VividSimon Simply Perfect

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

undeaddt If horror cult movies keep going this way they will surely ruin their legacy. At some points, this movie is funny how bad it is and when that happens to a horror movie, you know it can't be any worse. The acting was okay for my standards, the CGI was okay also, but man, did Freddy look bad. His face was so badly made, it didn't even look like him. And of course, the script was afwul, the way the movie progressed was toxic and that made everything look worse that it actually is.

spikeymikey1981 This comes with a caveat: I've never seen any of the original Nightmare on Elm Street movies. I've never been a huge fan of the horror genre. I'm not opposed to the occasional horror movie, I'm just not a fanatic like some people are.Viewing it through that lens - as someone who had no preconceived notions of what it should be and who doesn't watch a ton of horror to begin with - I thought it was great. The action was nicely spaced throughout the movie, keeping the tension up without the deaths feeling too forced. It was not B movie buckets o' blood, but it didn't shy away from gore either. All in all, it looked very well produced. It was polished, entertaining and several times I found myself annoyed or sad because of what was going on in the movie. If you can draw me in enough for me to start feeling emotions for the characters, I think you've succeeded in making a good movie.I give it a 7/10 because it's not one of my favorite movies ever, but I'd certainly watch it again and recommend it to friends.

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.

KillerRomance 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.