2nd Worst of the Series, after Part 5


The original film and Wes Craven's New Nightmare are TRULY the only two films of the Nightmare franchise worth watching. If you really had the urge to see Freddy in one other film I suggest you watch part 3. However if you watch part 3 and still feel compelled to view Any other sequel stop immediately. Parts 2,4,5, this film, and the 2010 are 100% garbage. Save your time and never watch parts 2,4,5 or this film or the 2010 remake of the original.

If I was forced to give a ranking system it would go: 1, New Nightmare, 3, 2, 4, remake, this film, 5.

reply

I totally disagree, I love all the films in their own way, I get tired of hearing these later films bashed and frankly tired of seeing parts 1 and 7 praised so much. I like them, but they are actually NOT my favs of the series.

And no ppl shouldn't just take YOUR word for it and not watch 2,4,5 and 6. They should watch them and form their own view, NOT yours!

Why was part 4 the MOST successful of the series then?

Just because we lose today's battle doesn't mean we've lost tommorow's war.

reply

I agree with Toking -- everyone should see all of the movies once and make up their own mind. Hopefully most of the people talking on this thread have actually seen all of them anyway.

I am definitely one of the 'later movie bashers' I suppose as I don't really like Part 4 or 5 (I kind of did as a kid though). On the other hand I have kind of a soft-spot for 6 (it's not a good movie, but it was my first Freddy movie and I still find it entertaining) and I have come around to think 7 is somewhat overrated (I used to think it was the 2nd best movie in the series).

I really do feel the first three are the best entries in the series at this point, despite their flaws (of which there are quite a few).

reply

I'd say worst.

My ranking would go:

1 - 1 and New Nightmare (7/10)
2 - 3 and 4 (6/10)
3 - FvJ (5/10)
4 - 5 (4/10)
5 - 2 and the Remake (3/10)
6 - 6 (2/10)

reply

At least Part 5 followed the continuity of the other movies and didn't add any bullsh!t backstory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hII5rQEtoic

reply

Ahem.....bullsh!t backstory? Dream Warriors ring any bells?

Anyway...

I'm glad Freddy's Dead ignored 5, I didn't want to see Alice defeat Freddy again and after the luke warm reception, neither did audiences.



All in all 5 and 6 are both pretty terrible, but 6 is just more entertaining and at least the flashbacks with Freddy and his daughter were well done.



"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

reply

"Ahem.....bullsh!t backstory? Dream Warriors ring any bells?"

Ahem, it doesn't. And considering your beloved Scream 3 ripped it off only switching "100 maniacs" with 100 coked out movie producers, it shouldn't for you, either.

"I'm glad Freddy's Dead ignored 5, I didn't want to see Alice defeat Freddy again and after the luke warm reception, neither did audiences."

I never said bring Alice back. They didn't even have to bring back her kid, although naming the amnesiac Jacob would have been no skin off their ass. But considering how important they were. they could have at least mentioned them. Even Part 2 was smart enough to mention Nancy. More importantly, they needed to explain how Freddy went from depending on people to bring him victims to being able to enter the dreams of the entire town.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hII5rQEtoic

reply

Scream 3 ripped off Dream Warriors? Please.

Dream Warriors is a dreadful movie that created so many plot holes and absurd writing it's not funny. I'm just saying that film is widely and wrongfully praised and Freddy's Dead has a lot less to apologize for.


And Freddy was an existing character, they added the chest of souls and raped nun stuff and it was way too much.

Roman's hardly the same thing.

The backstory in Freddy's Dead with the daughter and wife was far more fitting and believable.



"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

reply

The evil spawn of a gang-rape? It's exactly the same thing.

How is the FD backstory more fitting? Freddy has always been a larger than life boogeyman, and the 100 maniacs mythology reflects that. The stuff in FD, especially the usually serial killer cliches like bullied childhood and abusive stepdad, only serve to bring him down. Also, unlike the taken daughter, at least DW didn't tinker with his existing motives. The chest of souls and 100 maniacs didn't contradict anything we already knew. If you thought DW gave us "way too much", then why aren't you bothered that FD went even further?

I'd also love to hear about whatever plotholes DW created.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hII5rQEtoic

reply

It's not exactly the same thing. In order for that to work they would have to have given the backstory to Billy...Not Roman.


then why aren't you bothered that FD went even further?

Because it was supposed to be the last one and by that time Freddy was not scary and the film worked better as a humorous send off.


I'd also love to hear about whatever plotholes DW created.

That film (which I recently re-watched) is dreadful and created many plot-holes. The best plot hole is the absurdity that Freddy can go into the real world any time he likes and kill people who aren't even asleep...Making the entire premise of the movie pointless and contradictory.




"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

reply

"It's not exactly the same thing. In order for that to work they would have to have given the backstory to Billy...Not Roman."

What? How's it make any difference who was given the backstory? The point is that the backstory itself is unoriginal.

"The best plot hole is the absurdity that Freddy can go into the real world any time he likes and kill people who aren't even asleep."

Uh...I think you're confusing 3 with 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hII5rQEtoic

reply

No, I think you are confusing them.

Nightmare 2 is the one where the plot is specifically centered on Freddy invading reality. It was intentional for 2.

Nightmare 3 is the one where they went back to "dream land" because aparently bringing Freddy out into the real world didn't work. Freddy only kills his victims in their sleep, except for that awful scene where he can invade the real world as his own skeleton and attack 2 characters who are not asleep, thus making the whole movie redundant.




The stuff in FD, especially the usually serial killer cliches like bullied childhood and abusive stepdad, only serve to bring him down.

He was already messed up, he was smashing a hamster to death! And his stepdad said "You've been away since the day I took you in" So he couldn't have been abused by his stepfather. I think you misread those scenes. FD never tried to say "this is why he's a killer".






"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

reply

[deleted]

"Freddy only kills his victims in their sleep, except for that awful scene where he can invade the real world as his own skeleton and attack 2 characters who are not asleep, thus making the whole movie redundant."

In 1, he possessed a phone and Rod's bed sheets. In 2, a parakeet, a toaster, and a person. By 3, having him possess his own skeleton is not contradicting anything. As for why he doesn't do it more often, he wouldn't get very far attacking kids as an animated skeleton.

"And his stepdad said "You've been away since the day I took you in" So he couldn't have been abused by his stepfather."

He said "you've been a waste since the day I took you in."

"He was already messed up, he was smashing a hamster to death!"

And the kids' chanting obviously wasn't the first time they teased him. This isn't a musical where everyone spontaneously knows the lyrics and rhythm. Ah, torturing animals. Another serial killer cliche. They could have squeezed in "whorish mom" if they didn't already make her nun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hII5rQEtoic

reply

In 1, he possessed a phone and Rod's bed sheets.

Rod was asleep, and the phone can easily be explained that Nancy nodded off for a second. Nothing from the second film counts because the whole point was Freddy invading reality and not dreams. 3 does contradict itself though by breaking the sleep role.

He said "you've been a waste since the day I took you in."

My mistake.

I am how ever very shocked that someone like you who dislikes one third film for being too comedic in a franchise where there was always comedy, is fine with another installment in another franchise where the comedy came out of nowhere.





"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

reply

"and the phone can easily be explained that Nancy nodded off for a second."

There's no interval for where she could have fallen asleep. She's running around and being active before and after it, and this is before anyone came up with micronaps.

"Nothing from the second film counts because the whole point was Freddy invading reality and not dreams."

So what if it wasn't the central focus? The point is that 2 established that he could possess things, and it never said he lost his power to afterword. And this is reinforced throughout the rest of the series. You see his claws in the locker in 4, and he's even able to disguise houses and make people travel in circles in this one.

"I am how ever very shocked that someone like you who dislikes one third film for being too comedic in a franchise where there was always comedy, is fine with another installment in another franchise where the comedy came out of nowhere."

Freddy has always cracked jokes ("No running in the hallway", "Help yourself, f-cker!"), 3 just pushed it further. In any case, I have bigger problems with Scream 3 than it being too comedic - I prefer the 4th and that film is way goofier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hII5rQEtoic

reply

[deleted]

There's no interval for where she could have fallen asleep. She's running around and being active before and after it, and this is before anyone came up with micronaps.

Then it can be easily explained as it was all a dream in the original cut of the film.


And this is reinforced throughout the rest of the series. You see his claws in the locker in 4, and he's even able to disguise houses and make people travel in circles in this one.

I don't think we are supposed to take that stuff literally, especially things like the lockers and the house...It's just the director having fun.

As for time circling in Dream Master, the only way that can be explained is that Alice and Dan meet up the first time, then when they are driving Alice falls asleep and pulls Dan in.






"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

reply

"Then it can be easily explained as it was all a dream in the original cut of the film."

But that was changed. As it stands, Freddy is able to talk on disabled phones in the real world.

"I don't think we are supposed to take that stuff literally, especially things like the lockers and the house...It's just the director having fun."

The lockers maybe, but Nancy's house was definitely disguised by Freddy so Tracy and co would go in it (as the real thing doesn't look very friendly).

"As for time circling in Dream Master, the only way that can be explained is that Alice and Dan meet up the first time, then when they are driving Alice falls asleep and pulls Dan in."

I wasn't talking about Dream Master, I was talking about the driving in circles in this one. Tracy and the others try to leave Springwood but no matter which direction they go they end up by the same statue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hII5rQEtoic

reply

I have bigger problems with Scream 3 than it being too comedic

Yeah....Dream Warriors also has lots of bigger problems besides being to comedic.



"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

reply

Well, apparently none of those problems are plotholes since you've only mentioned one and I just buried it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hII5rQEtoic

reply

How did you bury it?

Just because the other sequels also made the mistake, doesn't mean it's not a plot hole in this film.

Read this, they put it much better than I could:

Where best to start?
How about a point I was last making only the other day on the Film General board, to do with the "dream powers"...
Let's see if you notice something in common these all share?

Kristen has the ability to pull herself and others out of dreams, as well as other people into them. But, towards the end she is sedated and she can't use her powers to bring her friends in to help her against Freddy, so the kids link up via hypnosis to meet up with her in dreamland. While Kristen's ability to pull people out of a dream is also useless, again, because she is sedated.

Next up you have Kincaid who has super strength, which, again is useless against Freddy.

Will with his wizard powers, which are ultimately useless against Freddy because he doesn't "believe in fairytales" (couldn't make this crap up) and is dead within seconds.

Then you have Taryn, who is "bad" and "beautiful" and also dead within minutes and useless agianst Freddy.

Notice the link between them so far?
How the main selling/plot point of "Dream Warriors" is redundant.

Mind you, let's not forget Joey with my favourite dream power. He has a voice!
Still, you would have thought he would've found it sooner than he did, like when suspended over that firey pit with only Freddy for company? Y'know, something along the lines of "HELP!" or even just "Arghhhhhhh!!!!"

Onto the inane logic of the plot, if you can actually call it "logic".
First, consider how the Doctors (aside from Dr. Gordon) react to the plight of the kids in this film...

Philip's death. Dr Simms called it simply a "sleepwalking accident, nothing more". What, no further concern over how a patient managed to sleepwalk out of a high security, locked ward?
How about Jennifer's death. Doctor Carver believed it was simply suicide? I'm sure you would come across some pretty odd instances in a psychiatric ward, but doesn't someone managing to jump easily a foot up into a wall mounted TV so hard their head smashes through and remains lodged seem just a little "unusual" nevertheless?

Now about this Hypnocil drug also...

Gordon says to Dr Simms he suddenly wants to prescribe this stuff. But he's unsure whether the shipment will reach them by the next day.
That's the last we hear of it...
However, when Joey's in a coma, Gordon's decision to prescribe the Hypnocil drug is for some reason being blamed!
Did it even arrive? When did Joey get his dose? When did any of the other kids get their dose?
Why doesn't Kristen simply pull simms inside the dream to PROVE to her Freddy was real??? That's about the best evidence ever.

During the hypnotherapy session where the kids discover the powers together, why does Gordon end up in dream with the kids? He wasn't one of those looking at the pendulum and going under the process, he was putting the OTHERS to sleep.
Also, why doesn't Kristen pull them out when everything goes pear shaped and they are trapped in the morphing boiler room?

Or how about when Gordon is later told that Freddy's bones have to be put to rest on Hallowed Ground. Last time I checked, that junkyard wasn't consecrated ground. Neither was Gordon a Bishop who could consecrate ground.

Nancy has been reduced to nothing in this film and its lame!! Ok, so look, in the original film, she personally tried to take freddy on, with the booby traps and what have you, and did she succeed?? No. The ONLY way to get rid of freddy was for her to take hypnocil...period...yet what does she offer? She tells everyone "ok, lets all willingly go to sleep, with no backup plan(or anyone to wake us up), and try to unlock your "dream powers" to take on Freddy". Come on, first off, Kristen had a power, so why all of a sudden would she believe EVERYONE has a power?? And what was Nancy's power? Or the Docs? They couldn't do anything.


And DaveBondDave also has a good thread which you have already read about how outrageous this film actually is.




"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

reply

Its funny reading this thread and seeing the same old tired and completely wrong explanation of part 2.

During the banter about part 3's plot holes (which I don't happen to agree with and I think its a great entry in the series) part 2 is dismissed as total rubbish as it had freddy entering the real world.

The only time freddy entered the real world was at the pool party. Every other time he killed it was when jessie fell asleep and freddy used his dreams to manipulate jesse into killing for him. Thats why we saw jesse wearing the glove on at least 2 occasions. We were seeing freddy kill because thats what jessie was dreaming but in the real world it was jessie doing the killing.

By the time we get to the pool party scene theres still a huge debate as to wether or not this actually happened in reality or a dream. We know jessie fell asleep at Grady's house and in jessies dream freddy litterally climbed out of him and killed Grady but it was actually jessie killing him. What we saw when freddy killed him was jessies dream. He could easily have still been dreaming when he reached lisa's house covered in blood and freddy coming out at the pool party could still have been part of the dream world when jessie fell asleep at Grady's.

Sorry to go off topic and jump in about part 2 but it always annoys me when part 2 is dissmissed with the freddy in reality bull and people saying it has nothing in common with the rest of the series when it clearly does. Just becuase people don't understand it properly.

After the events of the original film it's easy to understand that whilst nancy hadn't actually killed freddy at the end she had weakened him enough that he was stuck in the original house and wasn't strong enough to leave the house and invade the dreams of other kids. He needed to use jessies dreams to get him to kill and build freddy's strength back up as we know from later films he feeds on the souls of his victims to give him strength.

reply

Guy, link me to these people yourself if you're just going to use their arguments.

"How did you bury it?"

I countered all of your points and you seemed to give up. That's generally a victory.

"While Kristen's ability to pull people out of a dream is also useless, again, because she is sedated."

There's a thing called conflict. Stories need it. That's why Superman has kryptonite: a story about a demigod who couldn't be harmed would be boring.

"Then you have Taryn, who is "bad" and "beautiful" and also dead within minutes and useless agianst Freddy."

DW is about facing your fears. Taryn fails to do this when Freddy pulls out the needles, so she dies.

"Will with his wizard powers, which are ultimately useless against Freddy because he doesn't "believe in fairytales" (couldn't make this crap up) and is dead within seconds."

While Will did face his fears, Freddy also wasn't scared because he "didn't believe in fairy tales", so neither could really harm the other. Once Freddy got hold of Will, Will's fears returned and Freddy was able to kill him.

"Philip's death. Dr Simms called it simply a "sleepwalking accident, nothing more". What, no further concern over how a patient managed to sleepwalk out of a high security, locked ward?"

The problem was that there wasn't ENOUGH security and locked doors. Phillip walks by one person. They then modified this by keeping the bedroom doors locked.

"How about Jennifer's death. Doctor Carver believed it was simply suicide? I'm sure you would come across some pretty odd instances in a psychiatric ward, but doesn't someone managing to jump easily a foot up into a wall mounted TV so hard their head smashes through and remains lodged seem just a little "unusual" nevertheless?"

What else could they conclude? All the others were locked in their rooms, so it couldn't have been murder.

"Why doesn't Kristen simply pull simms inside the dream to PROVE to her Freddy was real??? That's about the best evidence ever."

There wasn't any time to. Kristen isn't confident in her powers until they bring in Neil (and they bring him in and not her because him and Simms were more or less equals only he was more openminded), then she gets sedated while Simms is awake.

"During the hypnotherapy session where the kids discover the powers together, why does Gordon end up in dream with the kids? He wasn't one of those looking at the pendulum and going under the process, he was putting the OTHERS to sleep.

He simply put himself to sleep as well.

"Also, why doesn't Kristen pull them out when everything goes pear shaped and they are trapped in the morphing boiler room?"

She's scared and Simms wakes them up before Kristen thinks to.

"Or how about when Gordon is later told that Freddy's bones have to be put to rest on Hallowed Ground. Last time I checked, that junkyard wasn't consecrated ground. Neither was Gordon a Bishop who could consecrate ground."

It didn't work, did it?

"She tells everyone "ok, lets all willingly go to sleep, with no backup plan(or anyone to wake us up),"

As this whiny nitpicker points out themselves, Kristen could pull people out of dreams and Neil wasn't supposed to fall asleep.

"ome on, first off, Kristen had a power, so why all of a sudden would she believe EVERYONE has a power??"

Common sense. Even in the real world we can all do things in dreams we can't in reality.

"And what was Nancy's power? Or the Docs? They couldn't do anything."

Doc is only in one dream, and Nancy is already the leader of the group so it wasn't necessary to give her one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qOu29jlBk

reply

I find posts like this to be a little annoying and preachy. Like someone else said, let the viewer decide from themselves.

The mere fact that you rank the remake higher than any movie of the original series is a telling sign. The remake was a wretched mess.

Part 4 is my favourite, but it's not the best. Technically best is the first one, but I enjoy watching Part 3 more than that one on repeat viewings.

If I had to rank them from technically BEST to WORST:

- Nightmare 1
- Nightmare 3
- New Nightmare
- Nightmare 4
- Nightmare 2
- Nightmare 5
- Freddy's Dead

My FAVOURITES from BEST to WORST:

-Nightmare 4
-Nightmare 3
-Nightmare 1
-New Nightmare
-Nightmare 5
-Nightmare 2
-Freddy's Dead

If you can't tell, I really have a lot of problems with Freddy's Dead, it's enjoyable mildly but in the large context of the series it was a total step in the wrong direction. Thank god they didn't end the series with that one.

reply

What a list of absolutely idiotic movies you'd list as "best" at anything. At best, your taste in horror should be described as childish. At worst, why you'd delight in anything that immature strongly suggests that your appetite for extreme violence, achieves fetish level mental disorder. We can assume you work at a meat packing plant, "Strange Bot".

reply

The worst of the series was definately part 2 in my opinion. What a piece of *beep*

reply

I used to hate part 2 when I was younger, but after getting the box set on dvd and re-watching all the films again, I actually enjoyed part 2. I think Dream Child was probably the worst, i found that one to be kind of annoying. And I also didn't care for Freddy's Dead or New Nightmare all that much. There are some classic bits from Freddy's Dead that I love though, "Hey, you forgot the power glove." And of course Alice Cooper was awesome.

My favorites for sure are part 1 and Dream Warriors. And I don't think that's ever going to change.


Takin' out the trash, trailer park style!!

reply

[deleted]

5 offended me at how bad it was, but some how this is just as bad.

2 is bad too, but at least that is funny

reply

I'd flip-flop Part V and Freddy's Dead, but, yeah, neither are all that good. I used to rank Freddy's Dead as the #2-best Nightmare on Elm Street, but I now I rank it as the #2-worst. One thing I hated was that the only character from any previous installment was Freddy. What happened to everyone else? Who's this random John Doe kid? Why aren't the characters already in Springfield (or whatever it's called - I forget exactly)? Why is Freddy so annoying?

The best is easily the first one, though I'd say #2 is Part III. New Nightmare is interesting, but doesn't work all that well for me.

So there I was in the Himalayas

reply

Yep. For me it's

NM 1
NM 3
FvJ
New NM
NM 4
NM 2
NM 2010
Final NM
NM5

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=14spme0&s=8#.U_XRd2K9KK0

reply

This number 6 is easily the most awful one, presenting the most shapeless, structureless, meandering story overflowing with cheese and shameless hokum, full of scenes that can only described as idiotic. Sure, all these qualities were (too) noticeably present in the previous 3 films in particular, but here the ridiculous stuff, the brainless incompetence is really taken to the max. At times, it's almost supernaturally bad.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

While I can fully heartily understand why this is often considered the worst because it's a easy target just like Part 5 is a easy target.
Freddy's Dead is a great film at-least by my standers so is Part 5 I see no reason why they are considered bad other than hey them being easy targets.

Guns are for pussies,Real men use fist.

reply