Sunday, January 9, 2011

My review of A Nightmare on Elm Street 3-Dream Warriors

I saw this one because I heard that it was the best of the Nightmare sequels. I must disagree. I feel New Nightmare is much better than this one. Plus, this film loses points with me because of the title. I hate the title. Dream Warriors? That sounds incredibly cheesy. Yeesh. But anyway...

Acting: I expected more. But I did not like the acting at all. It had moments where it was alright, but when the action went up, the acting went down. That is never a good thing for a movie. In all of the other Nightmare movies, that's what I expected: campy B-movie acting. But since I heard that this one was supposed to be the one of the best sequels, I expected the acting to be something closer to the original or even New Nightmare. But I was disappointed. I dunno, maybe I built it up too much in my head. But I will say this, I like Lawrence Fishburne. I've really liked him in everything I've seen him in outside of The Matrix. It's not that I didn't like The Matrix or his performance in it, I just like him better outside of The Matrix. But yeah, other than him, not too much that's great. 4/10

Plot: decent plot that I feel wasn't executed to the fullest. could have been a bit better. Could have been worse too. There were elements that I felt were really interesting. I've said it before and I'll say it again about these movies: This movie is about someone who kills you while you dream. The keyword being DREAM. I love the original idea of these films: While we sleep, that is when we are at our most vulnerable. Plus, in the world of dreams, there are no holds barred. There is literally nothing that you cannot do with dreams in movies. They tapped into that a little bit with this movie, but not as much as they could have. But, it was a decent plot. 6.5/10

Screenplay: Now this, this was the worst part of the film. I expected as much. It was horrible. I think that the acting could have actually been better, and this is true for many movies, if the screenplay had been better. it was horrible. I didn't like it. It had some good spots. but they were few and far between. I expect more from my Wes Craven films. 3.5/10

Likableness: I liked this film. I liked watching it. More gore and more interesting ways to kill. Unfortunately, this film is the start of Freddy's 'pun kill' phase, but no groaners yet. They will come. But for now, I liked watching this film. it was a decent attempt at a horror sequel. and since it got positive reviews, I think it is a unique slasher threequel. It was a kinda likable film. 8/10

Final Score: 22/40 55% (D)

TRIVIA TIME: 1. The Freddy glove that was stolen from the set of this film was found in another movie: it was hanging on the wall of the work shed in Evil Dead II, released the same year. It was part of a continued banter between directors Wes Craven and Sam Raimi.

2. The original premise of the film involved Freddy invading the real world and haunting the actors and crew responsible for the "Nightmare on Elm Street" films. This idea was rejected by the studio, though Wes Craven later used it for New Nightmare.

3. The bar where Nancy and Dr. Gordon meet Nancy's Father is called "Little Nemo's." "Little Nemo in Slumberland" is the name of a comic strip by Winsor McCay about the adventures of a child in the land of dreams.

                                                         Welcome to Prime Time...

No comments:

Post a Comment