Home Videos Photos

Freddy Gets A Sequel!

| Filed under: Film Flickers

elmposter__opt.jpg

Not surprising considering it pulled in over $32 million this weekend!

The Warner/New Line's new interpretation of Nightmare on Elm Street has been greenlit for a sequel — in 3D!

"We don't have a story yet, but this is the largest horror opening in the April-May corridor, and it just proves there's a lot left in the franchise," says Warner distribution president Dan Fellman.

YES!

Did U see Freddy Krueger causing trouble over the weekend?

Tags: , , , , ,

Email this  »
Sex For The Holidays: The Steamiest Christmas Movie Scenes (NSFW)
Family Friendly Movies To Add To Your Netflix Queue This Holiday Season
Stars You THOUGHT You Saw Naked In Movies ... But Really Didn't!
The Good, The Bad, And The ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE! Third Movies In The Trilogy From Best To Worst!
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay -- Part 1's Fiery Promo Tour! All The Fierce Red Carpet Looks!
Top 10 Funniest Moments From The First Dumb & Dumber!

42 comments to “Freddy Gets A Sequel!”



  1. 1

    3-D's over-rated……….just like this website……..



  2. 2

    YES AND I LOVED IT!!!!!!!!!!



  3. 3

    Orig was way better.



  4. 4

    It was one of the best remakes I've seen. They kept the funny Freddy one-liners, I screamed my guts out a couple of times at scary moments and the actors did a decent job too.



  5. 5

    i thought it was an ok movie. i really like the original series. but out of all the platinum dunes remakes, this one is up there, im down for a sequel.



  6. 6

    snails move faster than you work butt boy……you're a piece of shit and so is this website…….



  7. 7

    The ORiginal was SOOOOOOOOO much better. This remake was a piece of garbage. Nothing but cheap jump scares.



  8. 8

    Uggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh



  9. 9

    HATED IT!!! How in the hell do you change a back story on a classic like Freddie Krueger?!?!?!? I was so disappointed that I actually went and bought the original just so I could be satisfied!!!



  10. 10

    Re: April 20th – If you hate this website so much then why are you on it? My guess is to make yourself feel better about yout inequalities. Just sayin'.



  11. 11

    the original was so much better, the remake SUCKED!!!. They kill of the people that have made a bit of a name for themselves first, and the no names become the main characters? WTF



  12. 12

    i saw it .i thought it was ok . i agree the original was way better.nobody can do freddy like robert englund



  13. 13

    Re: kellybear – What do you mean they changed the back story?



  14. 14

    Re: samiboicc – That is how the original is! They make you believe that in the start of the movie the one character is the lead and then kill her off. Wes Craven did it that way cause he thought it was never done before in a horror movie at the time.



  15. 15

    Re: samiboicc – i think that was for money reasons? my guess….



  16. 16

    Re: April 20th – If this website is so over rated why does your dumb ass come on and comment multiple times on every single post. Get a life, go look at something you can actually appreciate so we do not have to hear your whiny bitching all day every day.



  17. 17

    Remakes so rarely amount to what the original was and this is just another one to the list of failures…what is even worse sequels to remakes pffft

  18. Klown says – reply to this


    18

    Shampoo0405, you said Wes Craven did it that way cause he thought it was never done before in a horror movie at the time."

    I know that you said "horror" and not "thriller" but the concept of the main character being killed off in a movie that had some scares, Psycho had Elm Street beat by nearly 25 years. Still, I like how both the original and remake of Elm Street followed that formula.



  19. 19

    I love how, automatically if it's a scary movie, they give away sequels. But what about Anchorman 2? They had everyone back, ready to do it!!!!! And Zoolander 2? Come on Paramount. Seriously.



  20. 20

    Nightmare on Elm Street shouldn't be considered a remake since it more of prequel….It told the story of how he became a child molester and the reasoning of him being burned. I hated this movie it made no sense these “teenagers” were not even falling asleep (eg. the guy swimming) he was swimming but yet his feet get pulled down and he is “dreaming” but actually he is seeing how Freddy gets burned………It sucked…Even the main girl “Nancy” there was a Nancy in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd installments of the series, but although they had the same name they weren’t so called the same people. It just sucked trust me.



  21. 21

    FUCK YES I REALLY LIKED IT! stop hating fuckheads. this story was more realistic and mysterious as well as scary and it actually had a story behind it instead of the usual constant slashing so SUCK IT!



  22. 22

    They totally ruined Freddy Krueger! The back story was horrible, the acting was horrible and the make up was horrible, should've at least made him look like old Freddy! New fans might like it but old fans will be sooooooo disappointed! Garbage!

  23. Pisky says – reply to this


    23

    This movie was AWFUL! Zooming in constantly on freddy (the worst casting choice i've probably EVER SEEN), making him talking constantly completely got rid of the scare factor. Horrible direction, horrible acting, just all around dreadful. This was worse than Michaels bays Friday the 13th last year..please axe this sequel ASAP.



  24. 24

    I saw it and I LOVED IT! Its awesome that they are going to do a sequel! But in 3D?? Come on! 3D is really stupid! Like REALLY REALLY stupid!

  25. Pisky says – reply to this


    25

    Re: sweetness16 – You're stupid, seriously, The actor they casted for freddy was HORRIBLE, the "dream world" was absolutely horrible, you knew instantly they were dreaming. Wes craven was a GOD at blurring reality/dream world. This movie was like retard proof, you could tell instantly. the makeup on freddy made him look like he had downs not intimidating AT ALL, and like i said in my previous post, the worst casting choice i've probably ever seen (his voice sounded like Christian Bale in Dark Knight..that's intimidating and scary? come on!!) Also the scene near the beginning when they kill off the blonde chick, how they made her get thrown around the room? That looked goofy as fuck and retarded, looked AMAZING in the original. They zoomed in on Freddy CONSTANTLY and he'd talk for really long sequences, its fundamental for horrors, more you show something, less scary it is, when you show small glimpses, its scarier, youre imagination goes wild.
    In Summary: Wes Craven and Robert Englund made the original what it is..a legendary movie, plus the main female lead in the original was AWESOME. The remake was victim of horrendous directing, awful acting, both by the new casted Freddy and all the other characters. Honestly don't know how anyone on this board, or anyone in the world thought this movie was even remotely decent, the entire theatre i went to on opening night was hysterically laughing at this movie the whole way through b/c its so bad.



  26. 26

    I saw it and I loved it! I'm going to see it again tomorrow. Can't wait!



  27. 27

    I WANNA SEE IT!



  28. 28

    I was a HUGE fan of the original, and most of the sequels. I must be in the minority, I thought it was stellar. I actually liked the fact that they didn't try to make Jackie look JUST like Robert Englund. Furthermore they put the actual back story into the entire plot, unlike some of the past movies. The way they added more suspense and less CONSTANT boring slashing made me like it more. Very new wave spin on an old classic, which usually fails horribly, but I say kudos!



  29. 29

    remake sucked. next remake please. or, rather, no thanks.



  30. 30

    I HATED it! the original was so much better. the sequel had no surprises at all. it was really boring…



  31. 31

    I agree with pisky.. this reamke sucked balls. and if u saw the 1st one you would agree. i didnt jump at all! I wasnt scared i was bored i even yawned a few times.. people laughed in the theater when freddys hand was in the tub.. i mean noone was scared. if u liked it u didnt see the 1st or the rest of the series. Robert englund IS freddy.. case closed. this dudes voice soo ruined it for me!! and the makeup was terrible! he had no teeth!! wtf? the acting sucked and the dreams were dumb. I hated it and i doubt 3d is gonna make it better if the same actor is back or the same director. Let me take over! I'll make it good!



  32. 32

    No one can match Robert Englund. But the new one was a lot of fun :)



  33. 33

    Saw the movie and my first thought was "They need to stop making these movies"



  34. 34

    Re: lala nyc – soo true!



  35. 35

    sucked



  36. 36

    Of course it did. So that's why they cancelled the making of the Friday the 13th sequel.



  37. 37

    It was a big letdown. I am starting to hate Michael Bay more then ever. No sequel :(



  38. 38

    i'd let him fuck me



  39. 39

    Yep. My girl Katie rocked the movie!! Too bad her, Kellan and Thomas Drekker got killed off too early. The girl who played Nancy is disgusting. And her boyfriend is in like, 5 other horror movies lol, he is awesome though.



  40. 40

    Re: Cece619 – Did you not pay attention? They were so sleep deprived that they took like 5 second naps or whatever it was called without even realizing it, hence the swimming scene and hallway scene…



  41. 41

    Re: Starlit – I wanted a My Bloody Valentine sequel. And haters, Katie [blonde] had awesome acting, so did Kellan. STFU haters.



  42. 42

    stop with the 3D stuff… ughh