input: What seemed as a good premise for a movie...unfortunately it fails to deliver on nearly every level. Very hard to follow at the start of the movie I actually found myself fighting the urge to turn it off the biggest problem from a visual aspect is the fact that the camera work is simply over the top with so many "arty" splicings and semi-subliminal cuts throughout the movie that actually distracts you from the from the overall story. It really tries too hard to immerse you in the moment and build to a suspenseful ending but the movie just has so many half conceived characters and non relevant script it just leaves you feeling disappointed and confused as to why they tried to go so deep with it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Honestly, I find this film almost too depressing for my own good. It is VERY depressing until pretty much the very end. There is no way I can justify passing judgement to any character who did things I didn't like (well, except for the disgusting character played by Fredrick Forrest). But it's still so frustrating to see people behaving this way, putting up walls around themselves when just a word or so could break the ice and promote healing.

A horrible tragedy strikes a Montana family. They believe they've lost one son, but it turns out they've lost 2. The key is, if they just communicate and face their grief together, they won't end up losing their second son permanently.

But they just can't. Something is blocking this family from sharing their sorrows. Some family retreat into silence and resentment while certain others point fingers of blame (and then go ahead and cheat on their poor pregnant wife by seducing the pretty girlfriend of the deceased...that Andy character truly is a snake!) The only member of the family that isn't threatening Arnold in some way is his Grandpa (Wilford Brimley). Grandpa seems to be able to speak to the boy without judgements or even kid gloves. He seems to know what the child is thinking about even though Arnold isn't saying much these days. It is truly a blessing for the poor kid to have that one someone he can turn to. No one else seems to grasp the fact that Arnold might be in shock, in denial, or that his way of grieving may not be the same style, or at the same speed, as they would expect. It's so easy to judge and to be angry and to feel someone is "made of stone" just because they don't grieve in a way we believe they ought.

The story is very quiet and naturalistic. You're not going to get some spoon-fed narration or some Hollywood feel-good resolution. I was very concerned by the fact that this child was so burdened with guilt that he felt it necessary to hitchhike several hundred miles to apologize to that piggy Andy's wife, for something he should not blame himself for. Arnold may have accidentally killed his brother, but nobody is responsible for the end of that marriage, which apparently was a lousy one anyway, except for the two people in the marriage. It's only dumb luck Arnold didn't get into the car with a pedophile or a murderer.

Robert Duvall and Glenn Close are frustratingly effective as the parents who somehow cannot find it in themselves to communicate with their son, to find out what Arnold is going through. Jason Presson, whom I've not seen anywhere else except for a childhood favorite called EXPLORERS and a creepy ghost story called THE LADY IN WHITE, did an incredible job as Arnold, a great performance from a child actor.

Aside from being somewhat slow at times, THE STONE BOY is an excellent, and very depressing movie.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Actually, they don't, but they certainly did when trying to think of a singular line that adequately summarises how terrible this entry in the series really is. There were some moments that could have been good, but they are mostly outweighed by their own conversion into missed opportunities, and don't get me started on the bad.

The wasted opportunities are pretty obvious, but I will recap them here in case anyone cares. Anyone who hasn't seen the film and genuinely gives a toss would be advised to stop reading at this point. The first, and potentially the biggest, wasted opportunity, was the plot with Freddy's long-lost child. Now, the extreme mental illness that Freddy appears to suffer (and I might hasten to add that less than one percent of mental patients are a threat to other people, leave alone to this extent) is HEREDITARY, so why not a mystery-type slasher in which Lisa Zane's character dreams of Freddy murdering the teens, only we later discover it's actually her doing all the killing? Sound like a good plot idea to you? Obviously it was above the heads of Talalay and De Luca.

Then there's the trip to Springfield, where the entire adolescent population has been wiped out, and the remaining adults are experiencing a kind of mass psychosis. Funnily enough, said mass psychosis was actually depicted in a realistic and convincing manner, although this has a fair amount to do with the fact that we are never shown too much. We are just given quick visual hints of the massive loss of connection with reality that would stem from the grief of every youngster in town dying for reasons beyond one's comprehension and control. The essential problem with this plot element, however, is that the town is abandoned too quickly, and with no real answers. This collection of scenes would have been far creepier with ten minutes of say... one sane citizen explaining to these visitors why the Springfield fair looks like a horror show.

Of course, horror films are never noted for their character development, unless they're the kind of horror films John Carpenter used to direct, but how are we supposed to really care when characters we know next to nothing about die? At least Wes Craven took the time to set up his characters in the original, and used a few cheap tricks to draw the audience in. That, in a nutshell, is probably the biggest problem with Freddy's Dead: it just doesn't try at all, leave alone hard enough.

On a related note, I feel kind of sorry for Robert Englund, now that he is more or less inextricably linked with the Freddy character. He has played far better characters in far better productions (the science-fiction miniseries "V", for example), and to be forever remembered as "the man who played Freddy" is selling him rather short. It seems he will never break the mold of horror films now. As for the rest of the cast, well, I think their performances here speak for themselves. They deserved to be permanently typecast as little more than B-grade horror props. Even Yaphet Kotto doesn't escape this one unscathed, as his character is one of the most childishly written in the history of B-films.

All in all, Freddy's Dead gets a 1 out of me. I'd vote lower, but the IMDb doesn't allow for that. FD is really a testament to how a writer's inability to exploit a concept to the fullest extent can ruin not only a film, but an entire franchise.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative