Opiniones de Metacritic

An ingeniously conceived and devilishly clever opus.

An ingenious, cathartic exercise in illusion and fear.

Visually, the movie is a knockout. Craven-who, along with George Romero and David Cronenberg, was one of the real masters of post-'60s low-budget horror-never made a scarier picture than the original "Nightmare." But he's probably never made a better one than this-one that was more fun to watch or had a more satisfying conclusion, that slammed the door on hell with such panache.

Genre thrills with a big dose of originality.

Skilfully blending fairy-tale clarity with the skewed logic of nightmares, Craven also blurs the boundary between reality and fiction. There is creepy subversive stuff going on here, not to mention sly sideswipes at the censors.

I haven't been exactly a fan of the "Nightmare" series, but I found this movie, with its unsettling questions about the effect of horror on those who create it, strangely intriguing.

The cinematic horror genre, like the science fiction one, has been badly hamstrung by poor films, and several of the Nightmare on Elm Street entries have been at the forefront of the decline. Therefore, it's somewhat ironic that one of the most intelligent and creative efforts to come along in a while bears the Nightmare theme, title, and signature villain.

It should come as no surprise that Wes Craven's return to the horror series he created is the strongest of the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET sequels, but even his fans might not have expected the ironic depth and self-reflexivity he brings to this chapter.

The self-reflexive nature of New Nightmare is a twist we haven't seen before, and it works well, up to a point.

Wes Craven’s New Nightmare lacks the trancelike dread of the original Nightmare, and it features almost none of the ingeniously demented special effects that made the series’ third installment, Dream Warriors, a hallucinatory exercise in MTV horror. This one is just an empty hall of mirrors.