Q: I will stat of with the plot Alice, having survived the previous instalment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? This movie did start of really well as we see Alice dreaming of being Amanda Kruger who get stuck in room and get raped by 100 Manics then she being rushed to hospital but then she not longer the pregnant lady but then she Amanda giving birth to Freddy again.

Alice and Dan are the only two people to return from the 4th movie and then have gotten some new Friends its' no long before Freddy start to kill again, I did like the first dead it okay, not as good as the other deaths or dreams.

Freddy himself didn't seem to be Scary in this movie at all, the nightmare were just boring really they were not scary or creepy at all.

Acting in movies was okay for a 5th movie in the series but overall I think this movie was really Dull. (Still not worst movie of the series, Freddy Dead is the worst)

4/10
A: negative
Q: First, a little summary. This reporter named Torch is basically trying to get out the story of a zombie outbreak and finds the military & government censoring him. Nice message, government censorship and all that, but the way they DID the movie was, well let me explain.

This movie is beyond description. The idea that somebody holds it in higher regard than anything by George Romero is justification enough for the reviewer to be committed to a mental institution. The script is atrocious on its own, like it was written by a sixth grader.As for special effects, I understand that independent films have low budgets, and some gore effects looked acceptable, but if you want a scene with fire, here's a tip: buy some nonflammable material, have an extinguisher ready, and get a fire going! Don't digitally add it in and make it look like an explosion from a Nintendo 64 game. The acting, well let's put it this way. In my summer theater program, a cold reading of the script is, compared to this, The Godfather. I won't even go into the inconsistencies. Find them yourself.

What disturbed me the most, though, was when everything was finished after shooting and editing, somebody might have said, "Okay, this looks good. Let's release it." It sends a chill down my spine to even think about it, to think somebody felt that this was good enough for DVD release. This isn't DVD quality. This isn't Sci-Fi channel quality. Hell, this isn't even film school quality. If you were to submit this in for a project at a film school, you would get an F. No, not even an F, more like an F-. I wouldn't be surprised if he would try to get you expelled.

I felt used after I saw this thing. Blockbuster and the makers of this movie have my money right now, and I'd prefer not to think of what they're doing with it. I have been the pawn of some elaborate, nefarious scheme at legalized theft, and it doesn't feel good to think that I walked right into it, looking at the back cover with pleasant memories of 28 Days Later only to find a film Ed Wood would watch and say afterwards, "I didn't much care for this." This film is the single most terrible movie I have seen. I have not seen anything by Ed Wood, but I have confidence this is worse. If you are looking for serious cinema, so much as being within ten feet of it will probably give you a bad headache. If not, I still recommend that you personally write the director and ask how he sleeps at night. However, if you are the kind of person who get a laugh out of really bad stuff then I recommend you check this out. You won't be disappointed.
A: negative
Q: The film gets my stamp of approval. The scene in the museum demands acting without dialogue. This is one of the most interesting and unique scenes in the history of film. Dickinson's character Kate is very well developed and her performance is felt throughout the entire film. The best work Angie Dickinson did since Point Blank!
A: positive
Q: ... mainly because Ju-on 2 boasts an outrageous FORTY minutes' worth of material literally taken straight out of the first Ju-on - and when you consider that the sequel only runs for 76 minutes, that leaves you with 36 original minutes' worth of film. Ho-hum. I found that deeply irritating - as if viewers simply wouldn't remember the same stuff! - not to mention dull, having to watch it all over again.

OK, that complaint aside, the byline for Ju-on 2 was that it was supposed to explain a lot of the unanswered questions from the first movie, which frankly, over 36 minutes, simply doesn't go far enough to making any kind of sense of the original's highly convoluted storyline.

There are, however, some really nice new horror sequences which show how good the film might have been, had it had some time to develop; and some of the questions raised by the original - some, but not all - are answered.

So in conclusion - if you loved the first original movie and want to see some further developments on the story, go for it - but just remember to keep your remote control to hand with your finger on the fast-forward button for forty minutes.
A: negative