Full Movie Reviews
gideon43 - wrote on 05/21/2010
Wes Craven had already shocked and repulsed audiences with his controversial Last House on the Left (1973) which was a semi remake of Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring (1960). He had also introduced cannibalistic in-breds in the cult classic "The Hills Have Eyes (1977) before hitting pay-dirt with the introduction of deformed and psychotic child murderer Freddy Krueger.
A Nightmare on Elm Street followed a similar plotline to Halloween and Friday the 13th in the fact that American teenagers are brutally hunted down and murdered by a lone madman.
Nightmare is a simplistic, dare I say it formulaic movie which transcends its low budget slasher roots. It has an innovative style, a likeable cast and a villain who has gone down in movie history.
Toying with any number of sub texts, this is …
Aza - wrote on 11/08/2009
A Nightmare on Elm Street surely delivers what I beyond expected. Robert Englund's performance as Freddy Krueger was creepy, scary and quite frankly, funny. This was the point that made me love 'Nightmare. Heather Langenkamp delivered a great performance as Nancy Thompson; one of the greatest heroines in film history; so to speak. The plot seemed to be very simple and that was great for me. It was easy to follow and the scares distracted me from it. Wes Craven's creativity surely is shown on the screen. It may be twenty-so years old but it is still great fun to watch; especially the blood geyser sequence.
The special effects were and still are pretty standard but with the budget they had; it shows you can make realistic effects with a small amount of money. …
Franz Patrick - wrote on 08/23/2008
This is definitely one of the more interesting horror flicks that came out of the 1980’s because of its intriguing idea of a maniac killing people in their dreams. Although it did have funny moments because of the ridiculous, somewhat upbeat soundtrack and some of the decisions that the characters make, there are a plethora of truly horrifying scenes. Some stand-outs include Fred Krueger’s first kill, the school haunting, and the bedroom blood flood. For a cast of mostly unknown actors (like Johnny Depp), the acting is credible despite the occassional slip-ups. The special and visual effects are not first-rate but all of it works because the real terror lies in the concept. For me, the factor that makes this film superior than typical slasher movie like the “Friday the 13th” series is …
Delorted - wrote on 03/23/2008
When Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) dreamt that a burned man was trying to kill her, she was frightened to learn all of her friends had the same dream. Now she must fight her own imagination to destroy an evil presence from a haunting past in “A Nightmare on Elm Street.”
Here begins one of the most successful horror franchises in cinema history, and the first film really shows why. Its frightening killer is a unique idea that could only come from the mind of director Wes Craven. Freddy Krueger is one of the few horror baddies that stands the test of time as a scary figure. They used just enough effects to make his character seem both terrifying and real. The music, also makes a great impact on the senses, creating a chilling atmosphere that leaves you on the edge of your …
jen1302 - wrote on 09/06/2007
A classic horror i remember seeing it when i young and at the time it scared me in the 80s.
It is far better by far than the other elm streets in the series, Freddy Krueger - known as the Springwood Slasher murdered several children with a glove fitted razor blades attached to the fingers. When a decision by a judge sets him free, Krueger is burned alive in the boiler room where he worked by a angry mob of the parents whose children he terrorized & murdered.
Years later to take is revenge on the children of the parents who murdered him.
He returns in there dreams as a disfigured killer with razers attached to a glove and a red and white top.
It's left for Nancy (Langenkamp) to solve the mystery surrounding the death of her boyfirend and friends as Krueger picks them off …
Matthew Sanchelli - wrote on 08/24/2007
Originals in a franchise will almost always be the best and superior of all the films. It's like cloning....you have the original and then you make a clone and a clone of a clone.....the first clone is never as good as the original, and then it can just get frighteningly bad as you go down the line.
This original, pre-dark humor Freddy does what he just does best. Haunt you in your dream, and turn you into a big mushy pile of goo.
Having recently watched this I was able to refresh it in my mind and the idea and premise is such a great idea; that really does span into various areas if done right.
This movie was great in it's idea of the dreams and so forth. The only weak part I really can think of right now is the ending. Those last minute scare endings are just crap. …
Josh C - wrote on 03/23/2007
This movie helped propel horror films into the 21st century. The whole series is great, but this one is by far the most true to the genre. The directing was good and scenes like the girl being attacked on the ceiling by a seemly inviable man helped add to its scare factor and shows that even without computer special effects you can do some extraordinary things.
The dialog was probably the worst part of these movies. All the dialog sounds too planned and predictable and it hurts the film's ability to make you believe that the these people are just the typical teenagers. The acting by Heather Langenkamp was ok and Johnny Depp shows a glimpse of why he is going to be a star someday.
The best part about these films are how they entered everyday life so much. I remember my sister …