A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3: DREAM WARRIORS

     A young teenage girl is haunted by terrible dreams of Freddy Krueger, which leads her to a psychiatric ward chock full of troubled kids- all of whom are being haunted by the evil madman...
   

       A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3: DREAM WARRIORS is almost universally known as one of the best and most-loved of the ELM STREET films- yet I've honestly never been a huge fan of this one, or any that followed, for that matter. I hadn't watched DREAM WARRIORS in ages and was recently in a mood for it, so I dug out my copy the other day and gave it a whirl for old time's sakes. The film is fun... but it's just kinda lame to me now. The magic of the original is long gone, if you ask me.

     When the original A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET was released in '84, it truly did breath new life into the horror genre. I immediately loved it and it quickly became a Friday night staple alongside such time-honored slashers as HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13TH. I owned the original film on VHS twice, with numerous DVD versions throughout the years as well. I even enjoyed the strangely homoerotic sequel, with all its faults. Which brings us to part 3.

      I remember in high school when DREAM WARRIORS came out and people went absolutely nuts over it- but I was just sitting there all quietly underwhelmed, to be perfectly honest. I liked the film... but I wasn't blown away from it, like I was the original and even the sequel. This one left me feeling kinda blah. As a horror film, that is. (Now as a wonderfully wacky time capsule of 1987 with that extra-helping of late 80's cheese that you know exactly what I'm talking about- it excels. As a comedy, it works great- especially since the film makers decided to inexplicably turn Freddy Krueger into a wise-cracking comedian tossing out one-liners and jokes for days.) I just never found it remotely scary, that's all. Silly, yes. Scary, no.

     By all accounts, I should love DREAM WARRIORS, and I occasionally find myself in the mood to watch it... so I do, and find myself cringing way too much. Let's be real here- many horror films from the latter half of the 80's haven't aged well when viewed today, and DREAM WARRIORS is a perfect example of this. It's downright hokey at times, and some of the effects and scenes come across as rather silly. For whatever reason, horror films from the first part of the decade have a certain dark, grainy charm that holds up today, but was lost in the bright lights and garish color schemes that permeated so many of the scary movies from say, 1986 and on.

     Now there's some great touches in DREAM WARRIORS. For one, Nancy Langenkamp makes a welcome return as Nancy and is every bit as likable as she was in the original. She's now a psychiatrist who specializes in dreams,and immediately takes Kirsten under her wing to battle the return of Freddy Krueger. 80's cult actor Craig Wasson plays Dr. Neil Goldman at the psychiatric ward and devours any scenery in a ten foot radius as always. There's some fun cameos this time around, such as Zsa Zsa Gabor and Dick Cavett, but at the end of the day they're unnecessary and distracting. They also let you know that Freddy Krueger was very much a huge mainstream icon by the time this film was released- whereas the very first ELM STREET felt much more like a low-budget, independent film. Because it was, and that somehow made it much scarier.

     One cannot deny that Chuck Russell does a pretty good job directing the shenanigans on Elm Street this time around, and the dream sequences were huge hits with audiences in 1987. I just didn't love this one, popular opinion be damned. Go read the comments on this film on any given site and you'll see breathless reviews raving at how terrifying and awesome and close to the original the third installment is, and I disagree with all of that. Sure it's a well-made film and I'm not trying to purposely hate on it- I don't hate the film at all. I just don't find it the least bit frightening and the overall tone of the film is nothing like the original- to me, FREDDY'S REVENGE was far more like the original than part 3, in terms of overall atmosphere. The original film and the sequel still treated Freddy as truly evil with no sense of humor whatsoever- and kept him mostly in the dark to keep him mysterious. Not in this one. Freddy is front and center with a newfound treasure trove of sarcastic one-liners that's honestly just irritating and saps the film of any real impact. This one is just too corny and many of the special effects are just too over-the-top at times for it to be taken fully seriously. But to each his own I suppose.

     To me, DREAM WARRIORS is more of a camp classic than an outright horror film, with far more humor to be found in it than horror. And I think making Freddy a sassy slasher with quippy zingers only adds to the lightened mood and in turn takes it away from the darker tones and mood of the first two films. Which is a bummer to me. Here, he's just not scary anymore. Fun, to be sure... but this was when I started losing interest in the ELM STREET films. Around '87 and '88 I was much more interested in seeing FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 7: A NEW BLOOD and HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS. To me, the magic was over. 3 can be lots of fun to go back and laugh at, hell even 2 can be a hoot and a half at times- especially with the right crowd and party favors. The first film was always the only truly scary one of the franchise anyways, and you all know it.

 

A Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

       As I've said before, I've never been a huge fan of Freddy Krueger. Yes, he was very scary in the original A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, and it's a genuine 80's classic of horror. Absolutely. ELM STREET was a true breath of fresh air, as we had been subjected to countless knife-wielding madmen wearing masks, which we love of course- but ELM STREET was truly different and creative. But somewhere around the third installment, I really started to lose interest in the old guy. Once he started cracking wicked one-liners, he just stopped being scary and started being annoying. To me, at least. Now I'm not dogging on the guy here- Anyway, I just recently re-visited the first sequel, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET PART 2: FREDDY'S REVENGE. And wow! This is seriously the most homoerotic and campy horror movie of the 80's!

     A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET was extremely successful when it hit theaters in 1984, so a sequel was inevitable. Two years later, we got one, titled A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET PART 2 FREDDY'S REVENGE. And what a curious sequel it was. The film is full of blatantly obvious homosexual undertones- lots of male nudity, the school coach who just happens to be a leather daddy- even Jesse, the main character, at one point ends up in a gay bar. Jesse also keeps saying throughout the film that there's something inside him that wants to "come out", and he's obviously more interested in his buddy than his girlfriend. (His buddy, Grady, was played by Robert Rusler- do you blame Jesse? haha) It's actually quite amazing that they not only had the balls to pull this off in 1986, but even more amazing is the fact that nobody seemed to notice any of the gay stuff at the time.  At least I didn't.

                                                       
     FREDDY'S REVENGE is set five years after the original film. A new man and his family have bought Nancy's house, who went mad from her ordeal and is now institutionalized. Mark Patton deliciously plays Jesse, the oldest son who now occupies Nancy's bedroom.  He seems to be a sexually confused teenager who starts having terrible nightmares. Yes, Freddy is back, haunting Jesse's dreams now, and is intent on taking over Jesse's body and using it for his dirty work. FREDDYS' REVENGE tends to be the least favorite of the series, and on some levels, it's easy to see why.

     There are definitely some silly moments to be found, but also some pretty good moments too. The opening bus scene is actually done quite well, and the "transformation" scene is also a standout moment. Freddy is still pretty much kept in the dark for most of the film, which is much more effective, and is played very sinister. It's the last time Robert Englund plays Freddy seriously, as further performances up the camp factor. The movie has a good premise- I like the idea of Freddy trying to take over somebody's body, and I like that Jessie is living in the original house. And the idea that  that this kid is or could be sexually confused was actually a pretty bold move for 1986. I was fourteen at the time I first saw this, and seeing it as an adult now, it's obvious a lot of stuff went right over my head.

     FREDDY'S REVENGE is a camp lover's delight as there are many hilarious moments to be found. Clu Gulager and Hope Lange certainly camp it up as Jesse's parents, although Kim Myers delivers an honest and earnest performance as Lisa, Jesse's girlfriend. She also very much resembles a young Meryl Streep. Throw in sexy 80's icon Robert Rusler as Jesse's wise-cracking best friend Grady, and you've got yourself a rather memorable sequel, to be honest. A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET PART 2: FREDDY'S REVENGE is certainly one of the most curious and strange horror movies to come out of the 80's. There are moments of high horror mixed with high camp- which in my eyes certainly makes for interesting viewing.

     This is the most underrated of the series, even though some fans complain about the implied bisexuality of the main character.  I find it to personally give the film an unusual twist- and in all the following sequels, nothing this original or bold can be found anywhere. This film offers plenty of flaws, but I would give it a solid B just for creativity and uniqueness.

     As I said before, this is the last film where Freddy is played for terror, instead of for laughs. Freddy thankfully does not fire off embarrassing and silly one-liners in this film- if that's what you're looking for, skip to Parts 3 and on. This sequel for the most part seems to be more concerned with racking up tension instead of the body count, and that's perfectly fine with me. It's not a great film, but it's not a terrible film either. I find it quite fascinating, actually.And it definitely has some great and memorable moments. It does seem that the film has gained a definite cult following in the past few years, and Mark Patton is proud of his participation in the film and of being one of the first male 'final girls'. And rightly so. Ah, the 80's.