Good concept, poorly executed.

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Fellow commenter Vaughn Fry gave an excellent review of Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 that is worth reading. Do check it out. In a the Hollywood tradition of remaking classics, somebody thought that it might be a good idea to redo Nightmare On Elm Street to millennials. But, there's a huge problem with this. The 21st century is the age of skepticism and godlessness; the new generation do not believe in all powerful being in the sky, much less a ghost with scissor hands that haunts you in your dreams. Horror movies about ghosts, demons and spirits, aren't scary in the 21st century. So, this iteration of Nightmare On Elm Street while technically accomplished, is an exercise in futility. That doesn't mean that it's not a good show, it just means that you shouldn't expect to be scared. Hollywood relies too much on visual effects and shock value; through loud noises and make up which are basically equivalent to dad tricks. It is childish. Good horror movies require atmosphere, making the audience immerse themselves in the feel of the film's dark, mysterious, creepy ambiance. Nightmare On Elm Street 2010 has none of this. To be fair, the original didn't have it either but it was novel, appropriate for it's time and it had Wes Craven. So, here's the thing.If you don't approach Nightmare On Elm Street as a horror show, but instead as a normal film, it's actually a fun watch, like watching an episode of X Files or Supernatural. Was it boring? No. Was it scary? No. Is it a must watch? No. Is it a waste of time? Only if you have better things to do.

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.

This is a pretty movie. Its apparent from the start, that this remake of the 1984 classic, has a pretty good sized budget to work with. In fact the budget for this incarnation was $35 Million according to Wikipedia. The budget for the Wes Craven original, $1.8 Million. You don't always get a better movie if your budget is huge, look at Avatar. You just get a really pretty movie that looks polished and has flawless special effects. Again, see Avatar. That movie was nothing but flash. The story is unoriginal and weak... and don't try coming at me with this whole "Shut up man! Avatar proved itself!" shut up! The larger budget in this case makes the movie look too polished to be takes seriously. Why the hell are we caring about watching clones of the Twilight teens being chased by Freddy Kruger? Were not. This movie didn't need a budget of $35 Million. It feels wasted. Some of the appeal of the original came from watching the director be a director and figure scenes out. This movie didn't do that. It felt trite and forced.Freddy Kruger is less of a movie villain in the horror industry and more of an icon. Everyone I knew growing up all had Freddy Kruger nightmares when they were a kid. Perhaps this new version of Freddy will serve to scare the poop out of kids these days. I would hope so. Maybe when they remake this movie again in twenty years they will bitch about it then as well. Who knows.

Visually, it's faithful to the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" movie. But, it's just that there isn't enough of the campy charm that made the original so great. No offense to Jackie Earl Haley. He's okay, but....I'd say Robert Englund is and will always be the true face of Freddy Kruger. Now Rooney Mara, I actually don't mind. But, Heather Langenkamp has always been the face of Nancy Thompson for over 30 years and she's still an iconic figure to this day. The effects of the movie are okay, but I don't think they were strong enough to save this movie remake from being so dull, story-wise.Overall, I would say that you should just stick with the original version of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" because it's a lot more suspenseful than the remake.6 out of 10.