That was an excellent one.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Blistering performances.

This remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street is fun, but doesn't quite reach the level of the original. Jackie Earle Haley did a good job as Freddy, but, since Robert Englund IS Freddy, it just felt like someone doing an impression. And Rooney Mara, as Nancy, was basically expressionless the entire film. Other than those things, it wasn't bad.

Even though I prefer the original since it is the best, this remake is enjoyable to watch, Rooney Mara is my favorite actress and she does an excellent job at portraying Nancy, the other actors do a well done job in the roles as well. This 2010 remake has amazing CGI, great film editing, a good soundtrack, and a good cast

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.

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.