So many things wrong here, I may as well go down a list:
-
Coconut_Kaasa — 10 years ago(July 02, 2015 12:44 AM)
Weak congruity and virtually no story progression.
Isn't weak congruity the point of movies like this? It's literally a mind-****
Terrible script. The screenplay barely bodes well. Glitches all over.
You may be right, but the first movies screenplay isn't much better.
Pitiful special effects. For instance: Freddy blasting out of Jesse in Grady's bedroom is one of the most horrendous things I've ever seen on film.
In all my years of seeing this movie - I have no idea what you're complaining about here. Would computer generated effects be better than the practical ones displayed here? Please, give me more examples.
No one is killed in a nightmare. That all by itself makes this movie the bastard stepchild of the franchise.
So it's something 'new' and different then. Isn't Freddy a bastard stepchild? That's sounding like a compliment to me.
Freddy's motivation and reasons why are lost.
This movie isn't about Freddy though. It's centered on the Protaganist and his Girlfriend, once again learning who Freddy is. He's more of a side character than Bruce Wayne in the original Batman. What more motivation do you need than what you already know?
Furthermore, Krueger is supposed to be a dream killer, not a possessor.
Sounds to me like someone's got a case of the s'pose'das."
No scenes from Freddy's boiler room.
Another complaint about a franchise movie doing something new and different.
Freddy, himself, is this movie comes off as inept, generally ineffective and borderline lazy.
Isn't being a 'Dream Killer' itself lazy? Throughout the series he's always messing with victims without even touching them.
In what other Nightmare movie would something as simple "I love you" be enough to defeat Krueger?
Moulin Rouge!
The super vague and inconclusive ending essentially renders the whole thing pointless.
You can say that about any Horror or Franchise movie.
Just Blue Sweeeeeeet! -
bigbadwolf666 — 2 years ago(December 22, 2023 03:02 AM)
This is Actually Scary,
And Without this in the Series, Freddy Wouldnt be Scary, and I actually wouldnt give him Credit.
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation. -
BobGunn — 10 years ago(August 30, 2015 04:41 PM)
part 5 is one of the stupidest things I've ever watched
Haha yeah.
If I'm not mistaken, Part 5 had its effects scenes done and shot
first
and the rest of the movie was written around them.
If that's true, it'd explain why the movie barely makes any sense at all. (Other NOES movies have their problems, but I don't remember any of the others seeming so clearly rushed) Part 4 has a similar feel, but isn't nearly as bad not great, but better.
I don't think any of them are all that great (almost all are great visually) but otherwise not so much. Even the first one isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's good, but I'd never say it's miles above any of the sequels, really.
Part 2 is easily as good as any of them, and far from the worst. -
AdrianLePier — 10 years ago(August 31, 2015 08:44 AM)
Part 5 is a dud and personally bores me, but it has a more cohesive story than this film does. Just about nothing pertaining to Freddy's Revenge is logical, because truth be told it has no story. The whole thing is randomly based around "Nancy used to live here." But none of them even know her, so even that angle is uncooked. And unlike in every other film in the series, Freddy's motives and reasons why are so obscure and unrefined that they become senseless. Yeah the movie is "dark" but I don't think it's all that scary and is more bark than actual bite. Parts 1 and 3 are much more legitimately frightening as far as Krueger goes than part 2.
-
qazu — 10 years ago(August 31, 2015 07:40 PM)
This movie is moronic as beep. It's the cheapest looking and most dated feeling entry. Little about it makes sense and it doesn't know what it is or wants to be. All the climaxes and jump sequences are silly. Freddy doesn't even act like Freddy here. He's some feeble boogie man with an attitude problem who laughably tries to get some wimpy kid to do his bidding for him and that fails most of the time. Revenge is the "ISHTAR" of horror.
-
Electrical1 — 10 years ago(September 01, 2015 03:54 AM)
The darkest, most serious and best depiction of Freddy in the whole series is in part 2. Its a well made horror movie unlike most of the crappy sequels which slowly started turning freddy into a joke starting with the overrated, dated campy part 3.
-
BobGunn — 10 years ago(September 03, 2015 12:32 AM)
Wes Craven RIP created a great character in Freddy Krueger but in this movie they lost him. In part 3 they found him again.
Look at this way: It's 1985. You've been asked to make a sequel to Nightmare on Elm Street (which is not yet anywhere near being considered a classic horror movie) and you have none of the original staff or cast (other than Robert Englund) backing you up. Do you rehash the exact same movie, or try and do something a little bit different?
Other than the fact that all of the kills in 3 are committed in the "Dream World", in what way is it closer to the original than 2 is?
If anything, 3 gets further away by starting the trend of over-explaining Freddy's backstory which is completely unnecessary and setting Freddy on the path of becoming a lame comedic character. -
AdrianLePier — 10 years ago(September 19, 2015 01:36 AM)
No, part three struck the perfect balance between Freddy's being totally frightening while showcasing his aptitude for sadistic wordplay. Part Three was Freddy as his scariest. It showcased that he wasn't just so buggy monster that could easily be outwitted or possibly ran from. There was candor, intellect and wit behind his evil, which allowed him to stay two steps ahead of his prey and made made him more of a threat than he had been before.
-
Electrical1 — 10 years ago(September 19, 2015 08:14 PM)
You are in the vast miniroty and for good reason. Freddy started in the dark manner in part 3 much like he was in the orignal and part 2, but after the first 15 minutes or so its downhill. One liners and puns galore as well as seeing him out of the shadows in more well lit areas that diminished his scare factor significantly. It doesnt help that the movie around him is just as cheesy.
-
AdrianLePier — 10 years ago(September 19, 2015 11:03 PM)
I'm not in the "vast minority" at all. In fact if anyone is, it's you. It's pretty common knowledge that
Dream Warriors
(part three) is arguably the
most
popular movie in the series, after the original. Robert Englund himself noted that of all the movies, barring the original, part three is the one that fans overall tend to revere the most. Hell, even here at IMDB it has one of the strongest ratings. You're attempting to project your own feelings as if they're generally true, but they're not. No where close. -
Electrical1 — 10 years ago(September 19, 2015 11:41 PM)
No, I meant you are in the vast minority in regards to thinking Freddy was at or near his scariest in part 3 which was the point I was making. I know part 3 as a movie is a fan favorite (even though I personally hate it). BTW Englund himself prefers the orignal and New Nightmare to Dream Warriors.
Most people tend to think he was at his darkest in Freddy's Revenge regardless of their feelings towards the movie itself which are split. I'm one of those people.