moonspinner55 Teenage boy, just relocated to a new town with his single mom to attend the university on scholarship, immediately attracts attention: he's a science genius who has built his own robot, a combination best friend/bodyguard named BB. But there's trouble in the neighborhood: the old lady across the street wields a shotgun, while the scary man next door abuses his daughter. Perplexing thriller from director Wes Craven begins promisingly--sort of like a '70s Disney movie with an attitude--but the tone of the picture starts to falter right about the time the beaten girl has a nightmare in which she stabs her father and his blood squirts her in the face. The second-half of the movie--which, fatally, does not include BB--follows in this schlocky vein (apparently dictated by the studio after the original cut was met with negative test screenings). Genre buffs might enjoy the descent into murder and mayhem and reanimation (it is a horror movie, after all), but the film's early strengths are eventually lost. Talented screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin, adapting Diana Henstell's novel "Friend", must have been heartsick to see this project get away from both himself and Craven. The solid cast gives it a noble try but can't salvage the wreckage. *1/2 from ****

gavin6942 Paul is a new kid in town with a robot named "BB". He befriends Samantha (Kristy Swanson) and the three of them have a lot of good times together. That is, until Samantha's abusive father throws her down some stairs and kills her.Whether you like this movie or not really comes down to how seriously you take it. Kristy Swanson walking and swinging her arms like a robot? Pretty silly. The acting is rather spotty at times. Some of the science and plot do not really add up. Calling this a "B" movie might be giving it too much credit.There is a lot of dispute about what aspects were Craven, what came from the studio and what was from different producers. Craven did not want the movie to be as dark or gory as it became. Respectfully, I would have to disagree with Craven on that. The gore effects (especially the burned father) look incredible, and by far the highlight of the film is the death of the neighbor woman (death by basketball!).This is a fun picture that seems to have been largely forgotten. Of course it is does not reach the status of "Last House", "Nightmare" or "Scream", but there is a lot to like about this one.

Nick7080 Yes, it has very over the top plot and some scenes are both crazy and funny, but it's still one of my fave movies ever. For very long time now i am huge fan of it, and i don't care about all the crap i might get, i'm not gonna change my opinion.I know, this movie has lot of problems with mixed direction and forced horror scenes, but i don't think that it's as bad as some of the Craven's other work like Hills Have Eyes 2. And it's important to know that most of the problems that Deadly Friend has is not because of the director, but because of the Warner Bros studio. But getting back to the movie;Screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin did a good job with script, even though it's somewhat obvious that some of it was changed and added because of studio requests. Rubin also wrote scripts for two great movies from 1990; Jacob's Ladder which i am a huge fan of, and Ghost.As for movie, i think that actors did a good job with their roles, script works for about 90% of the movie (hey,i have to be honest, right?), horror atmosphere is quite good, jump scares are sometimes predictable but they work, gore scenes were not really needed (more on that later), but even though some are laughable, i think that they are actually well done with solid makeup effects and infamous "basketball kill" is definitely one of the funniest kills ever and one of the best head explosions i ever saw in movie, along with the ones in Scanners, Maniac and Prowler. Nightmare scenes from movie are often called stupid, but i think that they were quite creepy to be honest, specially one where Sam dreams about killing her dad. Hey, if Wes Craven is directing a nightmare scene, then you know it's a good one.Some people would probably disagree with me, but i think that ending, at least first part of it, is quite sad. But that second part with ultra stupid and idiotic "she's a robot!" ending is one thing that i absolutely hate.After doing some research i found out that movie was originally very different then what was released. It was originally meant to be more of a love story then horror, but producers from Warner Bros had different ideas and Craven was told to make the movie bloodier. I think that it's damn shame. If all gore was taken out, movie would still be solid horror and with, like they originally wanted, interesting and dark love story.You can actually see that there was more to this film with the romance subplot, and few of those scenes between Paul and Sam after she's been brought back to life are very well done both by director and actors. And i'm not talking about scenes when he tries to hide her or when he runs into the murder scene, i'm talking about scenes like when Sam is looking at photos of her and Paul and when she shows him one of those photos. Movie would probably benefit more from those scenes, and original cut probably did have more of that.Instead, what we got is movie that jumps from "kids" horror to usual over the top 80's horror. More serious subjects that it touches, like child abuse are almost overshadowed with gore scenes that really don't feel like they fit anywhere.I can see why Craven and Rubin disowned the movie, which is too bad cause i would really like to see how different original version was before they had to changed it. I'm a sucker for movies that have been tempered with in post production from one reason or another, so maybe that's one of the reasons why i appreciate this movie for what it could have been or for what it originally was.I know that i'm probably one of the few fans that this movie has, but either way, i still love it and i would recommend it to everyone who are interested in entertaining, fun horror movie.

robertofuiano beautiful film. As to the usual one, the usual negative comments which talk about a classical film some years 80 which everyone does not like it to the nostalgic ones are met.Sure Heros that this film had to have a judgment in this site. In fact reviewers' good part has put a high vote to the previous episodes. Because this contrast? I know the reason. Since assumptive reviewers' good part favorably sees the past and as the past is "better" than the present they have given several credit to the preceding episodes being still the last episode more explosive and spectacular. At this point should reject also the old episodes but there are here two weights and two measure.In fact also cinema masterpieces have been criticized and denigrated. Good part some reviewers of this site belong to the very bad reviewers. Better think separately with its head. I was sure that the god fun old episode did not like it. Who has to be withdrawn is not george lucas but the last reviewer SAMPAT GO AWAY. Cary Guffey