the audience applauded

Nice effects though.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

The original 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' is still to me one of the scariest and best horror films there is, as well as a truly great film in its own right and introduced us to one of the genre's most iconic villains in Freddy Krueger. It is always difficult to do a sequel that lives up to a film as good as 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' let alone one to be on the same level.After the 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' series showed signs of severe fatigue, that it was suggestive of the series being completely dead, original director Wes Craven makes a welcome return and brings new, fresh life to the series. 'New Nightmare' may not be as good as the original, none of the follow-ups are (though two of the previous sequels, the third and fourth, were good), but it is the best of the follow-ups since the third and is one of the best in the series. 'New Nightmare' has its faults. Its biggest one is the ending, it is just ridiculous and jars tonally with the rest of the film, which took a darker and more serious direction (perhaps more so than the original). Count me in as another person who didn't care for Freddy's look here, it looks rather goofy and doesn't do Robert Englund's creepy performance and the way Freddy's written justice. Heather Langenkamp also seemed a bit bland and seemed rather anaemic for a character written more dramatically than previously. On the other hand, 'New Nightmare' looks very atmosphere and made with a good deal of style and slickness. The production design has a suitably nightmarish look and the special effects are great and perhaps superior to the original's. The music score is haunting.The writing may lack the one-liners seen before, but the more serious direction the dialogue took was appreciated after the fifth and sixth films did such a poor job with the one-liners and comedy. The dialogue isn't mind-blowing but it flows decently and intrigues at least. The semi-documentary-style adopted for some of the film is very interesting, making for one of the most original ideas of the follow-ups and the series overall too, while still delivering on the shocks, suspense and creepiness. Despite the goofy look for Freddy, Englund is very creepy and even with not much screen time he burns long in the memory. In summary, one of the series' better entries and worth staying awake for. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Wes Craven returns as a director/writer/actor in this film and saves the franchise, restoring the respect and fear to Freddy Krueger as in the first film.The idea for the plot is quite clever: Heather, the real-life actress who plays Nancy in the first movie, now (fictionally) married and with a 6 year old son, starts having nightmares about Freddy, as well as her son. In turn, Wes Craven is preparing a new plot for a new movie with Freddy, based on the belief that his own nightmares tell him that a demonic force uses the Freddy icon to break free in the real world and that the only way to preventing it is by having Heather to interpret Nancy again and fight it back into the underworld to which it belongs, or in other words, put the genie back in the bottle.Some of the killings were a repetition of previous movies, so it lacks a bit imagination on that department. The only other thing that could improve this movie would be a confrontation between the actor Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger) and 'the' Freddy Krueger. Freddy in this film is actually more threatening and scary, not playing so much with his victims as in the first movie with the evil jokes, which makes him a much more direct and imminent threat.To me, the first "Nightmare" and this, both by Wes Craven, are really the only worthy ones.

In 1984, acclaimed horror director Wes Craven breathed new life into the slasher genre with 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' and then again in the mid-nineties with 'Scream', a cool, edgy (for the time) meta-horror. But before there was 'Scream', Craven had already ventured into meta territory with 'New Nightmare.'The actress who played Nancy, Freddy's adversary from the first and third 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' movies, Heather Langenkamp plays a fictionalised version of herself raising a son, Dylan with her special effects technician husband, Chase.Heather begins to experience nightmares, including one where Chase is attacked and killed on the set of a new 'Nightmare' movie by a Freddy glove come to life. She is also dealing with a real-life stalker who likes to mimic Freddy's mannerisms and struggling to shield Dylan from her work as a horror movie actress.Whilst doing publicity for the tenth anniversary of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' she learns that there is indeed another movie in the works and Chase has already been working on special effects for it without her knowledge. The production company want her to star in the movie but she is reluctant.However, when Chase is killed in a car accident and his body is found with deep claw marks in his chest and Dylan's behaviour becomes increasingly unstable, including becoming convinced that a man is trying to come up from the foot of the bed while he sleeps to attempting suicide in the playground, Heather turns to her 'Nightmare' co-workers for help and support.From Wes she learns that the script he's writing is eerily similar to the current events in her life, but is real-life inspiring the script or is the script dictating real-life?After 'Freddy's Dead' gave Freddy a damp squib of a send-off, 'New Nightmare' was a welcome entry to the series. And even though the ending is still somewhat anti-climatic and Robert Englund is very underused (there should have been more interaction between him and the 'new' Freddy - what a missed opportunity!) this is still the vastly superior 'final' movie that is both enjoyable and original.

This movie was horrible. I cannot understand why so many people actually like this movie. It amazes me how this movie has a 77% on rottentomatoes. I watched this a couple days ago and I could not believe what I was watching.The whole idea of making a movie based on Heather Langenkamp's point of view as an actress, NOT as her character, was so fvcking stupid.The acting was HORRIBLE. When Heather went into a hospital to see her son and the black doctor saw her arm having very deep scratches, the black doctor was like "what happened to your arm?" as if it was nothing. There was almost no emotion at all. Dylan's babysitter and the other doctors were also sh1tty actresses. It was just painful to watch. Heather's acting wasn't much better.The fact that this movie was trying to be like the first Nightmare on Elm Street film by re-casting John Saxon and making Heather wear the same white PJs that she wore in the first Nightmare movie in this god-awful film was just dumb.Freddy's makeup looked like SH1T! Jesus Christ, I could not stand the sight of it. It looked horrible! It looked so rubbery and fake! Freddy's makeup in the older films was much better looking.The part where Heather was looking for her son in the hospital but she found out Dylan walked out of the hospital and was MILES away from the hospital ON FOOT was hilariously stupid. How did no one notice him walking outside from the hospital all by himself?! Freddy killed very few people in this film and the death scenes weren't even good. They were just boring to watch.This movie was so retarded that it hurts me to write this. I cannot believe the legendary Wes Craven actually made this pile of sh1t!