In the 17th century, a small group of California settlers are shaken as calamities befall their community. They take up a hunt for the witch they believe to be responsible, setting in motion a curse that would plague the area for more than 300 years.
The first two Fear Streets were clear homages to particular horror sub-genres: 90s films in the mold of Scream, and 70s/80s slashers. While I suppose there are a handful of "period colonial horror films" kicking about, it's hardly a genre staple like, say, the "found footage" horror movie, the possession sub-genre, or the "young child in jeopardy" formula. So Part Three of Fear Street is starting at a disadvantage, unable to trade on the goodwill of a familiar movie style as its plot settles in.
Another issue is that Fear Street Part Three is really "Fear Street Part Three Part One" and "Fear Street Part Three Part Two." Or, less confusingly: it's two movies in one. It's spoiling little to say what you'll suspect before watching any of the Fear Street movies: there are continuing plot elements running throughout the entire trilogy, and ultimately those have to be wrapped up. The last section of Fear Street Part Three does exactly that, concluding the entire series. I don't want to spoil anything there, but suffice it to say that conclusion, while reasonably good enough to satisfy you for sticking around, wasn't mind-blowing.
But first, you have to get through the 1666 section of the film, and it's pretty rough. Moreover, it's disappointing after what the finale of the previous film tees up. A small spoiler here, but coming into this movie, you're primed to expect that a character from one time frame has somehow been sent back in time to inhabit the body of someone in the past. You expect some nightmare Cassandra kind of scenario, in which no future knowledge that person has will help them change the course of a dark history.
Yet even though we get a "Quantum Leap" style gag in which we see that the "future person" actually looks like the "past person" to everyone else, it turns out that the "future person" isn't in control at all. They're simply starring in a reenactment; we're just seeing the story of 1666 exactly as it happened. The idea that someone is simply "riding along" to witness the story is far less compelling -- and muddled further by the fact that all of the characters in the 1666 time frame are portrayed by actors from the first two Fear Street movies. What's going on here, exactly? We're specifically shown that the main character only looks the way they do to us, the audience. So... do any of the other characters actually look like this either? Is this a Back to the Future treatment of ancestry, or colonial dinner theater? Either way, it feels false and deflates the stakes.
So, after two decent takes on two different horror styles, Fear Street Part Three is a badly put-together take on nothing in particular (oh, and with terrible accents!)... until it transforms into a "good enough (but not great)" wrap-up for the trilogy as a whole. Which really puts the audience in a bind. Each of the first two Fear Streets almost stand alone enough for a horror fan to enjoy them individually... but not quite. You're going to want to know how it all ends, and that final film is by all measures the weakest of the lot.
I suppose anyone who likes horror movies is no stranger to watching bad ones. The whole genre is like panning for gold: the truly great ones are rare and precious. With that in mind, I suppose I would recommend Fear Street as a whole to fans of horror movies. But Fear Street Part Three: 1666 in particular? I'd give it a C.
No comments:
Post a Comment