Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

IssaGuy This is a pathetic remake of a beloved classic. I do like the Friday The 13th remake and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake but this is weak. The script is the same as the original but a crappy/modernize version, poorly executed story, and block of wood characters (aka emotionless acting). Nancy in this movie is so bland but I think the writing ruined it. THE JUMPSCARES!! Knock it off already they're not scary, they're ANNOYING!!!!!! I use to defend this movie for 5 years since 4th grade and as a freshmen at High School it's poorly directed. Overall bad remake I don't recommend it. Watch the original instead.

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.

Stephen Abell 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.

austinkunkle I have been waiting for the 2010 nightmare on elm street since,well,2009. I have been waiting around the time by watching all of the old ones time after time after time. I have to say,even for a Micheal Bay film,it was pretty dark and not all the way sexual,except when they mentioned Freddy Kruger as a child molester,even though in the old ones,he's a child killer.That's the only thing I hated about this movie. Of course in the movie there was nothing to show that he was a molester;he was doing his normal Freddy stuff. So I have to say this wasn't a bad movie. But as far as favorites go, I have to say the 1984 is and always will be the number 1 best. With best to worse,number 1 is the best. 7,3,Freddy vs Jason,the remake,5,6,4,and 2 are from greatest to worst. So that's my scale to show that the remake wasn't really that bad to me.