O espectro de um homem desfigurado assombra os filhos dos pais que o assassinaram, perseguindo-os e matando-os nos sonhos deles.O espectro de um homem desfigurado assombra os filhos dos pais que o assassinaram, perseguindo-os e matando-os nos sonhos deles.O espectro de um homem desfigurado assombra os filhos dos pais que o assassinaram, perseguindo-os e matando-os nos sonhos deles.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 2 vitórias e 11 indicações no total
Lia D. Mortensen
- Nora Fowles
- (as Lia Mortensen)
Avaliações em destaque
When it was announced that Jackie Earle Haley would be taking on the role of Freddy in the new Elm Street franchise reboot, a collective sigh of relief went up from the fans of the originals. Haley's Rorshach was one of the few redeeming qualities in the abysmal "Watchmen" movie. When pictures of Freddy's new face were leaked, the excitement grew. This Freddy promised to drop the silly one liners and be a return to the frightening, sadistic killer from the first film.
Haley does what he can with what he's given, but even a game performance from him and Rooney Mara(Nancy) can't save this film from mediocrity. The male lead is played by Kyle Gallner. He could generously be called a poor man's Robert Pattinson. He does a serviceable job here but the weak writing and directing don't do him any favours.
Fans of the original will be disappointed by the brief treatment of Freddy's origins, and it's unlikely new viewers will understand what is going on or even care for that matter. My hopes of a scarier Freddy were dashed within the first few minutes. The film doesn't even try to build an atmosphere and Haley spouts the same tired one liners that the later films leaned on so heavily.
Even as the original series aged, one could always rely on the excellent special effects and make-up work to carry the films. The highlight of each film was the creativity of the different "Dream Worlds" that Freddy would take his victims to. Each dream world was unique because it reflected the thoughts of the character Freddy was trying to kill. This new iteration strips away any of that creativity and takes place almost entirely in one location (I'll avoid spoilers, but if you've seen any other film in the series you can easily guess where). The makeup work that looked promising in production stills doesn't hold up well on screen, failing to be as frightening or iconic as the original. The effects aren't great, it would be easy to beat the dead horse of 'computer graphics' being inferior but I think the real problem here is directorial. Samuel Bayer simply can't hold a candle to Wes Craven.
If you want to disregard my comparisons to the original films and simply take this one for what it is, a brainless slasher flick, it still fails. None of the 'kills' show any creativity at all and audiences already fed on a steady diet of graphic violence won't find anything all that shocking or disturbing here. It's just boring.
Adding to that is an over reliance on cheap scares. This film is this the cinematic equivalent of someone shouting "boo!" in your face every ten minutes. This technique becomes annoying almost instantly and becomes increasingly more annoying because it is used in every single scene. It's like the director realized he didn't know how to direct a scary movie and instead of quitting and finding a new job, he decided to edit in sudden loud noises and hope no one would notice.
By the end the audience I saw it with could hardly hold back their titters of laughter and I don't mean that in a good way. This is one franchise that had some potential for rebirth, but I will be amazed if this one makes it to part 2.
Haley does what he can with what he's given, but even a game performance from him and Rooney Mara(Nancy) can't save this film from mediocrity. The male lead is played by Kyle Gallner. He could generously be called a poor man's Robert Pattinson. He does a serviceable job here but the weak writing and directing don't do him any favours.
Fans of the original will be disappointed by the brief treatment of Freddy's origins, and it's unlikely new viewers will understand what is going on or even care for that matter. My hopes of a scarier Freddy were dashed within the first few minutes. The film doesn't even try to build an atmosphere and Haley spouts the same tired one liners that the later films leaned on so heavily.
Even as the original series aged, one could always rely on the excellent special effects and make-up work to carry the films. The highlight of each film was the creativity of the different "Dream Worlds" that Freddy would take his victims to. Each dream world was unique because it reflected the thoughts of the character Freddy was trying to kill. This new iteration strips away any of that creativity and takes place almost entirely in one location (I'll avoid spoilers, but if you've seen any other film in the series you can easily guess where). The makeup work that looked promising in production stills doesn't hold up well on screen, failing to be as frightening or iconic as the original. The effects aren't great, it would be easy to beat the dead horse of 'computer graphics' being inferior but I think the real problem here is directorial. Samuel Bayer simply can't hold a candle to Wes Craven.
If you want to disregard my comparisons to the original films and simply take this one for what it is, a brainless slasher flick, it still fails. None of the 'kills' show any creativity at all and audiences already fed on a steady diet of graphic violence won't find anything all that shocking or disturbing here. It's just boring.
Adding to that is an over reliance on cheap scares. This film is this the cinematic equivalent of someone shouting "boo!" in your face every ten minutes. This technique becomes annoying almost instantly and becomes increasingly more annoying because it is used in every single scene. It's like the director realized he didn't know how to direct a scary movie and instead of quitting and finding a new job, he decided to edit in sudden loud noises and hope no one would notice.
By the end the audience I saw it with could hardly hold back their titters of laughter and I don't mean that in a good way. This is one franchise that had some potential for rebirth, but I will be amazed if this one makes it to part 2.
Yes, we all know that Wes Craven's original is far more superior than this. That doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. And as much as I enjoy the Elm Street series, a few of the sequels did cross the line into way-too-cheesy territory, and lost the horror charm. "Freddy's Dead" will always remain one of the absolute worst sequels of all time to me, it really is unwatchable. This movie isn't great, but it isn't a 1/10 either. I'd place it about around the same level of quality as say, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. I enjoyed it, and I liked Jackie Earl Haley's portrayal of Krueger, despite Englund forever reigning superior.
Picture the 1984 horror classic A Nightmare on Elm Street. Now picture that film if it was produced by bombastic Michael Bay, director of Pearl Harbor and the Transformers films. Now picture all of the worst possible outcomes of that marriage.
You don't have to. You could just plunk down your hard-earned cash – better yet, don't – for this lame remake.
Not that I can stop you from seeing it. No number of bad reviews (and this will be just one of many) would have kept me away. Curiosity alone demanded I see the new Elm Street, so when a critic buddy asked if I'd like to tag along to a screening, I did.
I mean, it couldn't be awful, right? It's a darker take on a character that had fallen into parody. Its screenplay was co-written by Wesley Strick, who has worked with Martin Scorsese (1991's Cape Fear). And supernatural killer Freddy Krueger is played by Jackie Earle Haley, an Oscar-nominated actor who was so creepy as Rorschach in Watchmen. How bad could it be?
Really bad, it turns out. Astonishingly, amazingly, how-could-you- possibly-screw-this-up-any-worse bad.
Samuel Bayer, a longtime music video director making his feature-film debut, accomplished his stated goal of draining away all the cheeky fun of the Freddy films. Unfortunately, he also drained away all the scares. What's left is a dreary, poorly-lit slog with uninteresting characters, wooden acting and a complete lack of tension, suspense or energy.
We could spend all day talking about the problems, but two big ones sink this new Nightmare all on their own.
The first is the new Freddy – he's not scary at all. (Robert Englund's original Freddy at least was creepy for a couple of films before falling into camp.) Haley's tiny frame makes Freddy look puny and his voice sounds like an even-more-ridiculous take on the raspy Christian Bale "Batman" voice.
Haley's not helped by the terrible new Freddy makeup, which presumably is supposed to look like a more "realistic" burn victim, but it robs him of any expression. Freddy's not scary; worse, he's not even interesting.
You'd expect the new Nightmare to provide some creative new "kills," but that's the second huge problem. There are only a handful of kills throughout, and the better ones are taken directly from the 1984 original. In fact, fans of the original will note several virtually- identical scenes, all of them done on a higher budget but without a whit of artistry.
Special note has to be made of the acting, which (with a couple of exceptions) is dreadful. I'll blame Bayer, because a few of these folks have been decent in other things, but they're laughable here. (I'm pretty sure Thomas Dekker was attempting to portray Casey Affleck if Casey Affleck had suddenly completely forgotten how to act. And he's one of the better ones.)
Of all the leads, only Kyle Gallner manages to bring some desperately- needed personality and humor to the proceedings. Gallner single-handedly makes the final act interesting, since you'll have wanted every other character dead from the opening minutes.
But he can't overcome Bayer's clueless direction, which telegraphs every shock and dream sequence from a mile away. One of the most effective elements of an Elm Street film is the subtle slide back and forth from the real world to the dream world. Bayer doesn't get this at all. Every dream sequence is clearly defined, completely destroying any suspense.
The film spends two-thirds of its running time having its leads uncover Freddy's "story," which is ridiculous because it's a story everyone already knows. It momentarily plays with a slight twist on the original plot – a second of creativity, emerging like a flower through a crack in the sidewalk – then immediately chucks it.
Don't get me wrong: I love horror films. I don't even ask too much of them. I only ask that they be either A) scary or B) fun. If they can be both, that's awesome.
But with none of A and far too little of B, the new Elm Street barely rises above an F.
You don't have to. You could just plunk down your hard-earned cash – better yet, don't – for this lame remake.
Not that I can stop you from seeing it. No number of bad reviews (and this will be just one of many) would have kept me away. Curiosity alone demanded I see the new Elm Street, so when a critic buddy asked if I'd like to tag along to a screening, I did.
I mean, it couldn't be awful, right? It's a darker take on a character that had fallen into parody. Its screenplay was co-written by Wesley Strick, who has worked with Martin Scorsese (1991's Cape Fear). And supernatural killer Freddy Krueger is played by Jackie Earle Haley, an Oscar-nominated actor who was so creepy as Rorschach in Watchmen. How bad could it be?
Really bad, it turns out. Astonishingly, amazingly, how-could-you- possibly-screw-this-up-any-worse bad.
Samuel Bayer, a longtime music video director making his feature-film debut, accomplished his stated goal of draining away all the cheeky fun of the Freddy films. Unfortunately, he also drained away all the scares. What's left is a dreary, poorly-lit slog with uninteresting characters, wooden acting and a complete lack of tension, suspense or energy.
We could spend all day talking about the problems, but two big ones sink this new Nightmare all on their own.
The first is the new Freddy – he's not scary at all. (Robert Englund's original Freddy at least was creepy for a couple of films before falling into camp.) Haley's tiny frame makes Freddy look puny and his voice sounds like an even-more-ridiculous take on the raspy Christian Bale "Batman" voice.
Haley's not helped by the terrible new Freddy makeup, which presumably is supposed to look like a more "realistic" burn victim, but it robs him of any expression. Freddy's not scary; worse, he's not even interesting.
You'd expect the new Nightmare to provide some creative new "kills," but that's the second huge problem. There are only a handful of kills throughout, and the better ones are taken directly from the 1984 original. In fact, fans of the original will note several virtually- identical scenes, all of them done on a higher budget but without a whit of artistry.
Special note has to be made of the acting, which (with a couple of exceptions) is dreadful. I'll blame Bayer, because a few of these folks have been decent in other things, but they're laughable here. (I'm pretty sure Thomas Dekker was attempting to portray Casey Affleck if Casey Affleck had suddenly completely forgotten how to act. And he's one of the better ones.)
Of all the leads, only Kyle Gallner manages to bring some desperately- needed personality and humor to the proceedings. Gallner single-handedly makes the final act interesting, since you'll have wanted every other character dead from the opening minutes.
But he can't overcome Bayer's clueless direction, which telegraphs every shock and dream sequence from a mile away. One of the most effective elements of an Elm Street film is the subtle slide back and forth from the real world to the dream world. Bayer doesn't get this at all. Every dream sequence is clearly defined, completely destroying any suspense.
The film spends two-thirds of its running time having its leads uncover Freddy's "story," which is ridiculous because it's a story everyone already knows. It momentarily plays with a slight twist on the original plot – a second of creativity, emerging like a flower through a crack in the sidewalk – then immediately chucks it.
Don't get me wrong: I love horror films. I don't even ask too much of them. I only ask that they be either A) scary or B) fun. If they can be both, that's awesome.
But with none of A and far too little of B, the new Elm Street barely rises above an F.
I had a feeling this was going to be slated, and some of the criticism is justified, but in all honesty I liked it. The opening scenes are fantastic, it's a very smart looking film, it looks great. The content of the film is decent, it's such a shame that Robert Englund didn't do the film, but I can imagine he feels it's a role that's well and truly in the past. That fact was a nail in the coffin for the film, I'm not sure what many were expecting.
Some of the scares are a little on the tame side by today's standards, but the story is good, it deserved a bit more loving that it got. 7/10.
Some of the scares are a little on the tame side by today's standards, but the story is good, it deserved a bit more loving that it got. 7/10.
New version about Freddy Krueger killing teens in macabre style and boasts some startling , gruesome special effects . A re-imagining of the classic Freddy Krueger, a serial-killer who wields a glove with four blades embedded in the fingers and murders people in their dreams , resulting in their real death in reality . Nowadays, some troubled teens ( Rooney Mara, Killey Gallner , Katie Cassidy, among them ) start to be haunted in their nightmares by scar-faced and dream-hunting Freddy Krueger ( Jackie Earle Haley replacing the horror icon Robert Englund ) , a kind of spectre with horrible burns and large knives. He enters their dreams at will and again kill them. The unsettling adolescents plagued by astonishing dreams help themselves to attempt to stop the nasty and demonic Freddy who kill them in macabre ways . Furthermore , there is revealed a dark secret about his past who originally burned him to death.
This is a reworking upon first film's plot by screenwriter Wesley Strick based on the characters created by Wes Craven and dealing with the imaginative premise about a kind of ghost who can enter their dreams at will and intents on taking over both his body and mind . This eerie film packs thrills , chills , creepy events and lots of blood and gore . Special and extravagant visual effects are the spotlights of the movie and the startling make-up on Freddy face , but both of them don't save the story . Young casting and special appearance by Clancy Brown and Connie Britton . Creepy and imaginatively made musical score fitting to terror movie by Steve Jablonsky . Colorful and atmospheric cinematography by Jeff Cutter . The motion picture well produced by the great director/producer Michael Bay is professionally directed by Samuel Bayer , though with no originality and nothing new to show . From original entry directed by Wes Craven , it was followed by a handful of sequels in which horrifying special effects dominate this slasher saga , as ¨Freddy's revenge¨ 1985 by Jack Sholder , ¨Dream warrior¨ 1987 by Chuck Russell , it's one of the best sequels from successful original film by Craven , as ¨Dream master¨ (1988) by Renny Harlin, and ¨The dream child¨ (1989) by Stephen Hopkins , besides a Television series ¨The Freddy's nightmares¨ and this last one ¨ A nightmare on Elm Street¨(2010) that is a simple copy with little imagination , too many flaws and giving routine treatment . Rating : Average .
This is a reworking upon first film's plot by screenwriter Wesley Strick based on the characters created by Wes Craven and dealing with the imaginative premise about a kind of ghost who can enter their dreams at will and intents on taking over both his body and mind . This eerie film packs thrills , chills , creepy events and lots of blood and gore . Special and extravagant visual effects are the spotlights of the movie and the startling make-up on Freddy face , but both of them don't save the story . Young casting and special appearance by Clancy Brown and Connie Britton . Creepy and imaginatively made musical score fitting to terror movie by Steve Jablonsky . Colorful and atmospheric cinematography by Jeff Cutter . The motion picture well produced by the great director/producer Michael Bay is professionally directed by Samuel Bayer , though with no originality and nothing new to show . From original entry directed by Wes Craven , it was followed by a handful of sequels in which horrifying special effects dominate this slasher saga , as ¨Freddy's revenge¨ 1985 by Jack Sholder , ¨Dream warrior¨ 1987 by Chuck Russell , it's one of the best sequels from successful original film by Craven , as ¨Dream master¨ (1988) by Renny Harlin, and ¨The dream child¨ (1989) by Stephen Hopkins , besides a Television series ¨The Freddy's nightmares¨ and this last one ¨ A nightmare on Elm Street¨(2010) that is a simple copy with little imagination , too many flaws and giving routine treatment . Rating : Average .
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesFreddy's sweater was knitted by Judy Graham, the same woman who knitted Freddy's sweater in the original A Hora do Pesadelo (1984).
- Erros de gravação(at around 18 mins) When Nancy and Quentin are talking in the school, between shots Quentin's jumper moves so that 'Joy Division' is fully visible on his T-shirt, however when the camera moves back to the position it was before, the jumper has moved back, so that you can only see 'Y Divis'.
- Citações
Freddy Krueger: Why are you screaming? I haven't even cut you yet.
[laughs evilly]
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosThe movie's title doesn't appear on screen until nearly 10 minutes into the movie.
- ConexõesFeatured in The Rotten Tomatoes Show: Surrogates/Pandorum/Fame (2009)
- Trilhas sonorasA Nightmare on Elm Street
Written by Charles Bernstein
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is A Nightmare on Elm Street?Fornecido pela Alexa
- Is there going to be a sequel, if not a reboot?
- Is this film a remake, re-imagining, sequel, or prequel to the original film?
- Is this film connected to the "Friday the 13th" re-imagining?
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Centrais de atendimento oficiais
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Pesadilla en la calle Elm
- Locações de filme
- John Hersey High School, Arlington Heights, Illinois, EUA(high school scenes)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 35.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 63.075.011
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 32.902.299
- 2 de mai. de 2010
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 115.695.418
- Tempo de duração1 hora 35 minutos
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 2.39 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente