We’re up to Day 9 of our 30-day horror challenge, and the subject of today is “Your Favorite ‘Part 3’ of a Horror Series.”
Ever heard of the Curse of the Third Movie? It’s a popular topic of discussion (maybe your friends just don’t talk about certain things if they know you’re around?), it’s a phenomenon of the third movie in a franchise being a complete piece of shit, even if the movies leading up to it (and beyond it) are otherwise good movies. Prime examples are Return of the Jedi, Godfather Part 3, Matrix Revolutions and Karate Kid 3.
Generally, these third movies in a series can suffer due to creative exhaustion, pressure from producers, rushed timeline to complete and plot holes, over-explanation and an otherwise empty-feeling movie that’s more interested in wrapping-up the overall story arc.
Horror movies suffer from this phenomenon quite profusely! Jaws 3, Amityville 3-D, Poltergeist 3, and Scream 3. Terrible movies!
There are, however, a number of franchises that don’t drop the ball the third time around. The Exorcist 3 is a fantastic comeback after a really shitty “Part 2.” Halloween 3 creates a one-off that completely abandons the Michael Myers storyline and tries something new, and it works out pretty well (though not all agree). Nightmare on Elm Street’s third installment was a solid installation, as was the third installment of Fear Street, Friday the 13th, and Day of the Dead.
My favorite “part three” shares the efforts of those horror thirds trying to re-invent themselves, rather than beat a dead horse. Army of Darkness, the third entry in the Evil Dead franchise, takes the story out of the woods and into the Medieval past, where Ash is tasked with fighting an army of the dead. Everything about this movie is an improvement. The humor is better, the special effects are better, the storyline is better, and it avoids falling into a feeling repetitiveness (back in the cabin, Ash gets possessed and does goofy shit, trees bang more hapless females, scary-faced monsters come from the woods and get dispatched after someone reads the same damn book again, etc etc etc) by breaking out of the mold and taking the story on the road… to the 14th Century, and then back again. Why? Why the hell not?
Is it better than the other two? I guess it depends on who you ask.