Now, everyone ends up in the boiler room or somethingthat looks like it. What the hell... where were their worst fears?Where was Freddy screwing what could have been their own piece ofparadise? As for the good stuff, the film succeeds in bringing forththe dark atmosphere of Freddy's world. Maybe it was just due to thebrand new CGI effects but it still worked. Now, Freddy's world looks ahell lot scarier than it once was. This was helped by the fact that thenew Freddy wasn't as fun-loving as the Englund version. Now, he stalkshis victims while saying a one-liner or two but instead of laughing,you feel a bit disturbed. Haley's delivery on the character makesFreddy feel like he's more of a threat rather than a maniac clown withknives for fingers. Personally, I prefer Haley's Freddy over Englund's.As for the rest of the cast, everyone pretty much delivered but alittle more screen time would've been nice.Another good thing is that they actually bothered to change was theclimax. If you haven't watched this film yet, well, let's just say thisversion's climatic face-off is actually more realistic than the 80'soriginal that involved a booby trapped house and the power ofbelieving. While these helped keep the film alive, they aren't enoughto redeem the movie's story.So in the end, the new "Nightmare on Elm Street" does shed some newlight on the old franchise, but this is no "New Nightmare." Thisreboot/ remake is not good enough to redeem a franchise plagued bycrappy sequels but it will do well to pass the time. If you haven'twatched any of the old "Nightmares," then this could serve as astarting point for watching this franchise. If you did watch the theold "nightmares," especially the original, then this won't disappointbut it won't impress. Lower your expectations before watching.

ironiks

12 May 2012

my brain still hurt...

I thought I'd give a chance to the remake of a film that I loved when Iwas a teenager, but it was a terrible mistake, the whole movie isabsolutely pointless! I think the first and biggest mistake of thismovie is 'Freddy'! I'm sorry but you cannot give a pair of scissors anda striped shirt to a hobbit and expect it to be scary. With all duerespect to Jackie Earl Haley, that I found great in Watchmen, thiswasn't a role for him. The rest of the movie is only disappointmentover disappointment... the only light in the tunnel was Katie Cassidy..she's pretty enough to make you forget that you're watching thecrappiest remake ever.

dfiorentino415

12 May 2012

an attempt of an unbiased review..for those who love the series and those new to it

I think it's a bit unfair to totally blast the movie if we are trulybeing unbiased. If i just try to watch through this as if the nightmareon elm street never happened I'd say it is a halfway decent flick. thatbeing said, and being a huge fan of the franchise, it did not performanywhere near my expectations and did not do the original greatjustice. The story was altered a bit, and their was lack of originalityin the plot, but although Jackie Haley was no Robert Englund he did animpressive job as Freddy. He was dark and evil and there are mixedopinions on the realism approach to the burn scars on his face..but allthat aside, Haley was a good choice to play Freddy. His performanceshould not go unrecognized regardless of the poor direction, writing,and substance of the rest of the movie. The tension, thrills, killswere lackluster and much of the acting was victim to the substance inthe scripts. Not their fault. The best kills were exact kills we'veseen with no artistic touches or creativity anywhere. Truly upsettingthis was done with zero passion for the series and it's appeal. It'ssole intent is cashing in on the times and nothing more. I do stillthink it was worth a watch..and for those who maybe never saw the firstone..it wouldn't be as bad bc there would be no frame of reference tocompare. I myself love Freddy the character but my favorites are thedarker titles in the series. I enjoyed the first one, dream warriors,the concept of new nightmare was outstanding to keep the nightmareseries interesting (i think it was genius but could have been donebetter maybe with more budget and fell victim to the more comedic lessserious entries to the series), and yes i did enjoy Freddy vs Jasonjust because it was cool to see those two stories intertwined and thefight scenes were nice. I watched that movie with a less then seriousapproach and it's probably why I was able to truly enjoy it. I feelwatching this nightmare on elm street remake or reboot should be viewedwith little expectation to enjoy it. If you expect too much you will bedisappointed but if you realize it is the 9th installment, remakes areusually not as good, and Wes craven was not involved, then try to watchit with a less analytical/comparing approach. It was worth watchingJackie Haley's performance...I just wish some of the other parts of theformula such as direction, writing, etc were in different hands. Assaid earlier, it seemed more of a cashing in on the times with aclassic of old and nothing more...no passion to do it right. Americanmovies have become formulas re used, classic stories done again andagain, or international stories applied to our culture. The problem tome is NO ORIGINALITY or UNIQUENESS ANYMORE..or not much at least. Whereis the want to try something different and show us something that'syours. Christopher Nolan's vision and portrayal of the darker morecomic book like Batman was phenomenal. It's OK if great stories aretold again but what makes it YOURS?

10 May 2012

Well, they got Freddy right, but thats about it....

Yes, Freddy is back, and by back I mean he's back in the same vein his character was portrayed in the first Nightmare on Elm Street written and directed by Wes Craven. Sorry, hate to break it to all the 'kiddies' running rampant on the internet claiming the new Freddy is 'darker.' He's not. He's the same as he was back in 1984, and the same as Robert Englund portayed him. This remake complicates his origin story, and makes it the main focus of the plot strewn into a mystery, but it's all the same. Jackie Earle Haley does his thing, and does it well, but it's nothing new.That's the problem with this remake. The creators thought 'something new' meant throwing red herrings into the story making it seem that Freddy was wrongfully murdered by the parents of Springwood, but rest assured, AND NO THIS CAN'T BE A SPOILER TO ANYONE WITH HALF A HALF A BRAIN, that Freddy did what he was accused of to the children. Unfortunately, and even if you NEVER saw the original, this is obvious the whole time and the film doesn't let the audience know this fact until the begining of the third act. YAWN. Until this plot 'revelation' we have to sit through our teen characters getting picked off one by one classic 80's dead teenager movie style. All the nightmare sequences are dull and suspenseless, if not shot beautifully. My biggest gripe with this film is the lack of atmosphere, due mostly to the horrible editing. A good example would be a scene where our Janet Leigh stand in-feaux final girl Kris falls asleep in class. She wakes to a burnt version of the classroom and then enters another version of the same classroom drenched and puddled with water. I've been staring at photos of these sets in Fangoria for three months or so. They look great and creepy and ATMOSPHERIC, but in the film's chop-chop get to the cheesy jump scare and show Freedy editing, the creep factor is lost. Completely lost. The edit botch job, lack of suspense, and genuine disturbing scars wreaks of the Michael Bay school of mind-numbing filmmaking. And why shoudln't it? He produced this unnecessary remake. Oh, and Jablonsky's score is the same old same old. Loud stings that indicate a jump rather then creepy atmosphere or genuine scars. The best parts of the score are when Jablonsky references the first film's score and what eventually became Freddy's theme.Wes Craven, whether his films succeed or not, is a cerebreal filmmaker. The first Nightmare had lots to say about the consequences of parents behaving badly. Parents who spend so much extreme time and effort protecting their children that they forget or don't bother to actually listen to their children. This film hints at it with a few scenes between this remake's Johnny Depp/Glen stand-in Quentin and his father played by the wasted Clancy Brown. I was excited to see Clancy Brown in this film. He's a solid actor and always gives his scenes his large presence, while almost doing nothing, but the script, or what it was mangled into gives him lip service.Wesley Strick(Cape Fear 1991) wrote the story for this remake, and got screenwriting credit, but I get the feeling that the second name next to the 'screenplay by' credit was hired by the Platinum Dunes folks to dumb down, speed up and force feed his original concept for this film. Hopefully, I will find out if Strick gives an interview to Fangoria or is involved with the Blu Ray release's supplimentary materials.....Yes, I will own this film when it comes out. I suffer from being part of the 'Fred-Head' society. I have all the films in this series-EVEN PART 5 AND 6! Which brings me to my final point: the film is watchable if you love Freddy like I do. It's no worse then the third or fourth, but it's lighyears better then parts 2,5 and 6. It doesn't improve upon the original, and its a million years away from the series high mark, and most unofficial entry, Wes Craven's New Nightmare(best in the series in my opinion). This remake is effective as long as you know what to expect, which I have hopefully described thus far. It's got jumps. It's fast. The third act is really good. The new Freddy make-up may be the only improvement on the old series. It's truly disturbing and realistic. The acting, which is the biggest surprise to me, is all good. THough, the character of Kris looks a little too old to be going to high school. There's a scene where she steps out of her car and straps on her backpack and it just looks wrong to me. The two lead characters of Nancy and Quentin have great chemistry and these two actors are very effective and sympathetic. The rest of the teen cast doesn't have enough screen time or enough to do to really guage anything, but they always seem real at least.This film is a diverting time waster of horror. It'll be forgotten....until the sequel, which will happen. Whether or not the sequels string fans along as far as the original series did is yet to be seen, but I garuntee at least a part 2PS: Is anyone else scared by people who rate a film poorly or well based on how KEWL the kills were? Please tell me that people who say things like that are at least no older then 14! Cool kills? Creative kills? Is a film scarier if the kills are KEWL? Who thinks that way? The brain dead or those who have yet to appreciate what makes a good horror film?

10 May 2012

i loved it

i thought it was good really enjoyed it saw it 2 times have no complaints other than i want more to see the scences that where deleted and see a sequel

Jwdjrs

06 May 2012

Better than I might have expected

I'll say Job well done! I really, really liked it. I'll admit thatJackie Earle Haley looked a little bit ridiculous. I thought the new 'Freddy Krueger ' looks like a rat. But it makes me laugh, so I like it.The whole plot and storyline is great and it is a bit wacky but it wasstill really, really good. SPOILER ALERTS....! If you haven't seen itdo not keep reading. ....... Kris's death had a lot more specialeffects than the original ' Nightmare '. Jesse's death was a lotdifferent (in a good way). The only sort of cheesy part was wheneverFreddy was killed. Whenever I saw that part, I said, " Okay, that was alittle weird.". I do agree with people that the originals were betterthan this one. And I'll also agree that Robert Englund was far morebetter than Jackie Earle Haley will ever be at Freddy Krueger. RobertEnglund was awesome at being Freddy. I did love this one, though. Ihope the sequel will be good. A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2 issupposed to come out some this year (2011) or sometime next year(2012). Many people hate this movie, but I personally loved it. JobWell Done!!

Loveofthedark

06 May 2012

Not even sure this counts as Horror......May contain Spoilers!!!

I have to start out by saying that if you rented this DVD, take it backimmediately and DO NOT subject yourself to this travesty! I do not knowhow you can take something that was so good and just needed a littlemodern updating and destroy it so thoroughly. Either way that isexactly what has been done with this movie.First off why was Robert Englund not in this movie? No one can replacehim as Freddy and he is still an excellent actor (ex. "2001 Maniacs","Hatchet" but please exclude "Zombie Strippers" from the list). This"new" Freddy is just laughable. Every time he spoke a line I cringed,not from fear mind you but from the raspy whine of a voice he used.Compared to the other actors he seemed rather short (height wise) to meand not so threatening. This remake should of been assigned to WesCraven again or offered at least to Rob Zombie who has become very goodat remaking the Halloween movies.To sum it up and to voice my other complaints the movie and storylinewas rushed, the characters were hollow and unrelatable and honestly Iwas rooting for them to die just so I wouldn't have to suffer the painof this experience any longer. The only fresh face I saw and was happyto see her in a horror movie but saddened it had to be this disasterwas Connie Britton. Even Kellan Lutz who I think is making his waythrough Hollywood nicely couldn't help this movie. So PLEASE for thelove of all thats holy, if you are a serious horror movie genre fan anda fan of the originals like myself DO NOT subject yourself to this, Iam still having my own nightmares about it.

peeet009

06 May 2012

Not really good

So i saw this movie in the cinema and i have watched all the old onceas well. Wansnt that great, in fact the only good thing about thismovie was the beginning. I watched this movie at home the other day,couldn't keep my attention on this. Freddy wasn't scary at all. Freddyreally looks fake to me, like a mask on someone's face. About the story itself; There is this man, Freddy Krueger, who did ordid not hurt children when they were little. This man hunts these kids(now a bit older) down, since the parents of those kids killed Freddy.(short version). This movie is fun to watch, if you have NOT seen the old once. If youlike scary movies, there is no need to watch this one.

Jamie Sewell

06 May 2012

Such a shame... no way near as good as the original!!

Anyone who's seen the original will agree this was an awful moneymaking remake of a classic horror which could have been amazing but itjust wasn't...Seriously, if i had the chance to remake a movie like this.. it wouldhave been awesome...So much was missed out by this director.. the casting was terrible, theacting was lame, the story was choppy, there was no background build upwith the characters at all so I really couldn't care less when theystarted to die. There was hardly any nightmarish scenes with Freddybeing mensing which I obviously expected and was really looking forwardtoo. Instead of creepy acting and eerie scenes the director justdecided to overdo the music score to build up tension which just didn'thave the desired affect and was obviously just to cover up the flatacting and equally flat script. The guy who played Freddy was OK Isuppose but he just wasn't scary enough to look at and didn't reallycreep me out as much as Robert Englund did.The whole charade was lacking everything I liked about the firstNightmare On Elm Street movie due to the complete lack of vision andstory telling by the director.Throughout the whole movie I had my head in my hands thinking " WHY OHWHY IS IT THAT NO GOOD DIRECTOR EVER GETS THE CHANCE TO REMAKE CLASSICSLIKE THIS...WHY??"I think it should be a rule in future by which all remakes of horrorsMUST be as good as or better than the original in order to be released.I mean, it must obvious to them and everybody around them when theymake a dud movie which is blatantly going to flop?? All be it afterafter raking in some initial cash at the box office of course beforefading out into a forgettable mess..So many classic horrors get remade by rubbish directors who just haveno idea or loyalty to the original masterpieces. They have no idea howto set a scary scene at all.. such a shame... could've been great.. butit was a terrible and very forgettable money making piece of steamingcrap.Will all Michael Bay's and other similar phonies please sit down andstay down because my Granny could do a better job than you lot!!Rant over...Whats next... Poltergeist?? hahaha.. oh dear oh dear..