A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge More at IMDbPro »A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (original title)

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 34:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 335 reviews in total 

57 out of 76 people found the following review useful:

Freddy's back to terrorize a confused teenage boy!

Author: Miyagis_Sweaty_wifebeater (sirjosephu@aol.com) from Sacramento, CA
17 June 2004

Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2 (1985) was the second film in the Freddy Krueger series. This time his main target is the son of a man who just but the Elm Street house. Freddy preys on this sexually confused kid and forces him to do his bidding and uses him to serve his twisted needs. Can poor Jesse over come the strong willpower of Freddy? Will he be able to discover his true self? Watch and find out, you'll be surprised! Strange stuff.

What I liked about this film was the filmmakers tried to do something different, and it almost killed the series. The plot and storyline was too complex and byzantine for you average horror film. Much of the film's hidden context and meaning would go over the heads of most horror film fans. If Sigmund Freud were alive today he would've had a field day trying to figure out this one. Sadly underrated and unfairly neglected..

Strongly recommended

Was the above review useful to you?

43 out of 59 people found the following review useful:

Not as bad as some would have you think.

Author: AngryChair from Brentwood, USA
21 January 2006

The first of the Elm Street sequels is a bit different than the other films of the series, but it's not nearly as bad as some critics say.

Young man (whose family has moved into the Elm Street house) is terrorized by chuckling Freddy, who wants to use him to do his dirty work.

'Elm Street 2 is a fairly entertaining sequel directed by B movie maker Jack Sholder. The movie's possession theme is solidly played out with some tight direction. Sholder gives this movie some well-done moments of shock and dark humor. The opening sequence on the bus is a memorable thrill ride. The film boasts some bloody FX. Charles Bernstein's theme music is missed, but Bing Crosby's song 'Did You Ever See A Dream' makes for a nice touch. Many say that this movie has homosexual themes and granted star Mark Patton does spend much of the movie semi-naked, but the theme is a bit of a stretch.

Robert Englund makes a welcomed return as Freddy, while the rest of the cast does decent performances.

All around, a good sequel that hasn't really gotten critical justice.

Followed by the superior Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987).

*** out of ****

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

Snubbed at the Oscars...

Author: RockytheBear (RockytheBear@aol.com) from Chicago
8 July 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


This is the type of movie that was 80's back when it was the 80's. Let's start off with the movie's hero, Jesse-- androgynously played by Mark "I Have Yet To Make Another Movie" Patton. How did this guy get the lead in a flick? Just look at him. And how 'bout that Oscar winning bedroom dance number he did. Take special note of the part where he closes his dresser drawer with his butt. I was laughing so hard, no sound was coming out my body. "How do you like THAT, Dad!" I guess he told him. This scene alone sealed the film in my opinion as an instant cinematic classic.

I first saw this movie in theaters when I was just a fetus, and I thought it was bad. Now I'm watching it 20 years later and boy, was I wrong. It's horrible. Let's start with the credits, which read "Special Appearance by Clu Gulager;" the same man who happens to be in every scene of the movie. Our main character, Jesse wakes up screaming from a nightmare and sounds a lot like a woman; but this dream is nothing compared to his "gym teacher" nightmare. Note the end of this dream, where Jesse looks at his hand and sees he is wearing the famous razor glove. When he screams, oh my god. I must have rewound the scream about 12 times. I think Fay Wray's voice was dubbed over his, because he shrills like the classic women of the 30's. This may very well be the movie's finest hour.

Was this scene even in the original version? For some reason, I don't remember Killer Basketballs when I saw this in the theater. Was I watching a director's cut or something? This couldn't have been in theaters, could it? I must be slipping in my old age, because I would have been laughing too hard to forget a scene like Killer Basketballs. This scene is second place only to the unbeatable Killer Braces scene in Poltergeist 2.

Midway through Freddy's Revenge, Alfred Hitchcock takes over and directs a cool "When Parrots Attack" scene. The scene comes out of nowhere, but the sudden shifting of gears is welcomed in this movie. The parrot destroys his lovebird partner, and for some reason, Jesse lets the Cujo of birds out of his cage. The bird then begins to terrorize the family and by this time, the scene is going great. Easily comparable to the great shower scene of Psycho, or when Michael Corleone kisses Fredo. The director then gets tired of this sequence and decides to end it by having the bird explode into thin air. What a disappointment!! They could have dropped Freddy and expounded with this bird concept for the rest of the movie! I was having a ball. It was clearly the only well thought-out scene of the movie. Hollywood just doesn't make enough Attack Bird movies. That's exactly what this industry needs! More Attack Bird movies! If Titanic had an Attack Bird scene, I guarantee you nobody would have complained about the 7 hour running time. The possibilities are endless when it comes to movies about disgruntled birds.

Freddy's Revenge is directed by some guy named Jack Sholder. Now I don't know who this guy is, and I have a theory as to why we've never heard of him again: Once he got famous, he eventually changed his name to Joel Schumacher. Laugh if you must, but I am convinced the two men are one and the same. Jack Sholder is as queer as a 3 dollar bill. Not that I am gay bashing, but I do like my slasher flicks more scary and less Rocky Horror. How gay was Freddy's Revenge," let me count the ways:

1.) A slasher movie starring a man is unheard of. We want breasts, Hollywood! 2.) Our freakishly feminine hero, has the unisexual name "Jesse." 3.) More locker room and shower scenes than you can shake a stick at. Get it-- shake a stick at? 4.) Plenty of bare ass shots of men. 5.) What's up with Jesse having that dream at the Blue Oyster bar? Then the dream evolves into a bondage S&M concept; which is truly a nightmare-- more frightening than anything Freddy could ever do.

Oh yeah, that reminds me. There is also this guy named Freddy who goes around killing people or something. I don't know, who cares? This movie has an Attack Bird scene!!!

* * * * * out of 5.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Very underrated

Author: TheSkipper from London, England
9 November 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A Nightmare on Elm Street part 2 Freddy's revenge

May contain `spoilers'

`Mommy, why can't Jesse wake up like everyone else ?'

Firstly I'd like to say that I believe this to be the most underrated film in the series. Aside from the first film this is the only other from the series that I still like. As has been mentioned by other people, I think Freddy developed too much of a personality after this film, dispatching victims with comedic one-liners and more stylised, effects based death sequences. In this film his remains pretty much as he was in the first. In fact, probably a little darker.

One of the main problems People seem to have with this film is the implied bisexuality of its main character. I personally think it gives the film an Unusual twist. To quote Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger) `Nightmare 2 is a very creepy, very kinky film. It reverses the first one - instead of having a teenage girl in jeopardy, we have a bisexual male, and this factor is exploited by Freddy. There's a lot of stuff implied with the S & M bar, stringing up the coach in the shower room bondage situation, and going to his boyfriends house for protection, the two of them take their clothes off as often as possible. All that adolescent mad teenage hormone stuff is explored, which of course Freddy is privy to'.

I like the nightmare sequences in this film. To me they have a quality that rings truer to real nightmares than that of the ones in the other sequels. When Jesse (Mark Patton) first spies Freddy lurking in the back yard and then the basement being a prime example. The school bus at the start is also a classic and another that springs to mind is when Jesse awakes in his room to find it's become so hot that things around it like a vinyl record have begun to melt.

The score is my personal favourite of the entire series. Christopher Young creates something very unusual using such bizarre sounds as whale calls to good effect. It is a complete departure from the cheesy synth score of the original and because it lacks that familiar piano motif that's heard in all the films, sets it apart much like the film itself.

There's also some nice camera work in there to, the shot that follows Jesse as he arrives at school the morning after the murder of the coach is good. Though my favourite has to be the shot that takes us up from the basement (albeit rather poorly cut as you go through the basement door) swerving up the stairs and into Jesse's little sisters room. Freddy's face is never fully visible unlike in the other sequels. Which I always thought was the way it should be kept. We only ever really see his face in a neat shot behind the flames of the broken Barbeque during the pool party scene.

The acting from all concerned is solid, Patton and Meryl Streep look-a-like Kim Myers (Lisa) the two leads being particularly good.

The film does have plenty of flaws, certain effects shots are very badly rendered. Witness the budgie exploding for a prime example and the awful creatures in the boiler room towards the end of the film for others. There's a lot of plot holes and the ending is decidedly weak but over all I really like the film. A lot of people say it's the worst of the series but in my opinion if you prefer number's 5 or 6 to this you are missing the point. I'll go out on a limb and say it's my personal favourite.

7 ½ / 10

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

ok not everyone's favorite, but...

Author: bhicks56 from Raleigh, North Carolina
18 November 1999

What they are missing are the campy little details that are hinted through-out the saga. Everything from the stretching tongue to the the exploding bird. You can't deny the fun watching Jesse Walsh shrieking like a scared little schoolgirl when he finds Freddy's glove on his hand. All this and after Jesse's girlfriend comes up to his room and says, "I thought I'd help you unpack." In her sexy voice, moving him toward the bed, they ACTUALLY start unpacking! None of the gags in Freddy's Dead is THAT funny!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

Possessed by Freddy Krueger

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
29 March 2009

When the Walsh's move to the Elm Street, the teenager Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton) has a creepy nightmare with a burned man wearing a glove with blades called Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) that tells him that Jesse has the body and he has the brain. Jesse becomes close to Lisa Webber (Kim Myers), who also has a crush on him, and befriends his school mate Ron Grady (Robert Rusler), who tells him that his house had remained closed for five years since the former dweller Nancy Thompson that went to a mental institution after witnessing the death of her boyfriend on the other side of the street and her mother in the living room. Lisa finds the diary of Nancy hidden in a locker while Jesse is possessed by Freddy Krueger that uses him to kill his victims.

This sequel to the classic "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is underrated in IMDb. The story about possession is more romantic with the love of Lisa for Jesse, has plot holes but is also entertaining, with the use of great special effects. This movie is also the debut of Kim Myers, who has an impressive resemblance with Meryl Streep, in the cinema in a lead role. Again there is an open conclusion to give a sequel to the saga of Freddy Krueger. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Hora do Pesadelo 2 – A Vingança de Freddy " ("The Hour of the Nightmare 2 – The Revenge of Freddy")

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Not the worst, but not the best either.

Author: G.Spider
14 June 1999

The opening scenes of this film are very promising. The title music has a very sinister, menacingly calm quality to it and there is an excellently nightmarish sequence in a school bus which is driven by Freddy.

But generally the film is a might-have-been. True, it has its moments, such as the discovery of Nancy's diary and the scene at the party, but things are pretty tame compared to the first film. Jesse is the new teenager living in Nancy's old house and haunted by nightmares, but apart from the opening sequence there are very few dreamlike effects. There are some nightmarish animals but they are too briefly seen and are in such total darkness that they're barely visible. The film is more of a cliched haunted house yarn than a story about nightmares. There are some interesting homosexual undertones but they are never really developed properly. There are also gaping plot-holes. After Freddy tears his way out of Jesse's body, the remains somehow return to life. The next time Freddy appears Jesse seems to be inside him. Can anyone work out what's going on?

What really lets this film down is its weak ending. Freddy and his boiler room suddenly burst into flames because Jesse's girlfriend tells him she loves him. Utterly feeble. Surely the script-writers could have come up with a better ending than this.

Not an unwatchable film by any means, but just not the sequel it should have been.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

At least it had the guts to be a bit different...

Author: mentalcritic from Southern Hemisphere
23 April 2003

Now that Nightmare is up to seven or eight sequels, while Friday The 13th is up to ten (and counting), it must be hard to look back on the days when horror films tried to be vaguely original or even different. With all the Screams and I Know What Your Breasts Did Last Summers, making Freddy's Revenge in these "enlightened" days would be just about impossible.

But culture, and particularly youth culture, in the 1980s was considerably different, certainly far less conservative and anti-creative. In those days, The Cure were a big thing, and even the most basic of pop sludge was far more creative than what we have today. Not to mention that it was far easier to make dodgy films and get them released theatrically.

A Nightmare On Elm Street Part 2 picks up five years after the original, although it was a rush-job filmed less than a year after said original was out of the theatre. The film company, at that time the independent startup known as New Line, saw a quick and easy meal ticket that only required them to convince Robert Englund to submerge himself in what looks like three tons of multi-coloured latex. So the idea of a decent script, decent actors, or decent photography, went right out the window.

Which is kind of sad, really, when you consider that this is the only Freddy film in which an original premise is used. You might want to skip the rest of this paragraph if you have yet to see it. In it, a young man (whose behaviour is consistent with repressed homosexuality, in one of those hilarious plot coincidences) has just moved into the house from which Nancy originally dealt with Freddy. With the help of the sort of girlfriend any other male (and even some females) of this age would want to climb atop of at every opportunity, our hero attempts to fight off Freddy (and his own gayness), which in turn creates some very interesting plot devices. The moment when our heroine is holding up a carving knife at Freddy, who gives her a graphic and terrifying demonstration of the fact that she'll kill her (confused) lover if she kills Freddy, could have been one of the most horrific moments in the entire series. I am not quite convinced that it isn't, given that the only other episode in the series that was vaugely adult after this point was Part 3.

Unfortunately, the actors hired for these roles cannot act their way out of a wet paper bag. The only cast member with acting skills that even compare to Robert Englund's would be Marshall Bell. I am convinced that his turn here as the (gay) gym teacher was what got him hired to be in Total Recall and StarShip Troopers. Mark Patton (no relation to the Mike Patton who leads Mr. Bungle or the Mike Patton who was an early cast member in You Can't Do That On Television) is terrible - his only talent, as such, is to scream like a seventy-year-old woman. The actors who play his family look as if they belong on a cheap knock-off of Family Ties. The best actor in the whole piece was the budgie, who seemed to decide he would rather explode than be in this idiotic film a second longer.

When all is said and done, Robert Louis Stevenson said it much better in The Frightening Tale Of Doctor Jekyll And Mister Hyde (although there are no shortage of adaptations to that work which suck more than this). Normally, I would give this effort a three out of ten, but it gets two bonus points because it is like no other episode in the Nightmare canon, and that is a damned good thing when you put it alongside episodes four through seven.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

very big step down from the original but still a good movie!

Author: Bwizzle420 from Canada
5 October 2013

Freddy's revenge is a good movie. don't let all the bad reviews cloud your judgment. while i will admit, it is a BIG step down from the masterpiece that is the original but it is still a good movie with a few flaws. first of all the direction they took the story was a strange one. the writers chose to abandon the whole dream demon idea (which in my opinion it wasn't necessarily a bad decision because of how early in the franchise it was. but it also wasn't a good decision either because id much prefer the dream demon premise) and have Freddy trying to possess a kid named Jesse's body to kill in the real world again. Robert Englund brings another terrifying performance to the screen as Freddy Krueger. remember folks.. Freddy is still scary in this one, and the pool party massacre scene is fun to watch! the atmosphere is very dark but loses so much of it's power due to the absence of the dream sequences and all the possibilities that could have been utilized. in the FX department the film does alright. now something else i should include in the review is the obvious homosexual aspects included in the film. i am not gay (so this is not biased), but i can honestly say it adds a uniqueness to the film. in the fist film Nancy's secondary struggle was her parent's separation and her mother's alcoholism, in this film Jesse's secondary struggle is his own sexuality. as i said this doesn't ruin the film what so ever. it simply adds a uniqueness to the film. there are definitely some flaws with this film though. Mark Patton leaves a little something to be desired here with his performance in the lead role. there is no doubt he suites the role it's just the fact that he reeks of inexperience. there are also a few scenes that are very misplaced and strange to say the least. but for me i choose to either ignore or overlook them in favour of all of the positives here. we get a great performance from Robert englund, some good atmosphere and genuine scares, good FX, and a unique and strange experience. check this one out its a fun little film that deserves more respect than it gets. 8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Ah, not bad! Good, actually!

Author: Michael Bregman from London, England
5 August 1999

Freddy's return in this movie is not surprising considering the ending of the first movie. A whole new tale with a new twist and some really cool scenes that stick in your mind. Many people don't like it, but I don't know why. It has plenty of scares and surprises and it's a proud member of the original trilogy.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 34:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history