A Nightmare on Elm Street : Not that bad

Not that bad

Didn't think this movie was that bad, never thought the original was that great.

Re: Not that bad

Agreed on both counts!! Freddy Krueger is such an iconic character and I was so happy to see him again, re-envisioned for 2010. The original was never one of my favorites and this one delivered exactly what I was craving!! It has great atmosphere, really good acting IMO, and I really enjoy the mystery of what's driving Freddy in this one. Its a very eerie and unsettling experience to watch this film, man...cant wait for October!! I will be revisiting all my favorite horror movies/remakes...total tradition and one I dont think Ill ever give up!!!

Re: Not that bad

I'll have to be the nay-sayer here (sorry, don't wanna be a jerk), just because I'm a Freddy fan, and I was very excited for this, only to feel like I had the director and producers spit in my face.

I was really, honestly looking forward to this. I thought the trailers looked great, I thought Jackie Earle Haley was perfect for the new Freddy (and to be honest, he was the only redeeming quality in this), and I had faith that it would at least be halfway decent.

I just thought that it followed the check-list of everything that could have been done fundamentally wrong with a remake.

The characters were beyond paper-thin. Not a single one had any real redeeming quality, or even any "character" to speak of. I didn't care about them in the least.

They were all played by disturbingly older people than they should have. The actors portraying the kids all looked 30-40 years old, even the ones who weren't that old. And nobody could really act. (Even Roony Mara, who is an incredible actress that I quite admire after seeing her in other roles, sucked here.)

Freddy was mishandled completely and utterly. Everything about him was ruined. There was no subtlety. I've said it before, and I'll say it again- everytime he was on screen, it felt like the director and Michael Bay were dancing circles around you, banging pots and pans together and chanting "Freddy's evil! He's sooooooo evil!" He was too blatant and poorly handled by the script, direction and editing.

The dreams were beyond boring. Freddy is basically god in the dream world- he can do anything. Yet every dream was the same- Freddy takes you to the school or boiler room, does one or two poorly-executed jump scares, then stabs you. And the dreams were all short and boring as heck. Incredibly poorly-conceived usage of the dreams.

The jump-scares sucked. Too many, and too phoned in.

The script was obnoxiously written and formulaic.

The direction and editing was atrocious.

I thought it was honestly the worst remake of a horror film from the past 10 years. Sure, others are technically "worse" films, but this one was so blatant in how terrible it was, and the original was so iconic, that by default, it made this one feel worse than any of the others.



And FURTHERMORE, this is my signature! SERIOUSLY! Did you think I was still talking about my point?

Re: Not that bad

Wow, so you do the exact same thing I do. Every October I watch almost every horror movie in my collection. Been doing it for the last five or six years. It's so great to sit down and pig out on zombie movie after zombie movie. Then slasher flick after slasher flick. I finish off by watching Return of the Living Dead, Death Proof, Planet Terror, Rosemary's Baby, The Thing (1985), The Shining, and then finally The Exorcist. I watched this film (the 2010) version for the first time this year. I really don't know why people are giving it so many bad ratings. It was nice watching this reboot. I know I enjoyed it.

Re: Not that bad

I prefer the original film by a wide margin, but I do not dislike this one. I would say I prefer it to the ones I consider Englund's weaker films.

Re: Not that bad


I thought the original was better but the remake is much better than people give it credit for. Most peoples negative reactions come from the fact its a remake and not Robert Englund playing Freddy.



Haters gonna hate but trolls are pathetic

Re: Not that bad

I'm glad people agree I'm not on my own then.

Re: Not that bad


Sadly people who like it are few and far between. I just never understood the level of hate this film garners.



Haters gonna hate but trolls are pathetic

Re: Not that bad

Definately not!! Its just different from what many expected, or hoped for, and different for many equals not good. Reminds me of a film a friend gave me, saying it was HORRIBLE and they couldn't believe they watched it. (Drive) On Bluray, of course I took it and I loved it!!! It wasn't at all what I expected and it really blew me away. It was like an art film with extremely graphic scenes and some great race scenes. So I went back to my friend and I was like "what didn't you like? It was awesome!" And they replied "I was expecting a Transporter type film and it was totally different." Huh.

Re: Not that bad

Drop dead please.


Thank you.

Re: Not that bad

How mature of you Chip my boy.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Not that bad

Grow up please.


Thank you.

Re: Not that bad

I didn't think the original was that great either.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Not that bad

some people just like to complain. You could take any movie, (especially remakes) and there will be people who feel compelled to dislike it.

Re: Not that bad

You honestly only have to look at the stupidity of the script to pick the movie apart. Micronaps? That's a plot device so they can insert a jump scare whenever they want. The look and sound of Freddy isn't scary at all. The surrealism that made the original work so well isn't present in this one at all, plus the dialogue if dreadful. Pick one of those gripes, they all fit.

Re: Not that bad


Micronaps? That's a plot device so they can insert a jump scare whenever they want.


Actually, the micronaps concept was one of the few new concepts that was introduced I actually liked. And it's a real disorder, so it made it even more interesting IMO in a movie that portrayed severe sleep deprivation and nightmares turning into reality.

As far as this film not being that bad...I would agree. I would also agree that the original film is far from perfect and has as many problems or perhaps more than the remake.

But that to me is why the remake falls very short and flat. It had the benefit of a great cast, CGI effects, and hindsight in knowing the flaws of the first film and how to improve/add upon them. Instead, the writing, direction, special effects, and acting totally let me down.

It's one thing to make a film that mostly introduces a great concept as the original did. It's another thing to remake said film and not really improve upon it, and in some cases take the things that worked and screw it up, such as Freddy's backstory.

Re: Not that bad

As someone who has stayed up for days on end too many times to count. You try and staying up for 60+ hours and not taking a few micro naps. I fail to see how this is out of place in any way shape or form. It's completely realistic and it seems more than fitting given the circumstances.

Re: Not that bad

its been a long time since i saw the original but i think the remake was good. we did not see Freddy trying to be a funny killer here like he was in the sequals. in this Freddy Krugger was totally brutal

Re: Not that bad

i thought this movie was actually pretty good. i think the original was better but this was good

Re: Not that bad

I find it funny all the people who defend the original. The acting was so bad in that one. I watched it (and the sequels) for the first time a few weeks ago. NOES 3 was the best in the series though hands down. I do not like remakes but this one was better than the first. I do miss Robert Englund as Freddy though. He made the film series what it was.

Re: Not that bad


Yeah its amazing how people bash the acting in the remake, while COMPLETELY ignoring the ATROCIOUS acting in the original. Heather Langenkamp gave the most wooden performance I have ever seen. The only people who did a good job acting in that film are Robert of course, Nancys Dad, Tina was pretty good, and maybe Rod. Still the lead was terrible. Nostalgia really gets in the way of some people enjoying movies. The original is my favorite film of all time, but this remake was better than most of the sequels. At least Freddy was dark and evil again instead of spouting terrible one liners like a clown.


Haters gonna hate

Re: Not that bad

The acting isn't what people bash in the remake. They're bashing the writing, which is in fact utterly horrible in the remake. There's nothing for the audience to relate to.

Nancy's performance does come off a wooden at times in the original, but her character concept is still really strong. She did represent the typical California suburban teenager of the time. I've met girls like Nancy in the original far more than I've met the Nancy of the remake. Same for the rest of the characters, They're relatable, understandable, and the movie goes to great lengths to make us emphathize with the insane situation they're in.

The remake doesn't attempt anything at all. It misses every chance to be a good film, falling back on cheaply copying past scenes out of context, or shoving Freddy on the screen as much as possible. The parent are non-entities, the main cast of teenagers are hollow cut-outs with no background at all.

A villain is only a good as the victims he's given to cut through. NOES 2012 failed.

But hey, if you enjoy it, by all means, thats your thing. If you get enjoyment out of superficial perfomances, thats your business. But don't question people for actually wanting something a little more meaningful out of what they invest an hour and a half of valuable time into.

Re: Not that bad

Nancy was more relatable again and I never personally never noticed any bad acting from Langenkamp but in the Deleted ending I see what you're saying. The Remake is far better than 4-6 and I liked Freddy being Dark in part 2 with Englund at the helm. Thankfully the other characters are more campy than Robert in that installment. Anyway I agree the 2010 Remake is fairly decent.

I think they just didn't do enough with it, the film revealed Freddy too much too soon and we didn't get character moments that these films are known for... even the bad ones. Also Rooney Mara hated the whole experience I didn't think she did bad and her character was played well as far as I can tell but it seems like some fans were able to sniff out her disdain somehow in her performance.

2 years ago I watched 2010 and 1984 a month apart and still came out loving the 1984 film. The newest installment however is much more worthy than fan's realize. Freddy was always meant to be a molester. The film was probably going to feel a bit more like last house in that sense with the rape theme. Anyway, where does KRUG start and Krueger end?

Re: Not that bad

You're kidding right? This was nothing like the original. Also, the makeup was horrible. The great thing about Englund's makeup was that you could see all his expressions. This new makeup is very tight and made him look very fake....no expression whatsoever. They also changed the story and made him a child molester. He killed children, but there was never any mention of molestation in the original story.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Not that bad

I agree, there's far worse remakes out there like The Fog. 😨

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Not that bad

The Psycho remake is at least watchable and kind of entertaining and is directed by a great director, The Fog remake was just too boring and bad for me. The original was boring to begin with and the Fog remake cranked up the boring all the way up.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.
Top