Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 25 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 195 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Nancy, Kris, Quentin, Jesse and Dean all live on Elm Street. At night, they're all having the same dream--of the same man, wearing a tattered red and green striped sweater, a beaten fedora half-concealing a disfigured face and a gardener's glove with knives for fingers. And they're all hearing the same frightening by one, he terrorizes them within the curved walls of their dreams, where the rules are his, and the only way out is to wake up. (Warner Bros.) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 25
  2. Negative: 10 out of 25
  1. The ninth film in the franchise is competent enough but it won’t freeze the heart or fire the imagination.
  2. 50
    Freddy simply isn't as scary as he used to be, even though Jackie Earle Haley, taking over from Robert Englund in the role, plays Krueger essentially straight, keeping the one-liners to a minimum.
  3. Call it what you want, but the best word to describe it is: unnecessary.
  4. 38
    It's the Bay touch you feel in the way actors register as body count, characters go undeveloped, and sensation trumps feeling. A nightmare, indeed.
  5. Reviewed by: Dennis Harvey
    While the 1984 film has aged, its now-familiar jolts still pack more punch than this pic's recycled ones, which sometimes register so tepidly as to cause snickers.
  6. Reviewed by: Jen Chaney
    Good ol' Fred loses any sense of playful shock he once possessed and turns into a generic figure meticulously manufactured to simultaneously gross and freak us out. It doesn't work.

See all 25 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 88
  2. Negative: 36 out of 88
  1. Nov 9, 2010
    Oscar Worthy. The way Samuel Bayer pulls off the tension and brilliant interaction between the characters is astounding. Freddy Kruger belongs in the high elite club of film characters such as Atticus Finch, The Godfather, And General Patton. An absolutely incredible film, that has to be seen by everyone, young and old. Expand
  2. Jan 4, 2013
    Personally, I think this movie gets far too much negativity than it deserves. Is it better than the original? No. But how can it be. The original has now been put on such a high pedestal that everyone has forgotten all of its flaws. This movie is cursed with having to fill extremely large shoes that I doubt anyone could fill. Jackie Earle Haley is no where near as good as Robert Englund, but doesn't do a bad job either, Englund did have 7 movies to get it right after all. Overall: I think this is a great film and I really hope they continue with the series, I just hope that they listen to the fans a bit more for the next film. Expand
  3. May 30, 2013
    It's funny; of the main aspects that determined my experience with this remake, I can't if some are pros or cons... which leaves me with mixed feelings once the credits roll.

    First and foremost: the new Freddy... good or bad? Which one trumps the other: my positive reaction to Haley's capable, if novel handling of the horror icon, or my belief that Freddy minus Robert Englund is an almost fatal downgrade no matter how unavoidable?

    Do I feel like this was a necessary addition to the list of post-classic horror flicks being remade for the new generation, or do I feel like the series suffered enough forced modernization with "vs Jason"?

    Do I feel like the "scares" betrayed lazy script-writing, or do I concede that it's all been done and simply appreciate the nigh-impeccable execution?

    All told, no matter what the verdict, it will be middle of the scale. It's no shining piece of cinema, nor is it a fly-covered Rob-Zombian turd... I just couldn't tell you which side of "perfectly average" this movie falls on. If you expect it to stand alongside the original, maybe you'd best not bother with the remake lest you be disappointed by the deviations from the source material. On the other hand, if you can see past the limitations inherent in remaking a pillar of late-century horror for these aesthetically jaded, cinematically desensitized times, you might just find some value.

    Seriously though... bravo Haley, but there's just no getting around the decidedly Englund-less quality of this movie.
  4. Jun 19, 2011
    This is a decent movie, that is fun to watch, but is not scary at all. It is well acted, and Jackie-Earl Haley as Freddy is malevolent, but that is it. There is never anything that pops out at you (minus the end, which I liked), nothing that scares you, and everything remains flat. It is very predictable, due to obviously being based on another film. It can be quite gory at times, which we want from a horror movie, but that is not good here. Overall, it is not a direct remake, but it is close enough to loose our attentions, and make us want it to end (in a bad way). Expand
  5. Jan 11, 2014
    Sadly it was felt that this film franchise needed a reboot and thus the 2010 NOES was born. Jackie Earle Haley's Freddy is nowhere as scary as Robert Englund's and the cast proves to be pretty yet bland. Expand
  6. Dec 13, 2011
    The remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street isn't a bad film because of complete lack of competence. On the contrary, on a technical level, the stunts and effects are handled extremely well. What makes it a particularly sub-par film is the fact that it's so empty below the surface. Whereas the original was a thinking man's horror film, this version substitutes original ideas and genuinely scary imagery for cheap thrills and an abundance of gore. As a remake, it has little new to offer - every scene that "pays tribute" to the original is a pale shadow in comparison, and the few original ideas are lazy and completely lacking in the ability to scare. Though Jackie Earle Haley makes a decent enough Freddie Krueger, somehow the character loses all power and sense of threat with the filmmakers' decision to flesh out his backstory - he was scary in the original because he was an enigma! The vast majority of the cast are laughable in their performances (though at least Rooney Mara looks like she's trying) and the script is abysmal. Even after all this, the main crime this remake commits is not that it isn't fit to lick the boots of Wes Craven's chilling classic, it's that it simply isn't scary. It's unsubtle, dumb, and about as terrifying as a trip to your local post office. Thank goodness Wes Craven had nothing to do with this insulting version of his seminal horror creation, but at least he can still dream of the good old days, when original ideas still counted for something in filmmaking. Expand
  7. Feb 7, 2011
    I new this would flop the moment I heard Michael Bay and Platinum Dunes were making it and all I can say is:

    Try not to fall asleep as it is
    truly that bad! Expand

See all 88 User Reviews

Related Articles

  1. Ranked: The Nightmare on Elm Street Series

    Ranked: The Nightmare on Elm Street Series Image
    Published: April 26, 2010
    How does the upcoming "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake compare with the other films in the horror franchise? We run through the entire series, from best to worst.