“1, 2, Freddy’s coming for you.” And here he is, phantom fiend Freddy Krueger in all his razor-fingered infamy. Wes Craven (Scream movies) directs this trendsetting first in the slash-hit series. The premise is simple: Freddy (Robert Englund) homicidally haunts the sleep of Elm Street teens. The results are terrifying and mind-blowingly innovative. There’s another film debut too: Johnny Depp. He plays the ready steady of the hottie mcsmarty (Heather Langenkamp) who figures a clever way to flambé the fiend. But ever-say-die Freddy will be 3, 4 back for more…even returning to the screen in a killer 2010 remake of this diabolical original. Sweet dreams!Wes Craven’s 1984 horror film is a better movie than it is generally credited for being. Forget the tawdry sequels; this highly original, almost surrealist work stars Robert Englund as a mutilated monster who kills teenagers during their dreams. Craven, who only directed one Elm Street sequel (Wes Craven’s New Nightmare), takes the Hitchcockian step of layering in psychological explanations for the terror and then proving them all irrelevant in the face of mindless evil. The horror in the film is emotionally raw, in contrast to the overimaginative set pieces of most of the sequels that followed; and the final scene is as deeply unsettling as anything Luis Buñuel ever committed to film. –Tom Keogh
Buy “A Nightmare on Elm Street “ For Only $16.99
March 9, 2008
#1
i rented out nightmare coz i woz told that it woz a masterpiece.
The blood looked like apple juice, freddy got out smarted which does not usally happen as i have seen sequels 3,4,5. The ending is retarded, the music retro which is rubbishly old. If u r thinking of renting or buying the disasterpiece DONT!
March 9, 2008
#2
For the 0.99 percent of people who have no idea of what this movie is about:
Several teenagers are brutally slaughtered in their sleep by the vengeful ghost of a child killer who was killed years earlier by a mob of angry parents.
I don’t understand why this film is so popular. Freddy Krueger is far from being scary. He is an obnoxious, ugly, scarred clown who wears a cheap hat and has knives for finger nails. I will frankly state that he is a lot more menacing here than in the sequels but for the most part, he is still pretty obnoxious. I also DO NOT understand why so many people have been so fascinated by this stupid character and have literally worshipped him as if he were THE VIRGIN from THE SONG OF BERNADETTE. The guy was an evil child killer!!! There is nothing in his character discription that merits that kind of idolatry.
Moving on…
The scares are lame, the special effects are cheesy and the ending is pretty dumb. Also, What the heck happens to Johnny Depp?? The guy get’s swallowed up and filtered by his bed. And what’s up with all of that blood?? There is no way Mr. Depp was made up of THAT MUCH red stuff.
The film’s sole bright spot is Heather Lagenkamp. Although her performance is by no means extraordinary, her character is at least, likable and the viewer does end up caring for her till the end. That is if the viewer is still awake by that point in time.
For those of you who are not ardent Elm Street fans, the only film I recommend in the series is Craven’s last entry, NEW NIGHTMARE also starring Lagenkamp. It offers a new take on this tale and Freddy Krueger is actually quite menacing and not the idiotic clown depicted in the first 6 installments of the series.
When will horror film fans admit to the fact that Freddy Krueger is NOT SCARY??
March 9, 2008
#3
I do not know how this film became one of the most famous horror films of all time. I watched it for the first time yesterday, and though I’m told I should judge films by the codes and conventions of the context within which they were made, my opinion is that some films you can watch regardless of when they were made, and some date like nobody’s business. A Nightmare on Elm Street fits into the latter category – it is so dated it’s scary. Which, I’m sorry to say, is the only scary thing about it. As a kid I avoided this film like the plague because of how terrifying it was meant to be; well, if in the 80′s that passed as scary, then I was definitely the bravest kid on the block.
The script is, quite frankly, laughable. The lines are so terrible that you find yourself frowning at the screen as if to say: `What!?! Did someone really think that sounded good?’ And then there’s the acting. Whoever gave Heather Langenkamp the starring role (obviously without ever seeing her act) needs firing. And the cheesy art direction: Ghostbusters is an 80′s film that is watchable today, but the cringe-worthy 80′s-ness of Nightmare, culminating in Johnny Depp’s short football-shirt and raging quiff, makes it impossible to take any of it seriously. The special effects are dire (“I’m your boyfriend now”, big waggling plastic tongue), and Freddy Krueger is perhaps the least scary `monster’ I’ve ever seen; if such a little girl as Langencamp can put up a halfway decent fight against him, then he’s not all that. And the ending – ooh, a Freddy car, complete with Dennis the Menace sweater roof and a screaming mannequin. Man, I was missing a lot by avoiding this one.
Maybe this is an important film, in that it allowed Wes Craven to make his name and make an actually quite scary horror movie (Scream) many years later, but don’t watch it, under any circumstances. The original version of The Haunting was made in the 60′s and that’s terrifying, but this, along with other cheesy 80′s horror films, is just laughably bad. Maybe I should judge them in context, but the moment that lovely 80′s soundtrack introduces you to the story, context flies firmly out of the window. The most terrifying thing about A Nightmare on Elm Street? The amount of money it made.
March 9, 2008
#4
When I was younger I use to be scared to even watch these films but now that I have watched some of them(this one included) I feel they make no sense at all. Of course if you like the older horror films in the 80′s this one will be for you. But I personally think they should have stopped with this movie(just my opinion) If by any chance you have never watched these before and don’t know what they’re like then rent them first to see if your gonna like them.
March 9, 2008
#5
Okay. Definitly NOT the scariest movie I’ve ever seen. But I still liked the whole idea and setting. I’m sure you all know what it’s about so I won’t give a summary of the story, but maybe some guidelines.
DO NOT (I repeat) DO NOT… let young children watch this film! It will scare them senseless. I myself would have been scared of it only a few years earlier. But suddenly, hitting my mid-teens, I’m not very scared of movies anymore. But this is the sort of movie that will definitly scare a little kid.
The goriness is minimal. Sort of like Jaws. Nowhere near as bad as Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And some of the violence is overdone almost to the point of corniness. Like, about 400 gallons of blood spewing up from the bed where a youn man was pulled down to his death. C’mon. There was enough blood for like five people in that shot. But anyway.
There is NO NUDITY. YAY! Nudity only detracts from a films value. Had there been nudity, my rating would have been an automatic 4 or less, regardless of the other content. There is implied sex however, accompanied with some very exaggerated “sounds” from the bedroom. It almost sound like someone is getting killed. lol.
Also, you might not want to watch this right before bed. Heck, even the bravest people can get nightmares. You have no control over your subconcious.
All in all. A pretty cool movie.