1987; Rated R; 96 Minutes
Heather Langenkamp: Nancy Thompson
Craig Wasson: Neil Gordon
Patricia Arquette: Kristen Parker
Robert Englund: Freddy Krueger
Ken Sagoes: Kincaid
Rodney Eastman: Joey Crusel
Produced by Wes
Craven, Stephen Diener, Sara Risher, Robert Shaye and Rachel
Talalay; Directed by Chuck Russell; Screenwritten
by Wes Craven, Frank Darabont, Chuck Russell and Bruce
by DAVID KEYES
Warriors" begins like the routine nightmare movie. We briefly
meet a character, she is haunted by the screen legend Freddy
Krueger, and then wakes up to find herself in a state of
insanity. She is then transported to a mental institution
so that doctors and psychologists can closely watch her
sleeping habits, hopefully to discover what her sleeping
the movie develops an intriguing premise. We learn that
the others in the institution she associates with are actually
the last surviving children of Elm Street, including her,
and they're all having the dreams where Krueger is trying
to kill them. One such survivor is a doctor-in-training,
who we remember from the first movie as Nancy. She is once
again played faithfully by Heather Langenkamp, in a role
that no one can fill. She has the know-how to surpass Krueger's
implications and intentions of death, and she guides the
others through living even in the dreams that are likely
to take their lives.
are other important characters as well. The girl we discuss
of that opened the movie with one of her dreams is Kristen
Parker, played by Patricia Arquette. She has the power to
bring other people into her dreams, and does so with the
other Elm Street children so that there's more than one
person up against the madman.
even brains and brawl isn't enough. Most of these children
are eventually picked off, one by one, until three or four
remain (including Nancy).
course, a premise like this needs a solution. There is a
nun-like figure who roams the scenario of the movie, weary
of the occurrences that have befallen the children of the
institution. Later in the film, we learn that she is none
other than Krueger's mother, Amanda, who conceived the child
from being raped by hundreds of asylum maniacs when she
was accidentally locked up in their cell one night.
the movie goes on and on. The nun has a solution for putting
Freddy to sleep, but that, of course, involves burying the
remains of his body in the ground. Originally, they were
burned and hidden in a car collection facility by Nancy's
father, once again portrayed by John Saxon. In bringing
him into the situation, Krueger's skeletal figure comes
back to life and kills him. Krueger uses his death to get
to Nancy within her dream state, and of course, he kills
like so many movies that have intriguing premises, 'the
bastard son of a hundred thousand maniacs' is laid to rest,
all at the exercise of this movie. It is tentatively titled
"Dream Warrriors," since, true, each of the children have
a unique quality that Krueger himself finds difficult to
may have its qualities, but as a whole, this is an exercise
that takes too many wrong turns. Yes, the premise is intriguing.
Yes, the background history of Krueger's origin is fascinating.
Yes, the cast fits the movie's characters well. But there's
a lot of logic missing.
instance, why would a character like Nancy want to study
sleep disorders when she herself experienced this nightmare
long ago? A friend of mine claimed that it was 'so no one
else would have to go through what she did.' Another said
'the nightmares she had inspired her fascination with the
dunno. If Nancy did choose this career field for the purpose
to prevent others from going through the same thing, she's
obviously mistaken. We all remember that she couldn't destroy
Krueger in the end of the first film. Those who were going
to have nightmares about him could not have prevented them.
No, not even Nancy herself could have prevented others from
dreaming about him, so what was her purpose? I seriously
doubt that watching her boyfriend and mother get sliced
up by this Krueger guy would open her eyes on a career in
studying this type of phenomenon.
one other thing that bothered me was a few of the death
scenes. One of them contained one of the Elm Street children
being guided along the halls of the institution via strings
of his muscle tissue that Freddy himself guided. In the
non-dream sense, he was just sleepwalking. Freddy then turns
to an open corridor and cuts the stringy muscle tissue as
the boy leans all the way over the edge of the building.
You can guess what happened next.
whole idea seemed fake. A demonic spirit like Krueger wouldn't
waste his time doing stupid, corny things like that to his
victims. Speaking in terms of horror context, he would have
rather sliced and diced them from head to toe with those
razor-sharp finger knives of his. On top of that, he wouldn't
be spending the movie trying to be funny with some corny
one-liners, like on when he smashes a girl's head into a
television set. She screams, and he says "welcome to prime
time, bitch." The truth is that behind this joke, the victim
wanted to be an actress.
movie mixes these mediocre-to-dismal aspects with some things
that are okay-to-excellent. So in short, the movie averages
out. The movie does not live up to its potential, nor does
it flop like Elvis' belly. So it is marginally acceptable.
in a series that was started by the legendary Wes Craven,
why would director Chuck Russell want to try and continue
on it? Maybe he was trying to make a name for himself in
Chuck. I have seen the original nightmare movie, and I'm
sorry to say that you are no Wes Craven.
1998, David Keyes, Cinemaphile.org.
Please e-mail the author here
if the above review contains any spelling or grammar mistakes.