Q: I really can't say too much more about the plot of the movie that hasn't already been said. I haven't seen the movie in about 25 years and the memory of it has never left me. I have been searching for it every where. I have done net searches for it in the past but came up empty. Last night I was thinking about the movie again and was trying to remember who was in it but I was only about 10 or 12 when I last saw it and I wasn't even sure if I had the right movie name so I decided to do another search and I finally found this sight. I was right. If any one knows where I can get a copy of this wonderful movie to share with my family could you please let me now at tawnyteel@yahoo.com I would really appreciate it. And to anyone who has not seen this movie and has the chance to it is well worth it.
A: positive
Q: Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...

This isn't entertainment...this is hell.

Hell.

Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.

It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!

Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY!
A: negative
Q: This is an early film "Pilot" for the hit Canadian tv show Trailer Park Boys. It was played to executives at a few networks before Showcase decided to sign them up for a tv series. Great acting and a very funny cast make this one of the best cult comedy films. The movie plot is that these two small time criminals go around "exterminating" peoples pets for money. If you have a dog next door whos barking all night these are the guys you go to! But they get into trouble when they come across a job too big for them to deal with and end up in a shootout. Watch this movie if you want to understand the beginning of the tv series. I highly recommend it!

Rated R for swearing, violence, and drug use.

Its not too offensive either (they dont actually show killing animals)
A: positive
Q: 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.
A: negative