‘Nightmare on Elm Street’ Reviews Say Reboot Is Major Bore

When Platinum Dunes announced it had started work on a reboot of the classic 1984 “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” fans were skeptic, to say the least. Hollywood does have a tendency to ruin all good things in the past, they said, and chances were high the same would happen with this film too. Then hype started to build up, especially since Jackie Earle Haley was cast as Freddy Krueger. In the end, though, all that hype seems to have amounted to nothing, early reviews of the film say.

Though chances of making the reboot better than the original were slim from the start (because of the current context, not because of some inability on behalf of the producers, director and cast: the audiences are simply more accustomed now to horror movies than they were years ago), fans had high hopes for this one. Haley as Krueger, arguably the most terrifying serial killer ever to appear on the big screen for the simple reason that he can kill his victims in unconceivable in real life ways, in their sleep, was the best choice. Then, there was the young cast of promising actors and the promise from the studio that the reboot will not retell the same story – but add some depth to it as well.

All dust in the wind, says Roger Ebert. “Freddy is not a good argument for a supernatural existence. He can live inside wallpaper, appear anywhere and has no need of physical existence, except, arguably, when he inflicts actual physical damage. Yet he’s such a bore, always growling away with his deep-voiced hahahahaha. If a man leads an interesting life, he ought to be able to make good conversation, is what I say. I stared at ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’ with weary resignation. The movie consists of a series of teenagers who are introduced, haunted by nightmares and then slashed to death by Freddy. So what? Are we supposed to be scared? Is the sudden clanging chord supposed to evoke a fearful Pavlovian response?” the film critic writes in a 1-star review of the film.

He is not the only one to think the reboot should not have happened, even taking into account that horror movies are usually judged by a different set of rules. Even by these standards, “A Nightmare on Elm Street” comes across as too contrived, loaded with clichés, easy scares and not even half the appeal of the original film, which left more room for ambiguity and genuine fear. The only thing that the 2010 reboot seems to get right and even do better than the original is the dream atmosphere – though even that too seems a bit too much at certain points.

“If there’s any way to recapture the sheer shock value that the original had in its day, the filmmakers here haven’t found it. What they have done is brought forward some of the implicit ickiness of the premise. […] The new A Nightmare on Elm Street isn’t a groundbreaker, but it’s not going to cause anyone to lose sleep over the state of commercial filmmaking, either. It’s done effectively, skillfully and actually has a couple of coherent thoughts running through it, which is more than many other recent horror remakes can claim,” IF Magazine writes, pointing out that, though not excellent, the reboot does rise above average.