Six years after the original Nightmare, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp), now a psychologist, finds that the kids at her workplace are having Freddy (Robert Englund) visit them in their dreams. For a little variation, one of the kids (Patricia Arquette) has a strange ability to bring other people into her dreams. Dreams containing spectacular special effects and imagination --- but not enough.
Wes Craven returned to the series as a co-writer, but direction was given to Chuck Russell. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Good thing: Russell has one heck of an imagination, and, in spite of a minuscule five million dollar budget, he got the special effects people to put some great visions on screen in a freaky fashion that's convincing in a comic-bookish way, which is right for the film. Bad thing: Russell has no idea how to direct actors to give good dramatic performances or stage scenes where people actually talk to one another.
Now, at this point in time, Craven's writing was a little weak dramatically, but that was okay when he directed, because he knew how to make it look good. Russell, however, was new at the whole directing thing, and the dramatic scenes are pretty darn stiff. And the actors don't help. Langenkamp isn't a bad actress, but she's very inconsistent here. In the dream sequences, she's fine, but outside of them, she's a little wooden. Sadly, she out-acts most of the rest of the cast. They all have energy and seem to be putting a little effort into it, but very few actors in this film do anything memorable. Craig Wasson, as another psychologist, is okay but kind of dull. The rest of the teen-agers are one-dimensional at best. Not all of them are bad. Of course, Robert Englund is wonderful as Freddy. John Saxon plays his return about right. And Laurence Fishburne is completely real and convincing. He plays the role with conviction and believability. It's too bad he's only in the film for about five minutes.
But the acting isn't the real problem. None of it is bad enough to wreck or even seriously hurt the film. In spite of my complaining, the actors are at least adequate for what's needed. You don't really want any of them to die or anything. The problem is split between the writers (Craven, Russell, Frank Darabont in his pre-Shawshank days, and Bruce Wagner) and director Russell. Now Craven's basic story is good. In fact, it's a really good story that manages to be both a clever and fairly logical way to continue to series. Also, the decision to pretend Part 2 never happened was an excellent idea.
However, even though Craven made up a good story, Russell throws his wild imagination into the script, and the writer of the Shawshank freaking Redemption was involved, the script is fairly predictable and two-dimensional in spite of some great ideas. And, as I said, Russell is lost when someone isn't having a nightmare or hallucination or anything like that.
But then there are the nightmare scenes, some of which border on brilliant, all of which are pretty darn cool. The one with Freddy turning into a giant snake and slowly eating his prey is pretty intense, and most of the others are quite memorable (such as the guy puppeteer-ed with his own blood vessels, the Wizardmaster or whatever he was, the guy tied to a bed with cut off tongues, and the TV that comes to life very literally). The dreams aren't really scary, but they are atmospheric and freaky. And lots of fun to watch. They don't quite cross the line into truly great sequences, but they're pretty darn good.
And for the most part, the special effects work. They aren't totally convincing in a literal sense, but in the context of the film, they work just fine. The skeleton at the end is the only truly failed effect.
But good special effects aren't enough to rescue the film. It's still an obvious and wooden horror film that isn't scary. And yet, for some reason, I liked it anyway.
It took me a while, but I finally figured out why. The answer is the same answer to many of the flaws in the film: Chuck Russell. The atmosphere and energy and imagination of the film all combine to make it work on a B-rate comic book level. In fact, on that level, it works superbly.
So, in the end, I guess I had a lot of fun watching the movie. I just had to keep reminding myself to turn my brain off. I probably should have done that in the first place, but I was hoping for an intelligent horror film. Go into this film with the right expectations and you'll love it. Just realize it isn't going to work on the same levels that the original (as well as Wes Craven's New Nightmare) worked.
Wes Craven returned to the series as a co-writer, but direction was given to Chuck Russell. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Good thing: Russell has one heck of an imagination, and, in spite of a minuscule five million dollar budget, he got the special effects people to put some great visions on screen in a freaky fashion that's convincing in a comic-bookish way, which is right for the film. Bad thing: Russell has no idea how to direct actors to give good dramatic performances or stage scenes where people actually talk to one another.
Now, at this point in time, Craven's writing was a little weak dramatically, but that was okay when he directed, because he knew how to make it look good. Russell, however, was new at the whole directing thing, and the dramatic scenes are pretty darn stiff. And the actors don't help. Langenkamp isn't a bad actress, but she's very inconsistent here. In the dream sequences, she's fine, but outside of them, she's a little wooden. Sadly, she out-acts most of the rest of the cast. They all have energy and seem to be putting a little effort into it, but very few actors in this film do anything memorable. Craig Wasson, as another psychologist, is okay but kind of dull. The rest of the teen-agers are one-dimensional at best. Not all of them are bad. Of course, Robert Englund is wonderful as Freddy. John Saxon plays his return about right. And Laurence Fishburne is completely real and convincing. He plays the role with conviction and believability. It's too bad he's only in the film for about five minutes.
But the acting isn't the real problem. None of it is bad enough to wreck or even seriously hurt the film. In spite of my complaining, the actors are at least adequate for what's needed. You don't really want any of them to die or anything. The problem is split between the writers (Craven, Russell, Frank Darabont in his pre-Shawshank days, and Bruce Wagner) and director Russell. Now Craven's basic story is good. In fact, it's a really good story that manages to be both a clever and fairly logical way to continue to series. Also, the decision to pretend Part 2 never happened was an excellent idea.
However, even though Craven made up a good story, Russell throws his wild imagination into the script, and the writer of the Shawshank freaking Redemption was involved, the script is fairly predictable and two-dimensional in spite of some great ideas. And, as I said, Russell is lost when someone isn't having a nightmare or hallucination or anything like that.
But then there are the nightmare scenes, some of which border on brilliant, all of which are pretty darn cool. The one with Freddy turning into a giant snake and slowly eating his prey is pretty intense, and most of the others are quite memorable (such as the guy puppeteer-ed with his own blood vessels, the Wizardmaster or whatever he was, the guy tied to a bed with cut off tongues, and the TV that comes to life very literally). The dreams aren't really scary, but they are atmospheric and freaky. And lots of fun to watch. They don't quite cross the line into truly great sequences, but they're pretty darn good.
And for the most part, the special effects work. They aren't totally convincing in a literal sense, but in the context of the film, they work just fine. The skeleton at the end is the only truly failed effect.
But good special effects aren't enough to rescue the film. It's still an obvious and wooden horror film that isn't scary. And yet, for some reason, I liked it anyway.
It took me a while, but I finally figured out why. The answer is the same answer to many of the flaws in the film: Chuck Russell. The atmosphere and energy and imagination of the film all combine to make it work on a B-rate comic book level. In fact, on that level, it works superbly.
So, in the end, I guess I had a lot of fun watching the movie. I just had to keep reminding myself to turn my brain off. I probably should have done that in the first place, but I was hoping for an intelligent horror film. Go into this film with the right expectations and you'll love it. Just realize it isn't going to work on the same levels that the original (as well as Wes Craven's New Nightmare) worked.