MarionBarberThe4th
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 17,469
- Reaction score
- 5,445
Steve Carell's hair dye is distracting in that new movie
nyc;3987069 said:I tried to watch the new Nightmare on Elm Street. Dear god that was horrible. Whoever cast that movie should never be allowed to work again in the movie industry. Hell, work anywhere he was so incompetent. They picked a real wuss (Jackie Earle Haley) to play Freddy Krueger and he wasn't scary at all. Kyle Gallner was hideously bad. I couldn't even finish the movie it was so bad.
nyc;3987069 said:I tried to watch the new Nightmare on Elm Street. Dear god that was horrible. Whoever cast that movie should never be allowed to work again in the movie industry. Hell, work anywhere he was so incompetent. They picked a real wuss (Jackie Earle Haley) to play Freddy Krueger and he wasn't scary at all. Kyle Gallner was hideously bad. I couldn't even finish the movie it was so bad.
nyc;3987069 said:I tried to watch the new Nightmare on Elm Street. Dear god that was horrible. Whoever cast that movie should never be allowed to work again in the movie industry. Hell, work anywhere he was so incompetent. They picked a real wuss (Jackie Earle Haley) to play Freddy Krueger and he wasn't scary at all. Kyle Gallner was hideously bad. I couldn't even finish the movie it was so bad.
ChldsPlay;3987723 said:I thought Haley's performance was the only somewhat redeeming thing about that movie. He was much better than Englund, given the material.
ChldsPlay;3987723 said:I thought Haley's performance was the only somewhat redeeming thing about that movie. He was much better than Englund, given the material.
nyc;3988062 said:I strongly disagree with this. I only watched the first Nightmare on Elm St, so I can't offer anything on Englund's performances in the sequels, but he did a great job in the first one for what he was playing.
There was absolutely nothing good about the 2010 version. It was flat out terrible.
BrAinPaiNt;3988194 said:Although the movies are about the same...story wise. And although Englund's initial Freddy was not as cheesy or funny as later sequels...it was still a different feel to the character.
I think this one was more of a serious type character while the other was more of a campy style.
I prefer Englund more as well but it was not too much difference between the original and this current remake over all.
I just liked the originals because they would always have freddy cracking lame jokes but if you go back and watch the original and some after that...they were really not done very well and not as good as most remember them.
ChldsPlay;3988547 said:Friends with Benefits: 7/10. Not really a fan of Timberlake, but don't hate him. Really like Kunis, but her voice can get grating if she talks a lot. It was funnier than I expected it to be. There's a couple scenes with a flash mob that I had to shake my head at. Of course it all ends where everyone knows it's going to. It's a little more blunt and crude than your standard fare, and maybe that's why I found it more humorous than I find most of these movies. Not a bad flick, and pretty good for a date movie. I suspect it will fall off pretty dramatically on repeated viewings and not be nearly as funny, but for a single viewing with a packed theater, it was enjoyable. Comparing it to this year's early movie with a similar concept (No Strings Attached) this is definitely the more fun movie of the two.
GloryDaysRBack;3988586 said:This movie isn't even out yet..I need to start downloading movies online