It’s that time of year once again, when we turn down the lights and bask in the ritualistic viewing of horror movies for the month of October and the spooky day of Halloween. I meant to watch these movies last year, but life got in the way, so this year, I made sure to check out the Fear Street trilogy on Netflix. A trio of films, each set in the years 1994, 1978 and 1666 respectively, tell one overarching story of a cursed town. So are these movies, based on the R.L. Stine books and directed by Leigh Janiak any good? Let’s find out!

Fear Street Part One: 1994

Director Janika has stated that each of the three films takes cues from a particular movie. In the case of 1994, the obvious influence is that of Scream, the 90s teen slasher film. In this film, the story is established that the town of Shadyside is notorious for being the site of sporadic and heinous murders throughout history. The film opens up with one such murder at a local shopping mall that felt very much like the Drew Barrymore scene from Scream and acts as the inciting incident for our teenage leads as they learn that there’s more to the random killers that have plagued the town than meets the eye.

Bringing the story to life are the characters. There’s Deena, the main protagonist who’s from the rougher Shadyside and hates the world, Sam, her ex-girlfriend who recently moved to the affluent Sunnyside, Simon and Kate, local drug dealers, and Josh, Deena’s brother, who spends his time online learning about the occult murders and is the most interesting character in the movie. The teens then find themselves in the middle of the crosshairs of an old Witch’s curse that puts them all in harm’s way. I do like that these teenagers curse and don’t feel sterilized. Ditto for the blood and gore. Despite being written by R.L. Stine, best known for the kids horror series Goosebumps, this is definitely an R-rated film.

At just over an hour and a half, I’d say the biggest issue 1994 has is pacing, in that sometimes the film tends to drag. The consequence of violence is also wildly inconsistent, with stab wounds seemingly not being an issue at times, but then there’ll be an outrageously gory death, so I found it hard to care about some of the stakes when stabs seemed to be shrugged off when regards to the leads. Characters also die in this movie, in bloody fashion, but despite their relationships with the main characters, there’s no visible trauma or emotions, they just quickly move on which is weird.

The film does have a great sense of space and time though, capturing the mid-90s with its visual cues and killer soundtrack. The overall mystery/conspiracy behind why these killings are happening is also interesting. You can see the seeds being planted for the sequels and I am curious as to what comes next, or to be exact, what came before. It’s just a shame that I found the characters to be largely unremarkable. So 1994 ends up being interesting enough that I’ll keep watching but I wasn’t floored.

Fear Street Part Two: 1978

If Fear Street 1994 was an homage to Scream, then Part Two 1978 is certainly tipping its hat to Friday the 13th. The film picks up where the first left off, with the surviving members of 1994 meeting up with C. Berman, a survivor of the ’78 massacre, to learn whatever they can about the witches’ curse. The film then goes into flashback mode for just about the rest of the movie, showcasing the events of that fateful night, which in turn is something that was referenced in the first part.

The massacre took place at a campground in the 70s, so the parallel to Friday the 13th is automatically quite obvious. We largely follow the Shadyside siblings Ziggy (Stranger Things Sadie Sink) and Cindy Berman (Emily Rudd, One Piece), two sisters who have had a massive falling out and largely resent one another. The eldest, Cindy, has a boyfriend and wears preppy clothes in an attempt to distance herself from Shadyside while Ziggy is ostracized and bullied by the others for being a rulebreaker, thief and maybe even a witch. Of course, the camp goes from bad to worse when Cindy’s boyfriend gets possessed and goes on an axe-wielding rampage, killing all in sight. With the siblings split up, everyone needs to survive while trying to figure out what exactly is going on and how they can stop it.

Despite really loving Scream and not being a fan of Friday the 13th (that’s Eric’s domain), I actually preferred 1978 to 1994. I think a critical part of this was the characters were largely much more interesting. Sure, there was the obligatory junkie duo that felt redundant to the first part, but the two sisters were far more engaging and layered. Their acting also felt largely stronger than the overall effort in the first part and the script felt much more focused on the events at hand. It still has pacing issues, notably in the third act, but less so than Part One did.

The film does end with the setup for 1666, which sees 1994‘s protagonist Deena step into the memories of Sarah Fier. I’m not sure how I feel about this, as I found Deena, and by association Kiana Maderia, to be the weaker aspect of 1994. So instead of a new face for the last entry, like how 1978 freshened it up with its cast, part three puts a familiar face to the main antagonist’s backstory. I’m sure there’s a narrative reason for this, probably a relation, but it’s still taken away some excitement for part three.

Fear Street Part Three: 1666

So you know how I just said I didn’t like that they made Kiana Maderia the lead in 1666? Well, hold onto your butts because Fear Street Part Three does this for near enough of everyone. Cast members from the previous two films come together in the 17th century and honestly, it just doesn’t work. Not only does it break immersion, but the actors and director do a poor job with the setting. The cast ends up feeling like Gen-Zers pretending to be from the 1600s, as they keep the same hairstyles they had in 1994/1978 and many put on poor attempts at Irish/English accents. It’s really distracting and completely took me out of the experience, which is a shame because this is an origin story for Sarah Fier and of the Shadyside Curse. I think by having this movie should’ve had its own cast, as it’s set in its own part in time, but mirroring the events with the same cast just felt so off. Whereas 1994 and 1978 felt like loving, if a bit shaky, homages to their time, 1666 feels and looks stilted and out of place. I really think that this movie should have had its own cast who would’ve been able to play these characters instead of relying on the same cast.

But 1666 is only part of the movie, as the back half of the film returns the action to the 1994 setting. Using information gathered from the origin flashback, Deena and company seek to end the curse once and for all. So the prequel portion is really only part of the movie, as this largely serves as a sequel as well, which will either be a win for you if you were invested in the first story or not. Director Janiak compared this entry to Terrence Malik’s The New World, but unlike her inspirations in the last two movies, I think this one’s a bit of a stretch; The Crucible makes more sense in terms of narrative. Regardless, Fear Street:1666 had the most potential I think, as it answers a lot of the questions about the origins of the curse and of Sarah Fier, but is sadly the weakest of the three movies.

In the end, the Fear Street Trilogy is fine for some nostalgia and some bloody mayhem, but it’s not one I’ll likely ever revisit. The generational concept is quite interesting and the movies had its moments to be sure, but the cast of characters was largely forgettable and the whole experience largely felt bloated.