A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: Dream Child (1989) Director: Stephen Hopkins (Predator 2)
**out of****
Review
"Dream Child", the next Freddy adventure, wants to perfectly illustrate commercialism and do it without any contempt for its audience. The previous movie Had sealed Freddy's fame and this movie more or less wants to suck the money from you and hopes its faults will be forgiven. Not so.
The movie easily can be spotted as having potential. Stephen Hopkins is aboard this time around and as Robert Englund once stated, what made him continue with the series was the directors and their creative juices flowing. The same can be said for me (at least up until this point). The movie looks quite Gothic and polished; the audio once again delivers, the lighting and SFX look stunning, and the angles are kinetic. The film also has the respect of continuing off of 4 and returning the Dream Master, Alice. Thanks for the small favors.
The mythology (which is given the once over) has potential as well, and still somewhat makes sense if you think about it. It seems Freddy lost all of his souls and was powerless, but is reborn in a dream and instead of using Alice, he's using her unborn fetus (?!) as the new bearer of souls for Freddy.
The movie could have been done quite well, but the movie has only one interest, to make money. The production was given 6 weeks of shooting, and 6 weeks of editing, the script was the least of anyone's concerns as constant rewrites were done, but as long as there was deaths and SFX, hopefully it won't show. Despite our heroine returning, the movie adds a bad contrivance that Alice has made a batch of new friends that aren't even half as endearing as the ones in 3-4. The movie knows the characters fates and sleepwalks them to their destinies without a seconds thought. So much for suspense. The death toll is three this time around though, and besides the motor bike death (one kick ass scene), the creative flow was on a low burner. The comic book world was abysmally lame, and the model overeating scene was cut short. So what are we paying to see exactly?
Freddy is another awful disservice, his demeanor is to uneven, he wants to be the jokester but the script gives him the worst lines of the movie. Once again he was more tolerable in 3-4, if he's not scary (like 1), mean (like 3) or funny (like 4), then what do we have? A curiosity I'm afraid.
The score by Jay Ferguson was to overbearing as well, at times when it was low key and dreamy it worked, but then it got to loud and theatrical, it didn't support then images to well. Where's Angelo (from 3) when you need him?
The movie also has a mess of an ending where you can see the rewrites quite clearly, No momentum, and it seems like no one had any ideas left by that point in the movie. I'm sorry, but tarantulas and spiked baby carriages aren't my idea of conflict of good and evil. The ending also confirmed my suspicions that the movie had no desire to be original, and recycled in a cheap way the ending of 4. Freddy's death was all ready done like that in 4, and quite better.
We then cut to credits and have to endure one lame rap song, which just seals the fate of the movie for me
If it wasn't for Stephen Hopkins and Alice, the movie is just a big mess of a painting, with no thought to texture, idea, feelings, purpose, or respect. It's by the numbers film making, and certainly is pivotal low for the series. I still watch it here and there, but for me the party ended with 4. The movie shouldn't have been rushed, it's that simple. I certainly want to like any horror sequel, as I'm a big fan, but when the intent on the filmmaker's part is to simply take your money it unfortunately rubs off on me, making the obvious contrivances more insulting and the resolution of a horror icon a tedious joke.
Robert Shaye said the reason they make the movies one after another is for the fans. So Why the hackneyed production wasting good talents and losing the fan base? If I have to answer that question once again in my review, you deserve this as well as Freddy's dead.
**out of****
Review
"Dream Child", the next Freddy adventure, wants to perfectly illustrate commercialism and do it without any contempt for its audience. The previous movie Had sealed Freddy's fame and this movie more or less wants to suck the money from you and hopes its faults will be forgiven. Not so.
The movie easily can be spotted as having potential. Stephen Hopkins is aboard this time around and as Robert Englund once stated, what made him continue with the series was the directors and their creative juices flowing. The same can be said for me (at least up until this point). The movie looks quite Gothic and polished; the audio once again delivers, the lighting and SFX look stunning, and the angles are kinetic. The film also has the respect of continuing off of 4 and returning the Dream Master, Alice. Thanks for the small favors.
The mythology (which is given the once over) has potential as well, and still somewhat makes sense if you think about it. It seems Freddy lost all of his souls and was powerless, but is reborn in a dream and instead of using Alice, he's using her unborn fetus (?!) as the new bearer of souls for Freddy.
The movie could have been done quite well, but the movie has only one interest, to make money. The production was given 6 weeks of shooting, and 6 weeks of editing, the script was the least of anyone's concerns as constant rewrites were done, but as long as there was deaths and SFX, hopefully it won't show. Despite our heroine returning, the movie adds a bad contrivance that Alice has made a batch of new friends that aren't even half as endearing as the ones in 3-4. The movie knows the characters fates and sleepwalks them to their destinies without a seconds thought. So much for suspense. The death toll is three this time around though, and besides the motor bike death (one kick ass scene), the creative flow was on a low burner. The comic book world was abysmally lame, and the model overeating scene was cut short. So what are we paying to see exactly?
Freddy is another awful disservice, his demeanor is to uneven, he wants to be the jokester but the script gives him the worst lines of the movie. Once again he was more tolerable in 3-4, if he's not scary (like 1), mean (like 3) or funny (like 4), then what do we have? A curiosity I'm afraid.
The score by Jay Ferguson was to overbearing as well, at times when it was low key and dreamy it worked, but then it got to loud and theatrical, it didn't support then images to well. Where's Angelo (from 3) when you need him?
The movie also has a mess of an ending where you can see the rewrites quite clearly, No momentum, and it seems like no one had any ideas left by that point in the movie. I'm sorry, but tarantulas and spiked baby carriages aren't my idea of conflict of good and evil. The ending also confirmed my suspicions that the movie had no desire to be original, and recycled in a cheap way the ending of 4. Freddy's death was all ready done like that in 4, and quite better.
We then cut to credits and have to endure one lame rap song, which just seals the fate of the movie for me
If it wasn't for Stephen Hopkins and Alice, the movie is just a big mess of a painting, with no thought to texture, idea, feelings, purpose, or respect. It's by the numbers film making, and certainly is pivotal low for the series. I still watch it here and there, but for me the party ended with 4. The movie shouldn't have been rushed, it's that simple. I certainly want to like any horror sequel, as I'm a big fan, but when the intent on the filmmaker's part is to simply take your money it unfortunately rubs off on me, making the obvious contrivances more insulting and the resolution of a horror icon a tedious joke.
Robert Shaye said the reason they make the movies one after another is for the fans. So Why the hackneyed production wasting good talents and losing the fan base? If I have to answer that question once again in my review, you deserve this as well as Freddy's dead.