Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

VividSimon Simply Perfect

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

redninjaboy Tell me something. What was so great about the originals? Is it the acting? No. The acting is terrible. The effects? Maybe. I'm sure they were awesome for their time. Robert Englund? Again, maybe. He really seemed to be into his part. Johnny Depp? ...No. The fact that Freddy kills a total of three people? One of which was barely on screen? No. That sucks.Ok, maybe I'm being a bit harsh. The effects even today aren't that bad. And the two kills that weren't painstakingly slow and boring were actually pretty awesome. And Johnny Depp's death was iconic. But I was never a fan of the original movies. The acting always made me cringe, the sound effects were goofy, and Freddy was always... well... goofy. I get that he likes to play with his victims, but he's supposed to be scary. Terrifying. But most of the time, I just cringed or laughed when I saw him.This movie, on the other hand, takes all of that out and remakes the original movie with some better characters and a better Freddy. Granted, I know Robert is iconic as Freddy and me saying anyone else is better than him is probably blasphemy to the name of horror as a whole, but I don't care. The only Robert Englund Freddy I liked was in Freddy vs Jason. And even then, he was STILL really goofy and weird. I like Jackie Earle Haley better as Freddy. He was more terrifying, more clever, and was able to have fun and laugh without being over the top or goofy. It even remade some of the iconic scenes while introducing new ones. Like the Nancy in the tub with Freddy's hand scene, Kris' death, the body bag scene, Freddy in the walls, and Nancy's mom getting attacked at the end... Ok, so they weren't very original in that regard. But what do you expect from a remake? They probably just wanted to trigger fans' nostalgia. ...That... words. Anyway, they do some new stuff, too. Like the way they get rid of him. ...For a day or so. In the original, Nancy reads a book on traps, sets them up around the house, then goes to sleep. All in the span of, what an HOUR?? That's not even possible. And on top of that, when Freddy's finally out and ready to kill her, she beats him with what? Willpower. She does NOTHING but say that he can't hurt her. And he just vanishes. BORING. The remake has them go to the school. It's this whole thing about Freddy being accused by the kids of hurting them and taking them to his basement, then he gets killed by the parents, kills some of the kids years later after they've forgotten about the whole thing and leading Nancy and Quentin to the pre-school all of this took place in so they can remember, only for them to realize they were telling the truth about it and going to drag him out of their dreams and fight him two on one with a broken paper slicer... thing. And you know what? It's WAY more interesting and believable than anything in the original.

Matt Greene This is not fun. This is despicable. Haley was given an impossible task of filling the clawed-gloves of Englund, and, sure enough, he just can't pull it off. His Freddy is WAY too dark, removing any mystery in his historical subtext, making him charmless and cruel. It's visually kind of interesting, and the teen performers may be the best of the series…but that's not nearly enough to justify this cynical nightmare.

Gabriel Gavazzi Felix To be honest with you, I've watched this movie since it came out, when I was a child, and I didn't understand everything on it. But I've re-watched it today and I thought it was gonna be really bad. For my surprise, the movie is actually good. It's really well made, with good camera techniques and impeccable visual effects (words from someone who knows what is saying). This movie could be a horror masterpiece if they made everything as good as what I mentioned until now. But there were some several problems:-The Freddy's face changed bizarrely from the old A Nightmare on Elm Street movie. Why did they do this? Was it necessary? The Freddy's face from the old movies was absolutely better than this one. His face on this movie looks like a burned baby's face mixed with an adult face... I don't know, it's just strange.-Why does every scriptwriter wants to make a "mind blowing" script when it's not necessary? Like, the revelations you see when you're watching it are already enough. Why did they try to scare people messing up with the movie on the last seconds? Remember that I didn't gave any spoilers, this is something you'll notice when you watch it.Except for those two things that kinda messed up with it, the movie was an exceptional remake. It didn't lost the essence from the old movies. If you love horror movies just like me, then you're going to enjoy it. And yes, it is underrated (like any other horror movie).

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.