This second sequel is much better than Part 2, but that's not saying much. For one thing, it's a more direct continuation of the original, with Heather Langenkamp reprising her role of Nancy Thompson. But although this guarantees a somewhat stronger premise, it doesn't prevent the film from slipping into self-parody, and eventually even resorting to dubious Christian lore to half-assedly propel the narrative and allow a (highly unwelcome) John Saxon cameo. As the "slasher sequel syndrome" dictates, the obligatory background updates on boogeyman Freddy Krueger provide only illusory depth to an increasingly goofy and flat character. If only by erosion of the "dream killer" premise, or because of his polished, almost "politically-correct" new look, the zombie child molester has almost none of the screen presence he once had. Which brings him closer and closer to Jason, the hulking n' sulking Camp Crystal ghoul who mindlessly swings the machete around. But instead of gorier and gorier kills, it's increasingly elaborate special effects which conceal Freddy's shallowness. Although this offers more "wows" to the casual viewer, it drags the series away from its horror roots and into the realm of fantasy. But frankly I must also say that Dream Warriors' confined new locale (an insane asylum) does very little to help poor Freddy out. Trapped by the tiled white corridors of the institution (which annoyingly is the only setting his teenage victims can dream off), he can no longer do what he does best, that is stalking and hunting the characters through the labyrinthine streets of suburbia (which is one of the most important staples of the series). Now, he can only assume new forms and quip new one-liners (such as the dubious: "Welcome to prime-time, bitch."). What is interesting however are the intriguing new narrative devices offered by the film, such as the "dream weapons" specific to each character's background and the sessions of group hypnosis during which Nancy and the kids can take on Freddy together. But these elements are far too underplayed to salvage the sinking ship. And as is the case with almost every element in the film, the 20-minute finale set in dreams is nowhere near as exciting as it promises to be.
I must say that I was also thrilled to see Heather Langenkamp appear onscreen twelve minutes in. We're not talking about a meaningless cameo here (such as Kirsty's video-tape appearance in Hellraiser III) but a full-fledged role for her character Nancy. Actually, 'full-fledged' might not be the accurate word to describe it... because frankly, you start to curse her lack of depth five minutes later. Just like Freddy, Nancy's background (as the first Nightmare's survivor girl) provides illusory depth for it is otherwise, impossible to ascertain her status as trauma victim. Not only isn't she emotionally scarred or hellbent on helping the kids, but she doesn't provide any real insight into the Freddy phenomenon or the awesome researches she has done in college. Like most elements in this film, she is just a limp narrative link between other ill-assorted elements. It's only through her highly unconvincing romance with the repulsive Gordon that she ties the many narrative strands together, including the one with her drunken, cowardly father and Freddy's bones, but not through her own efforts. In the end, the film is made up of too many such examples of wasted potential to be worthwhile. Too much emphasis is put on the dubious Christian solution to Freddy's curse and not enough on the concrete and rewarding involvment of the kids themselves. The finale is set up as a team venture into the boogeyman's lair where teamwork and interpersonal skills should have been key. Instead, Freddy isolates and kills two right of the bat (in two obvious and dubiously comic set-ups), then wisecracks and chases the others to a very unsatisfying conclusion including too many dramatic poses and not enough dream powers. All of this is intercut with scenes of Lt. Thompson and Gordon trying to bury Freddy's bones and perform some very amateurish blessing ceremony. And there goes another valid opportunity to teach the teenage audience about the value of friendship and teamwork in time of needs. There's just so much of star Freddy that all meaningful characters and issues have been absorbed in his web of bad theatrics and offensive one-liners. And one other thing: where's the gore? Sure, the kills are now much more elaborate, and I must admit that some of them are quite innovative. But where's the incredible gore that launched the series? Where are the blood-soaked matresses and ceilings? They were banned by mainstream morality no doubt, along with almost every interesting concept in this film. Despite it all, this entry manages to earn its rightful place in the series, if only for being the basis to the following film and those other films lying beyond (such as the surprisingly good Freddy vs Jason).
2/5 Many intriguing ideas, but very disappointing execution.
No better weapon to beat Freddy than the heroine's virginal body
In this third installment, which thankfully skips the events of Part 2, all the remaining Elm street kids are in a mental institution under the care of orderly Max (Larry Fishburne, who it's always nice to see even in subdued roles) and super-lame psychiatrist Neil Gordon. Of course, the entire medical personel denies Freddy Krueger's existence altogether and wishes to rid the kids of moral ailments which they feel are responsible for their nightmares. Honestly, they all sound more like raving preachers than actual, analytical professionals. And although I know it is merely a plot device designed to isolate the characters, I found it infuriating to witness their lack of empathy, understanding and scientific rigor. Hell, the proof is there (the mounds of mangled teenage bodies left by Freddy up to that point) so why yack about morality and other such stuff which doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the scientific analysis of the situation? You'd think that once hot-shot grad student Nancy Thompson joins them, things will change, but they don't. Not right away. It takes two deaths (one of which features both an impossible feat and gross negligeance from the medical staff, two convenient plot devices used undiscriminately) before she convinces Gordon to prescribe the kids Hypnocil (an experimental, dream-suppressing drug that surprisingly reappears only in Freddy vs Jason). Considering the delay necessary to receive the drug, Gordon and Thompson try a temporary patchwork solution, group hypnosis, in order to accompany the kids in their dreams. It works and thus they are catapulted into Freddy's domain. But when the mute kid wanders away from the group, he is caught by the boogeyman who assumed the form of a hot nurse (hence providing a rare breast shot) for the occasion. Unlike the others, Joey is not killed, but rather dragged to Hell, where the climatic battle takes place after his friends bind together to get him back. The contrived subplot involves the ghost of Freddy's mother explaining how her son's bones must be buried in hallowed ground to erase the curse. But beware of Jason and the Argonauts type animated skeletons!
At least, the film starts off pretty well. The opening sequence cleverly sets up the mood and aspirations of the film as insomniac Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) feverishly glues together a popsicle sticks model of Nancy Thompson's old house, which we suspect is a recurring dream fantasy. When her mother irrupts into the room and asks why she isn't in bed, Kristen humors her, saying she was waiting for her return when actually she simply doesn't want to become finger food. Nonetheless, she eventually gets inbetween the sheets and wishes mommy good-night, after which she is catapulted on the porch of Nancy's house, where rope-jumping girls are singing that annoying nursery rhyme from the original film. Soon enough, Kristen encounters Freddy and he slashes her. Not much. Just enough for her mother to panic and seek psychiatric help. Thanks to this sequence, we can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that the series has gone back to its roots (girls and guerrilla type dream attacks). However, it is also somewhat dishonest, not unlike Part 2's. What sucked about Part 2's opening sequence was that it misrepresented the protagonist as a lonesome object of laughter when he was actually a fairly self-confident and moody dude. What sucks about #3's opening sequence is that it introduces a character which becomes secondary the second Heather Langenkamp walks into the frame, that is a scant ten minutes later. In actuality, there is only one major reason for Arquette's screen time, but it's an overwhelming one. I'm talking of course about her incredible screaming voice. I mean, I've heard screams before, but hell! We're talking about a dead-raisingly piercing shriek here! Maybe it's a special talent she has, or a result of having such large, er... lungs, but Arquette has got it going on! Maybe not a scream "queen" (because of her limited horror films output), but certainly a scream princess!
Arquette in "that" dress. Luckily, the bodice didn't involve any
buttons, otherwise many eyeballs would've been endangered.
buttons, otherwise many eyeballs would've been endangered.
I must say that I was also thrilled to see Heather Langenkamp appear onscreen twelve minutes in. We're not talking about a meaningless cameo here (such as Kirsty's video-tape appearance in Hellraiser III) but a full-fledged role for her character Nancy. Actually, 'full-fledged' might not be the accurate word to describe it... because frankly, you start to curse her lack of depth five minutes later. Just like Freddy, Nancy's background (as the first Nightmare's survivor girl) provides illusory depth for it is otherwise, impossible to ascertain her status as trauma victim. Not only isn't she emotionally scarred or hellbent on helping the kids, but she doesn't provide any real insight into the Freddy phenomenon or the awesome researches she has done in college. Like most elements in this film, she is just a limp narrative link between other ill-assorted elements. It's only through her highly unconvincing romance with the repulsive Gordon that she ties the many narrative strands together, including the one with her drunken, cowardly father and Freddy's bones, but not through her own efforts. In the end, the film is made up of too many such examples of wasted potential to be worthwhile. Too much emphasis is put on the dubious Christian solution to Freddy's curse and not enough on the concrete and rewarding involvment of the kids themselves. The finale is set up as a team venture into the boogeyman's lair where teamwork and interpersonal skills should have been key. Instead, Freddy isolates and kills two right of the bat (in two obvious and dubiously comic set-ups), then wisecracks and chases the others to a very unsatisfying conclusion including too many dramatic poses and not enough dream powers. All of this is intercut with scenes of Lt. Thompson and Gordon trying to bury Freddy's bones and perform some very amateurish blessing ceremony. And there goes another valid opportunity to teach the teenage audience about the value of friendship and teamwork in time of needs. There's just so much of star Freddy that all meaningful characters and issues have been absorbed in his web of bad theatrics and offensive one-liners. And one other thing: where's the gore? Sure, the kills are now much more elaborate, and I must admit that some of them are quite innovative. But where's the incredible gore that launched the series? Where are the blood-soaked matresses and ceilings? They were banned by mainstream morality no doubt, along with almost every interesting concept in this film. Despite it all, this entry manages to earn its rightful place in the series, if only for being the basis to the following film and those other films lying beyond (such as the surprisingly good Freddy vs Jason).
Freddy kills a suicidal recovering drug-addict with seringue-fingers.
Comical, moralistic, or just tasteless?
Comical, moralistic, or just tasteless?
2/5 Many intriguing ideas, but very disappointing execution.
