*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 Nightmare on Elm Street is a highly imaginative, very smart and thought-provoking slasher film that relies on suspense to engage you not on cheap jump scares .... well, except one or two. Also, the practical effects are very cool and still hold up today. It's just the ending that is so rushed, confusing, obtuse and overall unsatisfying. Putting this ending aside, this movie is one of the best horror movies ever!(8/10)

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.

Nowadays, with the world wide web, countless social media and mass advertising how can one not know the name Freddy Krueger? A Nightmare On Elm Street is the most iconic horror film of the '80s and is constantly referenced in pop culture, such as Stranger Things (2016), It (2017) and Rick and Morty (2013). Such hype and praise really raised my expectations for this film.Sadly, these 91 minutes of film I got was a rather forgettable experience. It may have been ahead of it's time, but the uninspiring cast of characters and their progression is very outplayed in the year 2017. A leather jacket wearing jock, the dumb blonde, the not-so-bright boyfriend and the girl who knows what's actually going on. As the mystery becomes clearer, one by one they get killed off by the horror icon. The thing is, this horror icon I am speaking of is still incredible. Robert Englund and the make up department were mostly responsible for the reason people like this film. No one is going to root for those teenagers, when there's such a great antagonist out there. This film is about as '80s as it gets. The sounds and opening title indicate this a lot, and that's fine. But I feel like the only reason people like this film so much is because of Freddy (which is a fair argument) and plain nostalgia for the setting.All in all, not as good as I expected, but I can understand why A Nightmare on Elm Street can be considered a cult classic.