User Reviews

It's hardly a perfect film for Wes Craven, but it's eerie and thought-provoking, something that been lacking in the previous movies that made Freddy Kruger into a goofy wise cracker and cheesy death scenes. It is also the last the last time that Freddy showed any real menace. Wes Craven made this to take back control of his creation and it works as a criticism of what the franchise became with Freddy as a comedian, not to mention a rebuff to the tired argument about violence in films always causing it in the real world. Freddy was far more straightforward with his kills and didn't manifest elaborate scenarios for each death. Pure intimidation. That's what Wes was trying to bring back. New Nightmare is almost in it's own league. New Nightmare had a great story and very original, creative ideas in it but it was still a bit confusing with the plot of the movie! It's the movie without a movie. He would work this angle again, in the 'Scream' series with the "Stab" movies in Scream are movies within a movie! It's work here, it doesn't work there. 'A Nightmare on Elm Street 7: The Ascension' is being film, and Heather Langenkamp playing herself, the actress that play the original heroic star of the original movie is being ask to reprise her role as Nancy Thompson. She notice that her husband Chase, and son Dylan is also being haunted by Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) outside the filming, and confront the actor Robert Englund about it. She then go to Wes Craven himself, who reveals that Freddy is real, and only she can stop him. There is a interesting theory that comes to front with this. It's probably not Wes Craven's intent, but an audience's interpretation is authorial fallacy to see that there might have been a connection to this movie with that of the 3rd movie Dream Warriors. Heather's character Nancy Thompson's dies in the World of the first three films/four films. Her funeral/gravestone proves this (the gravestone was shown in A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master). The character Kristen from Dream Warrior, somehow, created a new world/new reality and placed Nancy's soul into this world in the end of the film like it stated. It's a dream world, yet Nancy's soul can live a full beautiful life in this beautiful dream world. Nancy's physically dead, yet not spiritually dead. I would think that once she ages and dies in this dream world then she would have truly died. Overall, Nancy has been placed in a matrix type reality so, to her, everyone in this reality is real/important to her. Freddy though, once all event's take place in the "real world" (the world of dream warriors), realizes that Nancy is in this dream world/alternate reality and therefore tries to kill Nancy since he wants to finish her off once and for all. It must take a lot for him to enter this dream world though since earthquakes are occurring constantly. Since Wes Craven wrote 1, 3, and this one... could it be Nancy living as Heather. It's a headache, but it's worth checking out or is the previous films fake and this movie real. Is Heather insane or is Freddy really coming out of the film to kill the actress that kill him in the movie? The movie goes with the realish look to it. Surprising the earthquake footage in the film is real. It was taken from the 1994 Northridge earthquake that happen during filming. The movie seem fresh, and the way in which Freddy talked, walked, and looked really brought a much needed shot of freshness to the character that had seriously been lacking. Freddy has a deeper voice. To correspond with this, the make-up and outfit of the character was different, with one of the most prominent differences being that he now wears a long, black trench coat. In addition, the signature glove was redesigned for a more organic look, with the fingers resembling bones and having muscle textures in between. It really adds to his darker vibe. The problem with the movie was that Freddy was way too soft. He looked better than ever and he was darker than ever, but all he did to the kid and his mom was chase them around, wrestle them, and scare them. Also Freddie's screen time is almost non existent, he rarely in the film, but when he is, he's scary! Heather Langenkamp takes most of the movie time, sadly not great in leading the film anywhere, as she unable to act her way through wet tissue. Even with fails, Wes Craven's New Nightmare was probably created solely for the purpose of Wes wanting to erase 2, 4, 5, and 6, and I believe even 3 because he said in the special documentary for the box set that he essentially believes that only the first film and A New Nightmare are cannon. Essentially Wes Craven threw a bratty fit over the fact there were so many sequels and wanted to basically bury the series with A New Nightmare. The meta-fictional methodology of 'New Nightmare' really gave a unique and terrifying storyline and, in my opinion, one of the best films of the franchise. So while the theory is still interesting and I can see how it would work, I think it takes away from how good 'New Nightmare' is. I'd rather watch this one than a complete hideous garbage 2010 one with Haley is, God I dislike that version.

My Reaction / Review: Nice to see Nancy again, I always liked her character. I really hope this is better than the previous movies. I think Nancy was some kind of psychologist (?) in a previous movie and here she is an actress called Heather? Interesting. Also Freddy is a movie star, lol? That plot is a bit insane. And Freddy killed her husband? That's brutal. But if Robert Englund is a movie star playing Freddy in the movies then who is Freddy? Is it him or someone else? Its a bit confusing. Ok time for my rating for the 1st half of the movie. The movie mostly focuses on Heather and her littler boy. The little boy's behavior is really weird and of course Heather is really worried because he keeps getting worse, to the point that doctors think that the boy suffers from schizophrenia.

While all this is good, the first hour lacks any thrilling moments really, it feels a bit flat, also there is no ''slasher'' in it. My rating for the first half is 6.2/10. Lets see if it gets better or worse. Ok so Freddy is trapped in this NOES movies and now because its the end of this franchise he will escape and come to our world? Sounds like a silly concept really. Ok so it took them 1 hour and 8 minutes to show us Freddy! Better late than never I guess. Wait so only Heather was able to feel the earthquake? Was that a dream? A hallucination maybe? Im almost 100% sure Freddy can't cause earthquakes. The babysitter or whatever she is starts punching nurses in the face because they wanted for the boy to sleep, like wtf, who does that?

Ok things got more chaotic and more disturbing with the doctor pretty much thinking that Heather is insane. While its fun to watch the rules are kind of blurry here. How is Freddy able to hurt the babysitter in REAL life when Dylan is the one dreaming? I get it that Freddy wants to escape the dream world and come to the real world, I just don't understand the process 100%, like what is the limit and set of rules. I really enjoy the fact that Freddy's target is the kid and we have Heather, the mother who is doing everything she can to protect him. My conclusion is that the 2nd half of the movie is better than the 1st but still nothing great. Ratings: 1st half of the movie 6.2/10 and 2nd half 6.8. My final rating is 6.4. While this movie was good, it was not great but its worth watching. Much better than the previous movies. 6.4/10.

The best thing about "New Nightmare" is it's plot because it's a 180ª change in the Nightmare series. Putting Freddy Krueger on the real world was an idea that most Horror fans accepted because the genre seemed to be dead in the mid 90's.

Other thing that fans of the genre and especially fans of the series praised was the inclusion of favorite characters. Nancy and her father Lt. Thompson return to put an end to Freddy for once and all. Heather L. delivers a great performance and seemed to really love her character and the series in general. John Saxon is great as always. Both characters add a nostalgic touch to the series. The rest of the cast is okay. Heather's son delivers a good performance and became quickly a favorite.

Although Krueger has minimal on-screen time, it's justified by the plot and it surely works. Freddy Krueger used to be scary and menacing and in this final movie he returns to his roots. Great performance by Robert Englund.

The ending is decent and is somehow a good way to end Freddy's reign of terror. He goes through the same fatal fate as when he was alive.

I recommend this movie if you like to watch something different; the plot is something you haven't seen in any other slasher flick because it's taken seriously. If you give the movie a try you will be pleased.

It's nearing the 10th Anniversary of the film 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' and one of the stars, Heather Langenkamp is being scared by a voice on a phone, sounding very similar to the film's villain, Freddy Krueger.

When Heather's husband is killed in a car accident and is discovered with slash marks on him, Heather starts to wonder something. Especially when she discovers that Wes Craven is writing another 'Nightmare' film.

Soon, she realises that Freddy has now entered the real world, and the only way to defeat him is to become Nancy Thompson once again....

An excellent premise and story, was largely ignored on initial release, thanks to the ever decreasing quality of the sequels to the original.

This isn't really a sequel to the Nightmare series, it really is a stand alone film, and it it seems that this was a starting point for Cravens excellent 'Scream' movie.

It's surprisingly not very scary, but can be very tense at times, and the most disturbing thing about this film is Miko Hughes' character and the obvious connotations to him, Freddy, and the origins of his character (he abused young children after all).

The novelty of actors playing themselves was quite a novelty 15 years ago, with Last action Hero, only really being a big profile film to feature actors playing themselves (yes there are others, but none so prolific as a summer blockbuster, and a very famous horror franchise).

All the actors can 'play' themselves really god, which must have been hard to an extent.

The ending is a little disappointing, but it resurrects Freddy into a an evil entity once more, rather than the comic book anti-hero he became in the turgid sequels.

I haven't watch a Freddy Krueger film in a longer time (over 10 years) and decided to watch this one. Not only have I never seen it before but on multiple websites it states it is one of the best of the series. If this is the best I don't think I would be able to see the worst this movie was good premise awful. The first ten minutes of the movie were great with a great premise. The actors from the other movies are shown making the movies and it's a movie within a movie. It started off great and then it just gets really boring with the female lead and you barely get to see Freddy throughout the movie and there's not much character to him at all. I guess they wanted to try something different but it was just an awful film.

You can definitely see how this film lead to Wes creating one of the best horror movies of all time, Scream. But this Nightmare on Elm street sequel could have been so much better if Freddy's mask didn't look like a cheap Halloween mask. If it was meant to look like that just to keep the meta about this film then it was a bad decision. It looks goofy as hell and takes you out of the movie. Regardless, it is better than 95% of the other Nightmare sequels so you'll just have to take what you get. The film is about the real life actress, and real life actors, producers and director of the Nightmare series, dealing with a Freddy Krueger who has crossed over into our world. The script is smart but the stupid Freddy mask, as well as a few other flaws makes this film an ugly duckling.

**PLOT SPOILERS** Heather Langenkamp plays herself in this. She has a (fictional) husband and child. She starts having nightmares about Freddy Krueger (Langenkamp starred in the first "Nightmare on Elm Street" movie) at the same time that Wes Craven is writing a new "Nightmare" script. Krueger was killed in 1991 but Craven decided to try it one last time. Krueger does NOT exist but it seems a demonic force is using his persona to come into the real world...and kill Langenkamp because she was the first one to "kill" him.

I applaud Wes Craven for this idea (he wrote the script and directed this). It's very inventive and a good way to bring back a classic horror character without insulting the audience. It's very well done with excellent special effects and it's fun to see Robert Englund, Wes Craven, John Saxon etc etc appearing as themselves. But, sadly, it just doesn't work. Certain key ingredients are lacking.

First is Langenkamp--she's just awful. She tries (you can tell she is) but she basically is just going through the motions. I never believed her for one second. Her young son (well played by Miko Hughes) is constantly being put in danger or is seeing people slashed to death. I don't like seeing children used that way in any picture. The movie is also too long and the script sometimes gets repetitive--at least SEVEN earthquakes hit L.A. in the course of one week. Is that really factual? Also Freddy is sorely missed in this one until the last 20 minutes or so.

This was not a big hit at the box office--I heard it made less than any other "Nightmare" film ever. I don't think fans enjoyed having Krueger "explained" away. Critics however loved it--that's very unusual for any horror movie. If you're a horror fan you should try to take a look at this. If not--use your own judgment.

I thurley enjoyed New Nightmare, although I cant help but fell that Wes Craven (who directed the original NOES) let a fantastic opportunity slip from his grasp in terms of undoing some of the damage parts 3 to 6 inflicted by taking Freddy back to his original, more evil roots. Freddy cracking silly one-liners was what made the previous sequels so cheesy and campy, and although there aren't near as many to speak of here, the ending battle sequence between Nancy and Freddy was what almost killed the film for me given how serious the subject manner obviously was and how corny the scene was delivered. On a much higher note; it was extremely well written, the camera angles were great and the score, acting and story were/was also really well done/told. I also loved Freddy's new look as it made him appear more menacing, and Julie's death was properly the best since Tina's way back in the original. Would've loved to see Robert England some what confront Freddy but oh well.. In closing: a great edition to the series and properly the second best right after the original, but at the same time, potentially, Wes Craven's New Nightmare could've been so much more.

Wes Craven's greatest creation, in a way, is A Nightmare on Elm Street. Not because it's his best film. But rather, because it's his most enduring film, and the series of sequels it spawned are a phenomenon unto itself. That hasn't changed today. And in the early 90's, when Freddy Krueger died in New Line's sixth film, it was an even bigger deal because it was still producing new and somewhat thought-provoking material. People were clearly getting tired of it, but it was still a creative and fairly innovative series. The formula had stretched near to its' breaking point, but the films continued delivering watchable and high concept fantasy sequences, mostly skilled and expensive special effects, spacey music, and inventive "kills" (as they're known online). It went through several permutations. And each new director brought their own unique take on it, visually. It wasn't what Craven had set out to make in his original, nor did it follow the rules he would have laid down had he stayed involved. But in its' own way, it was always fresh. And for people who got tired of the sleaze of Paramount's Friday the 13th, it was REfreshing as well.

The problem with the later sequels was always story. The agonized process of writing and filming Part 4, 1988's The Dream Master, had the films' writing staff turn to the John Hughes school of weepy melodrama and the next two sequels would also feature those same unfortunate, put-upon teens. The angst always came first. Wes Craven decided a new sequel should switch the focus onto some adults for once. His finished product, this 1994 film, was not very successful at the box office. But got the critics raving. Some even gave this sequel more praise than the original. Is it worth it? I think- a little Yes, but a little No as well. Switching the focus to an adult main character is risky. Because teenagers are expected to daydream. As an adult myself, I can tell you that- you spend too much time daydreaming, and you're in deep trouble. Not because dreams take over. But because real life is something you don't turn your back on. Craven covers himself a little by making the main character an actress, living in a very nice, quite big house, doing well in her career. And she does struggle with real life problems as well as the nightmares the film needs her to have.

The film is also an experiment with using actual real life people in the film business as actors in the story, playing themselves as they would behave were this film's situation happening in reality. That results in some awkward scenes, though it's in the interest of keeping the film feeling real. It's definitely one of the most realistic movies I've ever seen about an actor or actress's life, though I assume most of Heather Langenkamp's private details were kept out of the movie. She's not actually married to the gorgeous, sexy David Newsom. But she really was a mother and had a stalker. Not that any of that is truly important to the film itself, it's just part of what Craven wrote in, knowing that it was relevant to actresses in the movie business. Many TV and film actresses from the 80's and 90's were beginning to attract weird, obsessive fans. None moreso than women who had appeared in successful low budget horror films of the time- including Halloween's Nancy Kyes, Friday the 13th's Adrienne King, and Halloween 4 and 5's Danielle Harris.

As a formula, this New Nightmare is nowhere near as visually interesting or cool as the previous films. It trades in that creepy, dark feel of intangibility, and trademark surreal Alice in Wonderland style (especially of Renny Harlin's sequel, The Dream Master), for a sense of complete reality. Where the nightmares look like everyday life. This of course, was better done in 1979's Phantasm, not to mention Dario Argento's extraordinary films. But, it was the 1990's. And things were starting to get gritty and hi-tech. So, New looks slick. But it's not as compelling or dreamlike. Or fun, as the previous films. However, it is an improvement on the formula in a few regards. The acting is much better. And though the film takes quite a while to get the viewer into the story, when it does, it becomes progressively more interesting. The film really begins to cook though once Miko Hughes' Dillon character winds up in a hospital, being tested by a presumptuous pediatrician with a distaste for Hollywood celebrities' choices when raising their kids. It's a devilishly perfect method of slipping in some social commentary on how authority figures impose their views of people who work in the horror genre onto others. As well as the character outright saying she thinks horror movies make children unstable.

The film is a very good thriller, but isn't dangerous or dark enough to be a horror film. Another bone of contention is the film's wholly irritating sound design, from the bloated and bulky orchestra music score, to lame and clichéd booming bass crashes. This film already has an issue with choosing dozens of false scares over real ones, I wonder what they were thinking by making so many of the sounds so bass heavy. That doesn't make the film any more exciting. Nor does the film's big, stiff and unimpressive mythologically-set 'colosseum of dreams' finale. I do enjoy the film's references to Hansel & Gretel, and equating Freddy's power with that of a witch. The explanation for where he got that power has never been given but always fascinates me (Freddy's Dead tried and failed, miserably). I'm not sure exactly what sinks this as a horror film, but I truly recommend it as a good thriller which is meant to be pretty awkward. It's not prime Nightmare on Elm Street, but the series had to end somehow. This is as good a place as any.