A Nightmare on Elm Street

R| 1 hr. 36 min.

Plot Summary
Teenagers Nancy, Quentin, Kris, Jesse and Dean are all neighborhood friends who begin having the same dream of a horribly disfigured man who wears a tattered sweater and a glove made of knives. The man, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley), terrorizes them in their dreams, and the only escape is to wake up. But when one of their number dies violently, the friends realize that what happens in the dream world is real, and the only way to stay alive is to stay awake.

Cast: , , , , , , ,


Genres: Horror

Distributor: Warner Bros.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Release Date: April 30th, 2010|1 hr. 36 min.

watch now

ratings & reviews

view all
critic reviews ( 3 )
fan reviews ( 61 )
  • 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. show more

  • The back-to-the-beginning approach unimaginatively goes through the motions, offering scant justification for its boring existence, at least from an artistic point of view. show more

  • It was boring. So, so, so boring. It doesn’t even give Haley the courtesy of a bad-guy showcase; his face frozen and obscured behind burn prosthetics, he spends most of his time spitting distorted one-liners from the shadows, like some anonymous mob witness on an episode of Dateline NBC. It’s boring and a waste. show more

See all critic reviews on metacritic.com
  • May 30, 2011 nghtmarz2
    Report This User

    What is there to be said about Nightmare that hasn\'t been said yet? For people fresh to the fold, it\'s a decent enough movie, with its scary moments and plenty of teen blood on the walls to entertain well enough. For returning members of Freddy\'s long-running series of nightmares, it\'s atrocious. Without Englund, Freddy feels awkward and poorly imitated by the man who gave us Rorshak from Watchmen. They could have tried better, yes, on Freddy\'s overall look, as the makeup vaguely resembles an oversized rat at the best of times and for heaven\'s sake, did they have to try taking it ALL the way back to the days when all he did was use the glove? Part of the appeal of Freddy Kruegar was the originality in his delivery and the manic way he seemed to ENJOY warping reality to humiliate and play with his victims before delivering the coop de grace. Further, what made him entertaining was that he was a child MURDERER. Spoiler alert: they made Freddy into a raving pervert for this movie and nothing more. To sum it all up, the bad points are that Freddy himself just sucked. Now, the GOOD stuff. The idea of a 72 hour limit was interesting, and the thought that there is literally NO escape from dreams was terrifying in its own right. You knew Freddy had you no matter what you did in this movie, and that gave it a new edge to an old razor glove. Could they have done better? Yeah, definately. Could they have done worse? Oh yeah they could. I give this movie a three out of five for making it halfway to the mark, but ultimately falling short of what we love about our resident master of nightmares, but at the same time giving us something fresh. Put Englund (or at least someone with his energy) back in the makeup and let\'s try this again, hollywood. Tanks for reading, fellow movielovers!

  • March 22, 2011 alsouhoney
    Report This User

    It wasn't extremely bad, I think it was watchable. But there was nothing different about this movie.

  • December 22, 2010 deltarn76
    Report This User

    yuck! it was terrible! where is robert enland. this freddy sucked. he looked retarded!


How do you watch stuff?


How else do you watch?

Select your online providers