Determine the sentiment:

WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS

A couple of years back I managed to see the first five films in this franchise, and was planning to do an overview of the whole Elm St. series. However, just two years on and I find I can't remember enough about them in order to do it  I guess they couldn't have made much of an impression. From what I do recall, some of the sequels  Dream Warriors in particular  weren't as bad as is often made out, though even the original was no classic. Generally, the predictability of the premise (if people fall asleep they get murdered in their dreams) doesn't lend itself to narrative tension. But while I cannot recall much of the first five films, I do know they never plumbed the depths of Freddy's Dead.

An indication of how sick of Freddy the public was at this point can be judged by the fact that the film was promoted solely on the character's demise. The fact that the movie's conclusion is not even hidden, but in fact the entire purpose for the film's being goes to illustrate how vacant, soulless and cynical this venture was.

Taking the morally questionable idea of having a child molester as the charismatic villain, Robert Englund's in-no-way-scary interpretation booms with laughter. I always thought Freddy's mockery of the teenage victims was less aimed at the characters than at the teenage audience that could ever watch this tripe. It's like Englund's crying out "we know this is garbage  but you're paying to see it, so who's the one laughing?" And I'm sure victims of child abuse would be disheartened to see such an insensitive depiction of their plight. Was Freddy's appearance in the films always so rudimentary? All he gets to do here is a few "haaaaaaaaaaaaaarr  har  har  hars" and that's it. If this was the only Elm St. film you'd ever seen you wouldn't get to know the character at all. Even as the character pre-death in a flashback Englund plays him as a boo-hiss pantomime villain with a slop of Transatlantic (ie. overstated, misplaced and not at all funny) irony.

Acting is almost universally poor. Just look at how many times Breckin Meyer overacts with his hand gestures and body language. Only Kananga himself, Yaphet Kotto, keeps his dignity. And when Roseanne, Tom Arnold and Alice Cooper show up, you can almost visibly see the film sinking further into the mire. The script, too, is absolutely lousy, almost wholly without merit. Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) opens a road map, upon which the Noel Coward-like Freddy has wittily written "you're f**ked". When prompted for the map, Carlos responds "well the map says we're f**ked". Who wrote the screenplay, Oscar Wilde?

Or how about the scene where Carlos is tortured by Freddy, his hearing enhanced to painful levels? So Freddy torments him by threatening to drop a pin  a potentially fatal sound, given that all sounds are magnified. Oddly, the fact that Carlos shouts at the top of his voice for him not to drop it seems to have no effect. "Nice hearing from you, Carlos", quips Freddy, hoping some better lines will come along. It's also worth noting that dream sleep doesn't occur instaneously, so being knocked unconscious wouldn't allow instant access into Freddy's world. Though as part of the narrative contains a human computer game and a 3-D finale plot logic isn't that high on the list of requirements.

The teenagers heading the cast this time are really the most obnoxious, dislikeable group in the whole series. Tracy (Lezlie Deane) is the only one who gets to greet Freddy with "shut the f**k up, man" and a kick in the scallops. And was incongruous pop music always part of the ingredients? Freddy's Dead. No laughs. No scares. No interest. No fun.


OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
negative
Bestäm stämningen: VARNING: REVIEW INNEHÅLLER MILDA SPOILERARE För ett par år sedan lyckades jag se de fem första filmerna i denna serie, och planerade att göra en översikt över hela Elm St.-serien. Men, bara två år efter och jag finner att jag inte kan minnas tillräckligt om dem för att kunna göra det, antar jag att de inte kunde ha gjort mycket av ett intryck. Från vad jag minns, var några av uppföljarna "Dream Warriors" i synnerhet "inte så illa som det ofta är gjort ut, även om originalet var ingen klassiker. Generellt sett är premissens förutsägbarhet (om människor somnar blir de mördade i sina drömmar) inte lämpar sig för berättande spänning. Men även om jag inte minns mycket av de första fem filmerna, så vet jag att de aldrig plumsade djupet av Freddys döda. En indikation på hur trött Freddy allmänheten var vid denna tidpunkt kan bedömas utifrån att filmen enbart befordrades på karaktärens frånfälle. Att filmens slutsats inte ens är dold, utan i själva verket hela syftet med filmens existens går ut på att illustrera hur vakant, själlös och cynisk denna satsning var. Med den moraliskt tvivelaktiga idén att ha en barnmisshandlare som den karismatiske skurken, blomstrar Robert Englunds in-no-way-scary-tolkning med skratt. Jag har alltid trott att Freddys hån mot tonårsoffren var mindre riktat mot rollfigurerna än mot tonårspubliken som någonsin kunde se den här trippen. Det är som om Englund ropar "Vi vet att det här är skräp" men du betalar för att se det, så vem är det som skrattar?" Och jag är säker på att offer för barnmisshandel skulle bli modfällda över att se en så okänslig skildring av deras belägenhet. Var Freddys framträdande i filmerna alltid så rudimentärt? Allt han får göra här är några "haaaaaaaaaaaaarr" och det är allt. Om det här var den enda Elm St. film du någonsin sett skulle du inte lära känna karaktären alls. Även som karaktären före döden i en flashback spelar Englund honom som en boo-hiss pantomimskurk med en slop av Transatlantic (dvs. overstated, malplacerad och inte alls rolig) ironi. Att agera är nästan universellt fattigt. Se bara hur många gånger Breckin Meyer överagerar med sina handgester och kroppsspråk. Bara Kananga själv, Yaphet Kotto, behåller sin värdighet. Och när Roseanne, Tom Arnold och Alice Cooper dyker upp kan man nästan synbart se filmen sjunka längre ner i myren. Manuset är också fullständigt uselt, nästan helt utan meriter. Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) öppnar en färdplan, på vilken den Noel Coward-liknande Freddy har wittily skrivit "du är f**ked". När Carlos blir tillfrågad om kartan svarar han: "Ja, kartan säger att vi är tillfångatagna." Vem skrev filmmanuset, Oscar Wilde? Eller hur scenen där Carlos torteras av Freddy, hans hörsel förstärkt till smärtsamma nivåer? Freddy plågar honom därför genom att hota med att släppa en knappnål ett potentiellt dödligt ljud, med tanke på att alla ljud förstoras. Märkligt nog verkar det faktum att Carlos ropar högst upp på rösten för att han inte ska tappa den inte ha någon effekt. "Trevligt att höra från dig, Carlos", quips Freddy, hoppas att några bättre repliker kommer. Det är också värt att notera att drömsömn inte sker ouppsåtligt, så att slås medvetslös skulle inte tillåta omedelbar tillgång till Freddys värld. Även om som en del av berättelsen innehåller ett mänskligt datorspel och en 3D-slutlig intriglogik inte är så högt på listan över krav. Tonåringarna som leder rollbesättningen den här gången är verkligen den mest avskyvärda, illavilliga gruppen i hela serien. Tracy (Lezlie Deane) är den ende som får hälsa Freddy med "shut the f**k up, man" och en spark i skansarna. Och var osammanhängande popmusik alltid en del av ingredienserna? Freddy är död. Inga skratt. Inga skrämselanfall. Ingen ränta. Inget kul. ALTERNATIV: - negativ - positiv
Decide the mood: WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MILDA SPOILERS A couple of years ago I managed to see the first five films in this series, and planned to make an overview of the entire Elm St. series. But, just two years after and I find that I can't remember enough about them to be able to do that, I guess they couldn't have made much of an impression. From what I remember, some of the sequels "Dream Warriors" in particular "were not as bad as it is often done out, although the original was not a classic. Generally speaking, the predictability of the premise (if people fall asleep, they are murdered in their dreams) is not suitable for narrative excitement. But even though I don't remember much of the first five movies, I know they never plummeted the depths of Freddy's dead. An indication of how tired Freddy the public was at this point can be judged based on the fact that the film was promoted solely on the demise of the character. That the film's conclusion is not even hidden, but in fact the whole purpose of the film's existence is to illustrate how vacant, soulless and cynical this venture was. With the morally questionable idea of having a child molester as the charismatic villain, Robert Englund's in-no-way-scary interpretation flourishes with laughter. I always thought Freddy's mockery of the teenage victims was less directed at the characters than at the teenage audience who could ever see this trip. It's like Englund shouts "We know this is garbage" but you pay to see it, so who's laughing?" And I'm sure victims of child abuse would be discouraged to see such an insensitive account of their plight. Was Freddy's performance in the movies always so rudimentary? All he gets to do here are some "haaaaaaaaaaarr" and that's all. If this was the only Elm St. film you've ever seen, you wouldn't get to know the character at all. Even as the character before death in a flashback, Englund plays him as a boo-hiss pantomime villain with a slop of Transatlantic (i.e. overstated, out of place and not funny at all) irony. Acting is almost universally poor. Just look at how many times Breckin Meyer overacts with his hand gestures and body language. Only Kananga himself, Yaphet Kotto, retains his dignity. And when Roseanne, Tom Arnold and Alice Cooper show up, you can almost see the film sink further down the marsh. The script is also totally lousy, almost entirely without merit. Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) opens a roadmap, on which the Noel Coward-like Freddy has wittily written "you're f**ked". When Carlos is asked about the map, he replies, "Yes, the map says we're captured." Who wrote the screenplay, Oscar Wilde? Or how the scene where Carlos is tortured by Freddy, his hearing amplified to painful levels? Freddy therefore torments him by threatening to release a pin a potentially deadly sound, given that all sounds are magnified. Strangely enough, the fact that Carlos calls out at the top of his voice so that he does not lose it does not seem to have any effect. "Nice to hear from you, Carlos," quips Freddy, hoping some better lines will come. It is also worth noting that dream sleep does not happen unintentionally, so knocking unconscious would not allow immediate access to Freddy's world. Although as part of the story, a human computer game and a 3D final plot logic are not so high on the list of requirements. The teenagers who lead the cast this time are indeed the most despicable, malicious group in the entire series. Tracy (Lezlie Deane) is the only one to greet Freddy with "shut the f**k up, man" and a kick in the scanners. And was incoherent pop music always part of the ingredients? Freddy's dead. No laughs. No scares. No interest. No fun. ALTERNATIVE: - negative - positive
negativ
negative