paulclaassen Thanks to Wes Craven's vision of the ultimate villain, he created one of the greatest horror films ever. Robert England portrayed antagonist Freddy Krueger so convincingly that this menacing character was bound to give us nightmares for years to come. In a time before CGI was so commonly used, the visual and special effects were incredible, perfectly conveying the nightmare world of the victims. The idea of a ruthless killer killing teenagers in their sleep is scary enough; now add blades for fingers, a constant foreboding atmosphere, scary music and suspense and a classic is born. Constantly nominated as one of the best horror films.

oratiosanctus *Review originally posted via Instagram ("@oratiosanctus") on April 27, 2018*~Considered by many (myself, included) as Wes Craven's masterpiece, A Nightmare on Elm Street is one that utilises what it is, and still remains to this day, one of the more ingenious and original ideas for a horror movie villain to date. A supernatural killer who stalks teenagers in their dreams, the one place none of us can escape. The concept alone is cinematic gold. Robert Englund - who plays the villainous Freddy Krueger - turns out a marvelous performance, offering just the right amount of restraint and menace to be both disturbing and compelling to watch. His constant presence (even when not on screen or only heard by distinct sounds, such as the unnerving screech of his iconic bladed glove) holds the film. His hostile, predatory nature is always felt, and his capabilities as a modern-day bogeyman brings out that primal and scared inner child within who was afraid of the thing lurking under his bed.It is, however, a movie not without its flaws. In fact, a few are quite glaring. Aside from Heather Langenkamp, who delivers a strong performance as the heroine Nancy, the other actors are very hit-and-miss; with the parents characters (Nancy's excluded) being largely forgettable. The special effects also have not aged well in most areas. That aside, the imagination and visual style of this picture is one that stays with you long after the credits roll and features a death scene early in the film that remains one of the most chilling and well executed you will find in any horror film. This movie is one that is made by its atmosphere.For a film made in 1984 on a very modest budget, A Nightmare on Elm Street remains a diamond in the rough for a slasher movement that, at that time, was only starting to gain real traction. The movie's legacy as it stands today speaks for itself.

a-27767-72963 There is something really visceral and real about the first entry of the Elmstreet series. This movie was made before Freddy was an icon and the sequels almost turned it into a parody of it self. Even Johnny Depp was just an unknown kid. Even the make-up and special effects are way beyond the sequels; more gritty and life like. It's almost a snuff movie. Don't get me wrong I like all the movies, but this one is the best in the series, in my opinion. The acting is great, the story is to the point and has no fat to speak off, and the special effects look great and hold up very well today actually. Looking at the Freddy make-up; it's especially gruesome instead of rubbery. A great teen-angst movie and the best of the series.

a_chinn Wes Craven's classic original film that spawned a highly influential franchised (and a terrible reboot) is still the best of them all. Craven cooks up an irresistible premise of child murderer Fred Kreuger killing the kids of Elm Street in their dreams as revenge for his mob justice murder by their parents may years before. What makes the set-up work so well is the blurring of the lines between dreams and reality when Kreuger stalks the kids in their dream. The characters fight sleep to avoid Kreuger, but are never quite sure when reality may have drifted into dreams after they may have dozed off in class, in a bathtub, or wherever they might be at any moment. Once reality moves into the dreamworld, Craven plays off of some of our most primal of fears; claws, drowning, burning, not knowing what's a dream and what's reality, and, of course, being killed in your dreams. In many ways, this film stands in stark contrast to the rest of the series. Most notably Freddy Krueger (in this film referred to as Fred Kreuger) has a total of 7-minutes screen time. This film is mainly about the Elm Street kids trying to figure out what's going on and how to stop Krueger. This film is also much stronger than the sequels because Freddy is not yet the wisecracking, one-liner delivering character he later became, which has the impact of making him a much more frightening of character. Since this is the first film in the franchise, it gets to tell the origin story of Freddy and Elm Street, which is more interesting than the sequels ("Dream Warriors" and "New Nightmare" being the exceptions) and who all basically recycled the same material but with bigger budgets and set pieces. Heather Langenkamp is quite good in the lead as Nancy and Amanda Wyss is good as well as her best friend. I did like how Craven (SPOILER ALERT!) pulled a bit of a Marion Crane by starting the film with Wyss, who gets killed off about 20-minutes into the picture and the film then shifts it's focus to Langenkamp. It's also pretty fun to see a teenage Johnny Depp in his film debut. And, of course, Robert Englund is very scary and effective as Fred Kreuger, even if he's not on screen all that much. Englund really made this character his own throughout this series and England's absence from the remake is a major reason why that film did not work. Also worth mentioning is the iconic music from Charles Bernstein, who for some reason never scored another film in the series, and also of note is the wonderfully surreal and dreamlike photography by Jacques Haitkin, who's now a second unit director of photography on major Hollywood films like Captain America films, the Fast & Furious films, and even the new King Kong film, "Kong: Skull Island." My main complaint about the film is the ending. The producers wanted a twist ending that left it open for a sequel and Craven wanted a happy ending. I'm not completely opposed to twist endings, though more often than not they don't work, or even unhappy endings, but I do think this film would have worked better if it had more definitive of resolution. And regarding the producers desire for potential sequels, Jason got killed at the end most every Friday the 13th film and managed to come back over and over again. Why wouldn't that work here too? Overall, this is Craven's best film and one that really got under my skin as a kid back in the day watching it over and over on VHS, but what's so great about the film is that it still holds up today, both in concept and in suspense and scares.