A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 (2010) Other movies recommended for you
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010(in Hollywood Movies) A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 (2010) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: The spectre of a dead child rapist haunts the children of the parents who murdered him, stalking and killing them in their dreams. Runtime: 95 mins Release Date: 30 Apr 2010
A great entry for the Elm St franchise, but not as good as the original. (by babemagnet101)
It was definitely Platinum Dunes' best movie. The first 30-45 minutes were very powerful, and then it kind of slacked, but came back at the end. Nevertheless, I surprisingly never lost interest, something I was kind of expecting, because I've been keeping up with this movie for almost a year now. It held me to the very end, and I never got bored with it.Putting the movie up against the original, it failed. But putting it up against the entire Nightmare franchise, I'd say it was better than all the sequels. A very worthy entry, a great popcorn movie, and a great comeback to an icon <more>
who hasn't had a movie completely to himself in 16 years. I'll definitely buy it when it comes out.Putting it in the context of remakes/reboots, I'd say it was above RZ's Halloween II, Stepfather, Friday The 13th, Texas Chainsaw, and The Wolfman, but lower than Hills Have Eyes and Last House On The Left.7.5/10 Leaning towards an 8
People never gave this film a chance (by jeremy-david-kuehnau)
I must be the small percent of people who actually enjoyed this movie a lot. I think the biggest problem a lot of people had with the new movie was it wasn't the old franchise. People get certain expectations in their heads when Hollywood comes out with a new movie based on a old franchise and when it doesn't meet those expectations, you better watch out, because no matter what you do, people won't agree with it.As soon as they announced the original actor for Kruger wasn't going to taking up his old role, people should have known this movie was going to take a hit. People <more>
were just not going to forgive the fact that Robert Englund was not going to be starring in the film. The original Nightmare on Elm Street movies never took themselves very seriously, they were campy, B-Horror quality films that people learned to love and enjoy. While Kruger was still a murdering horror icon, he was more of a joker, a prankster and a wise cracker then some sort of super villain.I think people also disliked the fact how much more villainous they actually made Kruger. A lot of people disliked the fact they made him a child molester. The reality of it is, even from the old franchise they were planning on making Kruger a child molester, but when a major court case involving an actual child molester began to take trial they didn't want people thinking their movie had anything to do with the actual person on trial and changed Kruger from a child molester to simply a murderer. The reality of it is, as on it's own, this is a good movie. It's unfortunate that there are such die hard fans that they can't even keep an open mind, I thought it was a fantastic movie and I am glad it was produced. Hopefully those negative oldies didn't ruin it for the rest of us, I'd like to see another one.
OK, a lot of people hate remakes. I, on the other hand, love them. They bring the classics to the people of this generation where we can actually watch them without laughing. I tried to watch the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" from the 1980's and it was laughable. The acting was bad, the blood was so fake it looked like juice, and the dialog was so bad a 3rd grader could have written it. This, however, was smart, scary, suspenseful, gory, surprising, and a great movie all together. Yes, it is a remake, and yes, i liked it a lot more than the original. It stuck to the <more>
original without completely copying it. It had enough new material to keep it fresh, but was still faithful to the original. Remakes are some of the best things ever because it brings the old classics to this generation, and you would probably only like the original better if you grew up with it.
In defense of "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 " (by rutgeralan)
Let me preface this by stating that the haters of this film have been out in full force trashing it before it had even opened for viewing; critics had blasted the "horrible, banal, acting", "hackneyed jokes and predictable scares", and "the inappropriate historical back-story of Krueger". Unlike most of the critical reviewers, I have seen the entire film franchise of Nightmare on Elm Street from part I to Dream Warriors and yes even, Freddy V Jason, and I am here to say with confidence that this film not only does justice to the historical precedents set by the <more>
original, but furthers its future existence into the next realm of this new decade. Let's be frank, Freddy needed a new start, an introduction to a whole new generation of dream frightened teenagers. The idea of Freddy is still as fresh as ever and its repackaging was much needed. I feel like the director and the cast did a great job of reinventing the film franchise while also paying homage to past Freddy films. Now, in response to the criticisms': This movie has strong performances by Rooney Mara as Nancy, Kyle Gallner as Quentin, and of course Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger. I was never a big fan of the original Nancy, but this movie provides great character development of Nancy, and allows the audience an opportunity to gradually sympathize with her, and eventually root for her in the final sequences. It was a strong, underplayed, performance by Rooney Mara. Kyle Gallner almost steals the show as a medicated, emotionally damaged, friend of Nancy. His acting is both tortured and genuine, which is apt for the horror movie. He may turn out to be the "Johnny Depp" of the new Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. Ever since I saw Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschac in Watchmen I have been in love with the guy, and when I heard that he was cast as the new Krueger, I thought there wasn't a more appropriate actor in Hollywood for the role. He is, in a word, perfect. Now, I am not comparing him to Robert Englund, who was masterful as Krueger for all the previous films, but Haley has the potential, in future films, to take the franchise to a new level. The jokes are what make Freddy Kreuger so unique and endearing. Yes, it is kitchy, but they serve a vital role in the film's success, in that periods of brevity allow the audience to catch its collective breath in anticipation of the next scare, which, despite what the critics have wrote, does catch you off guard at times. If there were a recording of these critics' viewing of the film, I'm positive you'd have seen some eyes wide open, mouths gaping, and body shaking from these jokers. As far as the historical back-story goes, it is a serious subject that perhaps should have been dressed down a bit for the film, but in today's era of Rob Zombie's Halloween and the Dark Knight, character development and realistic back stories describing current psychological underpinnings of characters are a necessity in today's age. This is why I believe this film is not only solid, with justice paid to the original, I also believe this franchise has great potential to be treated with some degree of seriousness in terms of the psychological explanations of Freddy's motives. Overall, I gave this film a 9 out of 10 because while there still is room to improve, it is a solidly acted, visually impressive, nicely directed beginning to the Freddy Krueger franchise.
Like Marmite - You'll Love it or Hate it. I love it. (by DistantJ)
2010's A Nightmare on Elm Street is a remake/re-imagining of Wes Craven's supernatural slasher classic about a group of teenagers being tormented by badly burned killer Fred Krueger in their dreams, with wounds inflicted in said nightmares manifesting themselves in the real world.There's a good reason that as of the writing of this review this movie's average IMDb rating is smack-bang in the middle, a perfect 5/10. This is as much of a re-imagining and re- thinking of the series as Rob Zombie's Halloween was. Unlike the recent Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street <more>
has been taken back to the drawing board, to it's very basic premise, and re-thought for 2010.To put it simply, we're not looking at the same movie with modern day effects here. We're looking at Wes Craven's idea coupled with today's growing concern about paedophiles as well as what we now know about dreams, insomnia and repressed memories. In fact, until the end of the movie, one might be lead to think that the characters are in fact being killed by their own repressed memories, and not some kind of supernatural dream-killer.Fans of the original will remember the intentional ambiguity of Freddy's past, starting off as a child killer who got away with it, killed by angry town folk taking the law into their own hands, and becoming more and more bizarre as the series went on, involving the strange circumstances of his conception, and a lot of religious undertones. This time around, Krueger's past is made a little more clear, and this is what will make or break the movie for a lot of people. Many were upset by Rob Zombie's choice to explore Michael Myers' past in Halloween, as they felt that a mysterious, faceless enigma is scarier than somebody you know everything about.I beg to differ... The slasher genre has slowly become a parody of itself, especially after the ingenious Scream quite literally stating all of the rules and clichés, and even if we can block out their knowledge of the 'rules', the killer still often becomes the protagonist in our minds as we become more interested in how they will pick off the next dumb, drunk teenager than who will survive.This is where Freddy's backstory comes in. Once you know what he is though still ambiguous through most of the movie, it does start to become pretty clear eventually , you will hate him, fear him, and most definitely root for the heroes of the picture. Freddy's backstory is more disturbing than the original version, and things which Craven may have intended, but never outright said, come to light here.I will also tell you this - a newcomer to Freddy would probably do better watching this film than a hardcore fan of the original series. Firstly some of the strongest moments in this version are lifted straight out of the original, but more importantly the story is told in a completely different way. Surprisingly, this is not a teenage slasher flick. None of the stereotypes appear here - there's no token black guy, no cheerleader, no geeky do-gooder girl - and there are no house-parties or scenes of characters getting drunk and sleeping with one another. In fact, I don't recall any 'happy' scenes in at all, since we begin the movie with all of the characters already affected by these nightmares.This, in the long run, leads the movie into much more of a mystery-horror like The Ring, where the primary concern of our remaining characters is staying alive and awake long enough to find out the truth and possibly shed some light on how to save themselves, rather than who is going to die next. On the down side, this does mean we have to spend the first twenty minutes trying to relate to the characters as they get stalked by night and attend funerals by day, and it can be difficult to pick which to try and follow as they are slowly picked off. It pays off once the cast has been nicely 'pruned' though as the few remaining characters really hold your attention and there are none of the "he just went in there on his own, I can tell he's going to die" moments.So how is Freddy? Robert Englund kept in the role for such a long time that it does become hard to imagine anybody else with the striped sweater and finger-blades, but equally hard to imagine him becoming scary again after the 'wise-cracker' character he became. If you ask me, the only way to have truly brought back Freddy's terrifying nature from the original movie was to re- cast and re-design him, and that's exactly what has been done. Englund has been replaced by Jackie Earle Haley - that would be Rorschach from the brilliant Watchmen - and his make-up, rather than being based on Englund's look, is what, in anybody's imagination, a horribly burned murderer would look like. It will upset some fans, but will scare newcomers in the same way that Englund did in the 70s. Make-up aside, Jackie's acting is, as usual, brilliant, both as burn victim Freddy and as the past Fred Krueger.I could go on all day about how anybody with an open mind should ignore all of the fan-boy hatred, but there is a 1,000 word limit here. 'Elm Street recreates a brilliant idea from the 70s in a way that is relevant to 2010 and once again scary and believable. Like I will say about Rob Zombie's take on Halloween, this is by far the scariest the series has been since the original movie, and the perfect way to keep such a brilliant idea alive. As such it's probably better for newcomers, but fans will smile at the number of references to the classics, with character names and lines from movies all across the series, even Freddy vs. Jason.
A great new spin on a classic horror story. (by big_surfer_niko)
I just got out of the midnight showing of this movie and I absolutely loved it. The pacing was a lot quicker than the original and the characters aren't quite as well developed but I think it works because Freddy has so much screen time in this one. This movie basically takes the best deaths of the original and grows upon them. I have always been a fan of these slasher movies and we all know that none of them are masterpieces. Obviously, if you're looking for a story with a strong plot and great characters you should know not to be watching a slasher flick. I thought that this was <more>
probably the best remake of all of the modern takes on these movies. Much stronger than Friday the 13th and Halloween yet I still enjoyed both . My only big complaint is the back story of Freddy has been changed to quite an extent. If you're a fan of the originals then you should be able to point it out easily, and to an extent it takes away from how evil Freddy was before died and became the dream killer. All-in-all, a great modernization.
I grew up as a kid watching all the Freddy movies. I thought Freddy was a whole lot cooler than Santa Claus, and I thought he was a lot more interesting. They all have a special place in my heart. As the series went along, Freddy became less scary. He wasn't scary like he was in the first two movies. He went from being a very scary, very mean guy to just being a scary clown, with more emphasis on the clown aspect. Then he was scary again in New Nightmare. And then he was somewhere in between in Freddy vs. Jason. Either way, Englund was in top form in every single incarnation. So of <more>
course, the first thing on everyone's mind is how in the hell will Jackie Earle Haley top what Englund has created. I asked myself that. I had hoped in the back of my mind that Jackie would do for Freddy what Heath Ledger did for The Joker. After watching this, and liking Jackie, I came to the conclusion that nobody, no matter how good of an actor, will ever top Robert Englund. Ever. Heath Ledger didn't top Jack Nicholson as the Joker because Heath Ledger simply was THE Joker. In a sense, the role of Freddy is like the Joker; it goes from simply trying to top an actor to just giving up and realizing that the original actor can't be topped, in which case, you simply have to make it different and make it your own. Which is probably what Haley did. It's like if someone were to try and top Ledger's Joker: It wouldn't be possible, so they just do the next best thing: Make the character their own and give their own awesome take on it; it might not live up to the original, but it can still be a good performance. Simply put, Robert Englund IS Freddy, and the only thing another actor can do is simply give a different interpretation and make it a good alternative.I really liked Haley's take on Freddy Krueger, and in all, I really liked this take on Elm Street in general. In comparison to the other movies, this one seems to have more weight, it seems much meatier. It makes you think about things a lot more than the old movies did. They do this by giving Freddy a human side, a back story. I'm sure people are all angry reading this, thinking, "Humanizing Freddy, what the hell, what a disgrace, blah blah blah LOL!" He's not humanized in a cheap crappy way. Nothing about the character is really changed, he's just explored more than he was in other movies. It's not like Rob Zombie's crappy Halloween movies where they show Michael as a child and therefore kill off whatever mystique Myers had and shed light on what he was like. The difference is that knowing Michael was human didn't change anything, it was unnecessary. He was a different villain. Freddy, on the other hand, is a person, he's human. His motivations, his thought process, everything about him that is pure evil is taken up another notch and is made a little more disturbing because you know that he is a man, a very, very evil man.This remake was really interesting to me because they made Freddy a really ambiguous character. Throughout the movie, you're left wondering whether or not he's actually guilty of harming the children. During the first half, it seems very likely that he was wrongly accused, and during that same half, you're left thinking that all of his killing might just be because he's legitimately angry and getting revenge on the kids that got him killed. Even though he's an awful person already, you're still left thinking that maybe he was a good guy. He certainly seemed like a really good guy in the flashbacks. This ambiguity added an extra dynamic to the movie that the original didn't have.Now when you finally realize that Freddy WAS a really bad man, that he really is sick enough to hurt children and then wanna kill them because they simply told the truth about him, it makes the movie, and Freddy himself, much more interesting and a little creepier. When you're watching the flashbacks, you're left thinking that he might've been a good guy, but when you realize that he never was, you're forced to realize that this seemingly good hearted guy was a very mean, very awful and evil psychopath underneath it all. When you realize that he's relishing and enjoying killing all these kids now grownup just because they told on him, it makes him a lot creepier and just completely different in comparison to the old movies. All the actors weren't really that terrible. Kyle Gallner is pretty cool and he's pretty awesome in most of the movies he's in. Thomas Dekker was pretty good, I liked Rooney Mara as Nancy and Clancy Brown is always awesome in anything he's in. I liked all the actors. Of course people will complain that they're too "pretty" and "modern looking," but really, all the people in the original were considered pretty and modern looking back then too. And also, people seem to forget that the original movie didn't have the best acting either Englund was awesome though . Overall, I really liked the movie. It could have EASILY turned out terrible. It's much better than the crappy sequels, and it's a new take on Freddy, and I really liked it. It doesn't tarnish the original, it doesn't try to imply that the original was crap, it's just a new take. I love how people condemn the idea of this but wouldn't object to a bad sequel. But that's just me. Go to the theater and judge for yourself. This is just my take, my opinion. Score: 8 ½ out of 10.
If You Find This Helpful....Give Me A HELL YEAH! (by brizzle0601)
When I first heard this movie was being remade...Obviously a few thoughts went through my mind. First are they really going to touch a classic? And two if they do it right it can be good. Well when I heard Billy Bob Thorton was in serious contention for the role I was all about it. I mean if the guy can play a slow kind hearted reaper of justice, what makes you think he can't play a HORROR ICON! Insert Jackie Earl Haley. Never heard of the guy until I did research. BAD NEWS BEARS I mean come on!!! It has to be a good choice! Well it was. Heath Ledger Syndrome to the 10th degree. This man <more>
lived and breathed this role for however long it took to make this flick. You can see he didn't want to disappoint. And he not only didn't he far exceeded my expectations. Now obviously because I have seen every movie but Freddy's Dead the whole way through I may be considered a little biased. But even if I had never seen one of these films, I believe I would have still walked away enjoying every minute of it.I don't believe in running my mouth about what I thought was great and what I didn't like. I like to let people judge for themselves. I will say the tributes that they did pay to the original were done in amazing taste and not out line at all. The trailers do obviously let you in on some info, but I don't think they over did it. All in all a damn good movie if this is what you are going for. A good story, great acting obviously carried by the main actor , amazing gore, and of course a good time. I hope you found this somewhat helpful it was my first review.
Haters will hate, but a solid strong revamp, that could use more muscle, but a much needed modernization from a tired "dated" original...good Freddy performances too! (by zombie_nougat_madness)
As a self proclaimed expert "Freddyologist," having seen and owned all the films, and having a host of paraphernalia through the years, as well as an expert horror movie aficionado; I feel this movie, if it wasn't for all the preconceived notions and expectations of Freddy and the look and feel of such an iconic film and character, was a pretty decent adaptation to such a popular film. If not compared to its predecessors, this was a fresh, raw, and fully developed horror movie that succeeds at standing alone sturdily as a well made horror movie.Without giving anything away, the <more>
movie succeeds at giving us the sensibility of the original, through certain dream sequences and a certain look and feel. Characters were developed at a good pace, there was a nice amount of "who is the main character, who is going to die" mystery, and I believe it stuck to the program quite well, even if a bit too much I thought. They could have been even more daring in being original and adventuring into a new direction I felt, though it was not distracting to an ultimately entertaining and quality movie. Freddy. Hmm...lots of folks here don't like this adaptation, saying he's not burned enough or he looks like a mongoloid, or something silly like that. I felt this character was developed quite well, this time going more into his more disturbing psychology, such as his child fetish, and his back story of where he works and how he came to be, whilst discarding the silliness of the original as being the "bastard son of a thousand maniacs!" Hokeyness removed, child lover depicted unapologetically and..eee, man, just plain yucky and creepy! Also he is pretty darn scary and brutal, and although his physical presence is not nearly as developed as our main man Freddy we all know and love, it is more realistic which makes it seem more real to the viewer, where the performance sells the scares, not just the make up effects. We get a more visceral scary experience because we can believe this guy is real, and not just see this guy as a horror movie icon, or our good friend Robert Englund, who most of us horror fans know and love! The acting performance of the new Freddy, not to take sides, was captivating and a brilliant performance...All in all I thought this story was imaginative, and gave a good face- lift to a much needed "dated" original. Not too Hollywood, not too Rob Zombie in its hyper gritty scratchy nicotine stained film noir, and not too over the top slasher or teen titty romp. Just a well told imaginative story with some good twists on an American masterpiece that truly needed some amping up for more modern audiences. I mean, look at those clothes the original Nancy is wearing! And the acting, whewie! The parents are like 50's parents, and the teens are all goody two shoes! Just sadly dated by todays standards is all. This movie gave this iconic theme the nip tuck it needed, and did it justice, though I will always have a special place in my heart for the originals...