Rating: 
Summary: This one started it all
Review: When I first saw this movie, it was really great! For a good scare, see this one! When it first came out, it wasn't supposed to be as successful as it was. But I am glad it was.
Rating:
Summary: one out of the five best horror films of the 1980s
Review: out of the whole decade that was the 1980s, there was a whole slew of horror films released (around 30). But out of all the "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "Nightmare on Elm Street", "Hellraiser", etc. only five can really stand out. One of which is the ORIGINAL "Nightmare on Elm Street." The original "Nightmare" is the only one (except 3&7) that is truly entertaining. This film is special in a way because it didn't rely on any big special effects nor any big-name stars to get the film going. No, there's really only ONE crucial factor which this film relied strongly upon: an excellent, original story. As John Carpenter stated on the "Halloween" DVD, the three factors which any good film must have are: 1)a good story; 2)a good story; and 3)a good story. Wes Craven's classic "Nightmare on Elm Street" has exactly that. Psycho child murderer Fred Kruger was burned to death by the enraged parents of his victims after being let out of prison on a court technicality. years later the elm street children begin to have these horrible nightmares, each dreaming of the same madman who wants to kill them. the man is horribly burned, wears a snap-brim fedora, a dirty red/green striped shirt, and has a glove w/razors for fingers on his right hand. the teens don't know the seriousness of all this until one of them is viciously murdered in their sleep. the lead protagonist tries desperately to explain the happenings, but of course none of the adults believe her and everyone suspects the victim's boyfriend of the murder. as two of her other friends eventually fall victim to the madman dreamstalker's hands, the girl decides that no one will believe her so she must confront this monstrosity herself. "Nightmare on Elm Street" is a classic tale of good vs. evil in a battle of courage, wits, resourcefulnes, and self-reliance. Wes Craven had done a few films prior to this one, but it was ultimately "Nightmare on Elm Street" which propelled him into stardom as the ultimate "master of horror." This was a very original story, which should be considered an extraordinary achievement in film, let alone horror, and shouldn't, by any means, be missed by ANYONE!!
Rating:
Summary: The classic of 80s horror
Review: While it's not true that all the sequels are horrible, most are just rehashes of the original. People are dying in their dreams and dying in real life and a mysterious stranger with a burnt face and a glove of metal spikes is chasing them. Forget that you know this story and forget what you've seen concerning Freddy Krueger after this thing -- this is Wes Craven's epoch. He would do other great horror movies (and certainly the first Scream is great and The Serpant and the Rainbow is extremely daring) but this one made him a star. One murder at the beginning and then a slow sense of pervading terror grips you as you watch the characters go from standard messed up teenagers to shaky nervous wrecks who can't even go to sleep for fear of waking up dead.It's amazing how well this movie holds up to repeat viewings. While you will have to suspend your memory through some of the revelation scenes, the building paranoia is still powerful. Now if only someone could explain that ending...
Rating: 
Summary: A Gorey Movie
Review: This Was How It All Began And A Little Gorey For Starters But Really Good Movie Seen It In '84 In Therthers And '86 On Video I Love All NOES Movies
Rating:
Summary: pretty good
Review: This movie is good it is probably the best in the series (tied with part 7) the special f/x were kinda corny though but it is still woth renting. RATED R: FOR VIOLENCE AND GORE AND FOR SOME BRIEF SEXUALITY
Rating: 
Summary: A FARIY TALE ON ELM STREET
Review: This movie was not the least bit scary. The effects where lame and the story line was weak. The ending also made no sense whatsoever. That is why it desearves 1 star
Rating:
Summary: Go ahead, take a stroll down Elm street......
Review: In the beginning of "Nightmare on Elm Street", we see shots of a girl being chased thru a abandoned factory. The girl (named Tina) is being chased by a man who seems to be wearing peculiar gloves that have knives coming out where the fingers should be. We don't see the man's facial features, but we see his sweater (which is ugly), and we see him stratch his claws against the cement wall and several pipes. Tina is, strangely enough, wearing a nightgown. Why? Because she is having a dream. A nightmare, to be precise. Suddenly, the killer jumps up behind her and cuts her. Tina wakes up screaming, and her nightgown is cut. The opening Scene of "Nightmare On Elm Street" is a very intriguing one, one of the better opening shots I have seen in the horror movie. After watching these opening shots, you know this is not a normal slasher flick. We see Tina running from something awful and unhuman. We hear the scraping of knives on the wall. I felt this film had far to many flaws to be a "masterful" as many people hailed it. For one thing, this is shockingly over-violent and gory, and Freddy Krueger, the killer in this film, is perhaps one of the most disgusting creations I have ever seen. The film's outer shell may seem more trashy than masterful, but it surprisingly manages to balance both quite well. The story of "Nightmare" concerns a group of friends who all slowly come to the realization that they are all being stalked by the same character in their dreams. Their nightmares become fatal, for as soon as they fall asleep, the killer will come into their dreams and butcher them. Give or take a few minor plot details, but that's about it. Though we are led to believe the main protagonist is Tina, it is not to be. In the first thirty minutes of the film, Freddy kills her. Boy, does she ever! As she sleeps calmly in her bed, in her dream she walks outside alone. Low and behold, Freddy is waiting for her. He calls to her and using his knives, carves her up, literally. Nothing is left to the imagination. Wes Craven has never had much subtly in his movies, and this one makes that obvious. Another death I remember is Johnny Depp's (I never saw it coming). There are tons of ghastly stuff in this movie, like a pile of snakes in mud and a girl attacked while she is talking a bath, and people being eaten by beds. Why is this movie trashy? Because of its overtones of violence toward women, and Freddy's horrible nature, among other things. When the men are attacked they are fully clothed. When the women are attacked they are half naked. Tina's death was photographed in a suggestive way, and it looked as if she was being raped by Freddy. Freddy himself is a child molestor (he has killed twenty children). His skin is burnt and looks creamy, and he laughs at the plucky heroines fear. He mocks her, torturing her with continuing visions of her butchered friends. The movie is not a classic, but it is so well crafted I always felt threatened whenever the characters grew tired and nodded off. You've got to love the heroine, Nancy, who carries the film and learns quickly. The film is painfully disturbing, however, and is packed with tons of plot inconsistencies. This is not the kind of movie one "enjoys". I enjoyed Wes Cravens most recent batch of films, the "Scream" series, due to their surprising intelligence and tension. While watching "Nightmare", you question why you are watching. "Nightmare" pulls no punches. Sonetimes repulsive, sometimes innovative, "Nightmare" is a terrific film and should be viewed by those who think they can withstand it all. This is the kind of movie where the monster come from under and above you, instead of from the side. Wicked, gruesome, and the best B movie I have ever seen.
Rating: 
Summary: "Imaginative but doesn't quite cut it"
Review: Ok back in 1984 this was supposidly brilliant but seen now it is so dated and corny and has not at all aged well. Maybe this has alot to do with the producers for making a joke out of razor fingered Freddy Krueger in later sequels who knows? Unfortunately the acting is atrocious John Saxon looks so much out of place and is wasted in yet another supporting role even though he gets star billing. Heather Langenkamp is just awful and the terribly wasted Robert Englund is given so little to do. In my opinion Nightmare 2 was so much much better (sorry Craven fans) and Freddy was much more frightening. No doubt the film was influential, but in no way is it a horror classic and cannot be compared to genuine classics that have stood the test of time for over 60 years such as "Bride Of Frankenstein" and others. Check out Scream for a much better and glossier slasher flick.
Rating:
Summary: the original is always the best
Review: This one is the best because 1. it had alot to do with Nancy, the original Elm Street teenager of the "Elm Street" series. The sequels (except for #3 and maybe #4) lacked originality.2. It was much scarier than the sequels.
Rating:
Summary: Silly Beginnings for fun horror/dark comedy series
Review: Don't worry, they get better than this one. Trust me. Heather Langenkamp plays the stalked Nancy. She's the victim of this first film in more ways than one. The acting is laughably bad in this first installment of "Nightmare On Elm Street". Not much promise is shown of the dream stalker Freddy, who appears to be more of a rotting corpse like creature than the more slick pulled together versions of the squeals. Anyway, Nancy's friends just seem to keep dying in their dreams. Of course, parents just don't understand and it is up to Nancy to wake up from these nightmares and fight him off. Blah, blah. People get killed and no one is willing to believe that they are dying in their dreams. This made everyone think twice about going to sleep in 1984, but now? OK, lets face it, the movie is not going to win any academy awards and isn't the strongest in the series in any merit. At least the others were funnier. The film, I must admit, works at setting up the character of Freddy Kruger. He doesn't get much action or even witty lines (again, keep waiting). I just happened to catch this one on TV. It really is lame and Heather is just awful in it and our Freddy (played by Robert Enguland) doesn't get much to do. I caught a little of this one on TV and thought it would be nice to review. Hope they put the others on soon. Don't worry about Heather. She got better parts like the smart sister in "Just the Ten Of Us". Really proved she could be funny and act. Guess there is life after Elm Street for everyone.
|
