Havent seen enough to say.
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation.

Cursed

I like it! Its got a slew of good interesting characters.
The only thing I don't like and I fast forward through it, are the flashbacks to the original. Craven used too much footage to pad out the runtime, but other than that, he made a decent slasher film.
Not counting his t.v. films, I think
Chiller - '85
is nifty, and from what I have seen, I would say
Swamp Thing
and
Scream 2 & 3
. I liked the first and the fourth one. I'm also not too keen on
New Nightmare

• '94. Too superficial!
  Norman! What did you put in my tea?

The Hills Have Eyes Part II sucks big ol' donkey dick and spits.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.

My Soul to Take

I only like his horror and phsychological movies, so I'd have 2 say that music of the heart is my least favorite
"You know, dead people aren't the ones to be scared of, living people are."

The only time I didn't root for Freddy was in Dream Warriors, which I would argue is the best of the franchise and I would also argue that it improved the character of Freddy by giving him a proper modus operandi (spreading fear to gain power) than his completely inconsistent activities in the first film (gotta make this one look like suicide then GEYSER OF BLOOD!!!!). Even in the original, the other characters were so uninteresting and poorly acted that I definitely don't think the sequels are to blame for people rooting for Freddy.
I'd go with Craven's attempts to deconstruct violence in cinema or horror or whatever if he actually followed through on any of the ideas he presented in the film. I mean, Heather has a dream where her son tapes knives to his hands and then tries to attack her, but that never goes anywhere. It's not like she or her son gets any violent urges from the film and it's not as if the killer is a copycat influenced by A Nightmare on Elm Street or something (like in Scream).
I got the sense that Wes Craven abandoned those notions because he was too busy trying to present himself as some kind of avant-garde-auteur. I mean, why else would he compare his 80s slasher movie to Greek Mythology and Hansel-and-Gretel? It was a tenuous metaphor that watered Freddy down more than the sequels ever could have.
Plus it takes Freddy, like 45 minutes to show up on-screen. I love his new look, but aside from the scene where he kills the baby-sitter, he doesn't really do anything that cool at all.

New Nightmare was great. Wes had every reason to be pissed at how the destroyed his original character and made millions upon millions off his ideals while Wes got nothing, as he sold his rights to get the film made when Bob Shaye could not get all the money. New Line finally gave him a little money but way less than what he should have gotten.
Let's talk about Freddy. They turned a vile child molester/killer into someone the audience rooted for by stripping the horror, or as Wes said "watering it down to make it an easier sell." The movie really explored the violence of cinema, deconstructing horror and the people who work in it and it did it way better than Scream. It also took Freddy back to his dark roots in a brilliant way. I hated the later sequels and how the neutered Freddy. That's why I love New Nightmare.
Haters gonna hate

I haven't seen many of his films, but I really disliked New Nightmare. It had some interesting ideas but I ultimately found it to be overly pretentious and I felt like I was watching Craven throw a tantrum at the Nightmare franchise and how it had managed to grow into something so iconic without his influence.
I have nothing against the man, may he rest in peace, but I really disliked this film.

The Hills H5b4aves Eyes Part 2. Even Craven himself admitted it was a stinker.
I am the Duke of IMDb bio writers! I am A#1!

This message has been deleted.

It sure as hell was shocking for a 1972 movie!! It was not meant to be scary. It was meant to be disturbing and that it was, seeing these 2 women violated and then murdered. Boring? Well, that says more about YOU than it does about the movie.

Mine are Last house on the left (the original can't stand this movie) I do not see why people rave about this movie so much it is boring, not really scary or shocking and has way to much comedy in it.
2 would be Hills Have eyes part 2.

Cursed for me.
I wasn't waiting, I was just sitting and breathing. Got a problem with that?

SCREAM 4
[Never trust anyone that posts on only one IMDB board.]

Cursed
My soul to take
The Hills have Eyes. not bad but watching in current times it does move slow before the scares start
Rob Zombie is one of the greatest directors today

My soul to take and shocker
I apologize for any spelling/grammar mistakes. I'm on my phone 90% of the time.

Scream 4.
+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

The Hills Have Eyes Part II is the worst by a wide margin. Shocker, Cursed, Vampire in Brooklyn, My Soul to Take and Scream 4 are also pretty awful.

Swamp Thing, The Hills Have Eyes Part II and Vampire in Brooklyn are three of the worst films I've ever seen. I'm also not mu2000ch of a fan of Scream 2, Scream 3 and Cursed, but they're at least watchable.
Haven't seen Deadly Blessing, Invitation to Hell, Shocker, Chiller or My Soul to Take, and I liked Deadly Friend more than most people seem to.

For me, from the Craven films I've seen, it would be a toss-up between:
MY SOUL TO TAKE
CURSED
SCREAM 3
VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR11_hOXmy0
Enjoy