Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Seriously, I can easily stomach a lot of on screen blood, gore and repulsiveness, but what really makes this film disturbing & uncomfortable to watch is how the doctor character keeps on rambling about the physical damage done to raped women. He, John Cassavetes of "Rosemary's Baby", talks about ruptured uterus, dry intercourse and massive loads of reddish (?) sperm like they are the most common little ailments in the world of medicine. That being said, "Incubus" is an ultimately STRANGE horror effort. It isn't necessarily awful although it isn't very good, neither but just plain weird. The muddled & incoherent script initially revolves on the hunt for a rapist-killer of flesh and blood (even though the title clearly suggests the involvement of a supernatural creature) and it never seems to stop introducing new characters. None of these characters, especially not the main ones, come across as sympathetic and for some never-explained reason they all seem to keep dark secrets. The aforementioned doctor has an odd interpretation of daughter-love and continuously behaves like he's a suspect himself, the town's sheriff (John Ireland) appears to be in a constant state of drunkenness and doesn't even seem to care about who keeps raping & killing the women in his district, the female reporter is even too weird for words and the Galens (an old witch and her grandson) are just plain spooky. All together they desperately try to solve the mystery of whom or what exactly is destroying the towns' women reproducing organs. The sequences building up towards the rapes & murders are admirably atmospheric and the vile acts themselves are bloody and unsettling. Basically these are very positive factors in a horror film, but the narrative structure is too incoherent and the characters are too unsympathetic for "Incubus" to be a really good film. Also, there are quite a few tedious parts to struggle yourself through (like footage of a Bruce Dickinson concert!) and the usually very reliable John Hough's direction is nearly unnoticeable. The final shot is effectively nightmarish, though. For me personally, "Incubus" was a bit of a disappointment, but there are still several enough reasons to recommend this odd piece of early 80's horror to open-minded genre fanatics.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.

At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.

Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the "horror for infants" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.

By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.

Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.

I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: It had all the cliches of movies of this type and no substance. The plot went nowhere and at the end of the movie I felt like a sucker for watching it. The production was good; however, the script and acting were B-movie quality. The casting was poor because there were good actors mixed in with crumby actors. The good actors didn't hold their own nor did they lift up the others.

This movie is not worthy of more words, but I will say more to meet the minimum requirement of ten lines. James Wood and Cuba Gooding, Jr. play caricatures of themselves in other movies.

If you are looking for mindless entertainment, I still wouldn't recommend this movie.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
...and you can look at that statement in different ways, by the way. First of all, it's a mess because of all the gruesome and extremely violent scenes. Your wildest imagination doesn't even come close to some of the explicitly shown scenes here. Entire parts of this movie are just plain sick, disgusting, offensive, brutal and they bring you close to puking your guts out. Now, I love horror movies and I am very 'pro-violence', but I do think that it has to lead somewhere !! Is that too much to ask ? Cradle of Fear is just a series of utterly sick and twisted thoughts. The "movie" contains out of four separate chapters connected by a wraparound story. This results in endless showing of torture, murder and sickness only to find out that the victims have something in common. Not very informative, if you ask me. And yet - it has to be said - the basic plot idea surely HAS potential. It's about a cannibalistic hypnotist who made a deal with the devil himself to avenge himself and cause misery and death to everyone who was involved in his trial. Personally, I think that is an interesting topic, so they should have focused on that a little more instead of wanting to create the most disgusting movie ever.

Secondly, the whole production of this movie was a mess. They didn't have much of a budget and they spent it all on fake blood and guts...Tons of it !! The acting performances are a joke and some of the worst I've ever seen. Any other special effects besides the make-up looks very amateurish ( Like that attempt to a realistic car crash, for example ). There's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere...not even an attempt to build up one.

Cradle of Fear is a failure and a missed opportunity to say the least. With the presence of death-metal icon Danni Filth ( from the band Cradle of filth..get the link ? ) this movie is obviously only meant for the eyes of twisted teenagers who try to be controversial. Troubled girls and boys who take pleasure in worrying their parents by watching crap like this. And then people keep complaining that the amount of suicides and juvenile delinquency is increasing...Bah. I can imagine that this movie can cause a lot of damage when you're easily influenced or dispose of an unstable mind. For every self-respecting horror fan, this movie is an insult.