Part Three was possibly my favourite of the three movies, even if only for that first half which offered the most captivating and truly horrific story of the lot. While 1994 and 1978 were riffing off other movies, 1666 was forced to go in its own direction and explore an era of horror not touched upon enough in movies. The second part of the movie felt a little more formulaic, but it offered as satisfying a conclusion to the trilogy as anyone could hope for. I give Part Three an enjoyable but flawed 7/10. This still isn't an example of horror greatness, but the trilogy as a whole was definitely enjoyable, and had one of the best treatment/use of an LGBT relationship I've seen.

The two prior "Fear Street" entries cribbed other horror films hard. "Part One" being "Scream" (1966) mostly, and "Part Two" was "Friday the 13th" (1988). Here, though, it's "The Crucible," Arthur Miller's McCarthyism allegory of a book, for which the most well-known adaptation to film was in 1996. One of the villagers even claims to have a list of suspected communists--I mean witches. Not really a horror story, but it does demonstrate that the trilogy was never really about classic horror cinema. This is young adult fiction, and everything in this juvenile, solipsistic genre is formulaic. The M. Night Shyamalan of a lazy twist this time reveals what should have already been expected all along, because it's the same simplistic allegory that seemingly underlines every other one of these kiddie fantasies: the rich are eating the poor. Quite literally in this case--well, OK, drinking their blood, rather. "Hunger Games," "Divergent," "Alita: Battle Angel," and probably others that I haven't seen--they're all the same.

After an hour of playing with old-timey accents in the dull "Crucible" for dummies, "Part Three" returns to the 1994 timeline to replay yet another one of the kids' goofy monster traps. Because two of those in the first installment--at a school and a grocery store--wasn't enough, I guess. Everything from "Carrie" to "A Fistful of Dollars" (1964),or "Back to the Future Part III" (1990),more likely, is stolen from. How this gets 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, from professional entertainment critics for whom one would at least assume have seen enough movies to know when they're being fed recycled refuse, I don't know.

Politicos, too, could have, and may very well be having, for all I know, a field day with this series. I mean, the big reveal, after all, is that a white policeman feeding the rich by killing the poors is the villain, and only people of color, women and lesbians are the heroes left standing at the end, to rescue the historically disadvantaged. White male privilege or what have you as Faustian bargain. That'd be too bad, though, because the "Fear Street" trilogy is fundamentally awful beyond whatever the political or representational merits of its message. Like everything else in the trilogy, it's a hack job.

Tension, suspense, horror n scare factor are all missing in the first hour except for dull chit chats n pg13 love making scenes.

Ther are unnecessary flashback scenes repeatedly showing the same slashings n killings.

Its only when the action moves back to the present 90s n the mall, we get to see some action but here too, the ghosts are not terrifying unlike in part 1 n 2.

Generous with a 5 cos the guy with big eyeballs gets nailed in the eye.