A Nightmare on Elm Street

Audience Reviews

View All (1000+) audience reviews

Blu B What do you expect from something like this? Well that's kind of what you get. The acting isn't good. You know if there's one area where you could easily improve on is the acting department because the original cast was mixed at best and some were clearly better than others. And the fact they didn't improve but fell even shorter is a big red flag already. Nancy and all the others are very forgettable in general. The acting is so boring, wooden, lacking any emotion majority of the time. I have to say in general the kids in the 84' one especially Nancy are better. The new Freddy just isn't that good. He looks like a CGI alien from Promethus or Signs than a Horror villian. They clearly try to make him scary and the actor is clearly trying and giving it his all. But it just doesn't work that well for me. If the face was better than sure but it just took me out of any fear. The music is just alright too. It feels like a watered down version of the first mixed with a modern generic horror track and it just feels like it makes the score bogged down and forgettable. The editing is alright. The story makes sense, it doesn't feel that jumpy and probably the biggest accomplishment here is storywise it follows pretty much the same beats with a few changes. But in general it feels like it's not as focused. The jump scares that are dreams feel completely unneeded and cheap. And it's weird but Nancy feels like she's almost an afterthought now with two of them fighting Freddy. She barely gets any focus or development instead that goes to Freddy. the decision to make him a child predator is....fine on paper and could work but it doesn't add to anything storywise. If you take that out not much changes still. The cinematography isn't that good. The CGI moments are completely unneeded and look bad. This is so dark and dull to look at half the time. The iconic moments are at best fine and shot for shot copies or not dones as well. The direcion is pretty basic too. It's just very forgettable visually and this all leads to subpar pacing. I really struggle to find a reason why this should exist, and two one thing this does better. Skip This. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 02/20/25 Full Review Ian H It's OK, but living up to the original was always going to be tough. Everything just feels a bit meh, no depth or panache Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 02/19/25 Full Review Lain ☆ this MOVIE is a nightmare and I would rate it 0 stars if possible, Fredrick looks like an exploded stress ball, they took all the humor out of him and amplified the predatory behavior by 100x, changed Nancy's last name for no reason?? creepy ahh voice, cringe lines (BOO, seriously?) not scary, just hard to watch, added unnecessary and uncomfortable scenes of PRESCHOOLERS. made him a GARDENER?? Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 02/18/25 Full Review Sondra J S This Is Bad the graphics are Terrible Remakes are so bad man 1/10 Rated 1.5/5 Stars •  Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars 02/01/25 Full Review Alexander S The 2010 remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street almost succeeded in portraying Freddy Krueger in a serious manner. Since I preferred that approach, the film ultimately disappointed me because it attempted to be a shot-for-shot remake of the original without capitalizing on the chance to create something original. Instead, it gave us a dull and literal remake of the original, which failed to please fans of Freddy. Grading: C- Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 01/26/25 Full Review James B I quite like the new design of Freddy Krueger and I find the remake scarier although the CGI isn't good. I found it less boring and more faster paced than the original. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 01/24/25 Full Review Read all reviews

A Nightmare on Elm Street

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now