A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
338 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Decent slasher sequel not a bad one breaks the rules from the first one I like it
rambofan4life6 October 2018
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge is a decent slasher sequel not a bad one but breaks the rules from the first one I love it. It is in my top favorite best "Elm Street" movies. This is my fifth favorite Elm Street movie, yes I put this movie over Wes Craven's New Nightmare sue me. I enjoy the first 4 Elm Street movies so part 2 is in a top 5 "Elm Street" movies. It is a step down from the first original movie. It is the weakest movie in the "Elm Street" series. This movie is considered as one of the gayest horror movies ever made. I disagree I still enjoy the film I still love it. I think this is the last time in which Freddy is really imitating and scary before he become a comedian.

This sequel after the first film A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) was refused from Wes Craven to work on the film because he never wanted or intended A Nightmare on Elm Street to become an ongoing franchise (and even wanted the first film to have a happy ending), and also because he didn't like the idea of Freddy manipulating the protagonist into committing the murders.

It was directed from Jack Sholder who went later and directed The Hidden (1987) which was a much better horror slasher film than this. This a step down from the first film because breaks a lot of rules from the original film. How and why Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) stalks Jessie in real life? Than he goes in to real world and kills people. Since when? Freddy can't go in to real world because he is dead un less someone brings him in to our real world. How did he manipulated Jesse (Mark Patton) in to commit murders? Why was Freddy murdering teenagers in the pool and not in the dreams?

This movie broke the rules from the first movie. Jesse sneaked in to Ron Grady (Robert Rusler)'s bedroom in stead he would go in to girl's room. We see Coach Schneider (Marshall Bell) in all leather and he was preparing to rape Jesse in the ass. The naked scene of Coach Schneider was ridicules why did we see the guy's but naked? I hate the scene in the film. Freddy Krueger was only 13 minutes and no longer. I wish we would see more of Freddy Krueger killing teenagers in dreams.

Mark Patton who was really gay in real life did a good performance I disagree that is the gayest film I thought it was an decent slasher film. A huge step down from the first film. Kim Myers as Lisa Webber was smoking hot as Jesse's girlfriend, I liked her in the film.

I like that, the film was following the roots from the first film. It mentions Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) in which the Walsh's moves in to Thompson's old house. We see Nancy's diary and the story is set 5 years after the events of the first film so I respect that. I love that we see the abandoned factory in which Freddy was burned and boiled to death. I love in which Lisa brings back Jesse and get him away from Freddy with her love to Jessie. Freddy was still dark in this movie and still creepy. But I wish we could see him more in the movie.

I love the song Touch Me (All Night Long) by Wish featuring Fonda Rae. I like this song in this movie I really like to listening this song it is really good. The movie is still rated R it not bad but it still could be better. I like the opening scene on the bus Jesse and two girls that was really scary in the opening scene. Half of the movie I like half I didn't it still good to watch, could have been much better slasher movie. The ending scene with Jesse and Lisa and other kids I love. Music theme for Freddy from Music by Christopher Young was really good I love it.

Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger was still good in his performance he was not bad at all. He was still a menace tough I think he's performance from the first film wasn't a pair. This is in my fifth row in A Nightmare on Elm Street movies.
82 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A bad sequel, but an OK movie in the slasher horror genre!
ivo-cobra81 November 2015
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985), oh boy. It is not the worst movie in the series but is not the greatest sequel either. It is very Underrated which I understand why because the film has a lot of problems. It is my at least favorite film. Even tough it is a bad sequel it still follows the roots from first movie with a different story, different idea,different cast and that is good. The first time that a boy was a main hero in A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. In the rest of the sequels was always some girl as a hero. 4,5,6 and the remake (2010) are seriously the worst ones in the movies, the best one is Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). Freddy was still serious - not as much joking around and you feel for the main character - plus his girlfriend was smoking hot - didn't know he was bisexual. What can I say? I don't hate the film and I like it for a bit but that's it.

I like the film because it follows the roots from the first film, It is mentioning Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) yes I am a Nancy Thompson fan! I love her very much and this film has respect to Nancy Thompson! While showing the diary and the telling the story's about her. Walsh family moved in to Thompson's house. That's what I like a bit this film. It is a horror film, Freddy kills a doesn't people, specially in the pool that was just awesome. Kim Myers as Lisa Webber was really smoking hot and she cared about Jesse. I like this film for it. Freddy stripped the coach down and killed him in that gay overtone because the coach was into some freaky sexual stuff, because I remember the coach being in leather and bondage looking clothes when he runs into Jesse.. So yeah Freddy killed him in an extreme version of what the coach liked. From the looks of the coach's bondage like clothes he had on you can assume he likes to be whipped and stuff like that. So his death scene was very fitting and that was awesome, I like that a lot. The love scene between Jesse and Lisa conger and defeating Freddy was amazing! The nightmare on the bus was just really extremely awesome even the ending scene was awesome.

The film has major problems that I just don't like that. For most of the movie Freddy's Glove was missing and they had to use the blades on his fingers. Reportedly it was stolen after filming and they had to scramble to make a replacement. They should have watch for that glove. Wes Craven refused to work on this film because he never wanted or intended A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) to become an ongoing franchise (and even wanted the first film to have a happy ending), and also because he didn't like the idea of Freddy manipulating the protagonist into committing the murders. I agree with that, why the main hero has to get him self into been manipulated and go murdering people around? That's just not right and it is wrong in my opinion. The film was too short and it become a little boring by time to time. I didn't like the gay scenes including the couch who was a molester and a gay in this film. I am glad Freddy killed him. The story had potential, but it just failed. The part where Jesse runs into gym teacher at the s&m bar and then he brings him back to the school and has him do laps and makes him take a shower, after he was tired. Looks like he was prepping Jessie for ass rape. That was the worst gay scene in the movie ever and it hurt the film so much!

Anyway with all the problems in the movie, the story did work well. Freddy in this film is at his darkest plus the make up FX by Kevin Yagher on Freddy made him look more and scary then I ever seen him look in any of the films after this one. It had a very good cast and effects and you finally saw Freddy's whole face it was a nice sequel. I think Jack Sholder did a great direction debut I don't think, he did a terrible job which he didn't. Robert Englund did a great job in this film, that is one of the reason the film isn't the worst than other sequels are. It is at least my favorite horror slasher film because it really did had a potential and it failed. It was OK sequel tough, but still a bad one and I have a lot of respect for Mark Patton cheers for him!!! Anyway I am giving this film a 7. rating even tough it deserves less.
35 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Freddy's back to terrorize a confused teenage boy!
Captain_Couth17 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
59 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very underrated
TheSkipper9 November 2002
Warning: 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
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not as bad as some would have you think.
Nightman8521 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 ****
46 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not the worst, but not the best either.
G.Spider14 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.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Snubbed at the Oscars...
RockytheBear8 July 2003
Warning: 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.
40 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What a disappointing sequel.
connorbbalboa27 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
After the late Wes Craven's 1984 horror masterpiece, A Nightmare on Elm Street, was a box-office success, the studio New Line Cinema wanted a make a sequel quickly. Craven was asked back, but refused, a good part of it being due to financial differences with the studio. So the directing job went went to Jack Sholder, who had previously worked on Alone in the Dark (1982). Sholder admitted that he disliked the original film, despite respecting it. A lot of that disdain is clear throughout the movie, which is probably the biggest disappointment of the series. The Dream Child and Freddy's Dead are worse, but they did not have that much riding on them as this film did.

The story opens with the only scary scene in the movie, where a bus dropping off high school children suddenly goes crazy and drives out into the desert. The ground falls around it until it is in a see-saw-like position. The driver reveals himself as Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), who proceeds to go after the kids. Just before he strikes with his razor-blade glove, it cuts to a normal family having breakfast and we hear the main protagonist, Jesse (Mark Patton) waking up from a nightmare and screaming like a little girl. The rest of what follows is some typical high school jazz, except when Freddy Krueger appears, which is hardly at all, and everything in Jesse's house (owned by Nancy Thompson's (Heather Langenkamp) family from the original) heats up like crazy. And yet, Jesse's father says that everything is fine, even when a parakeet goes crazy. The opening is only a warm-up for the viewer to get to know one of the weakest protagonists I've seen not just in a horror film, but a film in general.

Jesse is what one would think of when it comes to awkward high school boys, but what makes him so weak is how he reacts to what happens to him in the film. Freddy wants to take control of Jesse so that he can eventually kill people in the real world, where he will have unlimited power. Even after Freddy starts coming to him, he does nothing to figure out what's happening. Even after his gym coach, Schneider (Marshall Bell), gets killed by a possessed Jesse, Jesse does not drink coffee or take pills to keep himself awake right away, or let his girlfriend, Lisa (Kim Myers) help him out. It's almost like he's eager to let Freddy take control of his body without even realizing it.

The reason Jesse looks so awkward in this movie is that Mark Patton cannot act for peanuts here. Apparently, the director's or somebody's idea for Jesse acting scared or intimidated was to have his body shake a lot, always look like he wants to be somewhere else, and do it badly. Myers does a better job, but at the end of the film when she has to face off against Freddy, who finally does take full control of Jesse, she gets all unnecessarily weepy to the point of extreme annoyance and takes away from how horrific Freddy looks when he melts. It's all part of a confusing finale where Freddy is somehow defeated with the power of love when Lisa kisses him. It does not have the same logic to it as how Freddy is defeated in the first film. Listen to me, talking about logic in movies about dreams. It's also part of the film's attempt to be even more serious and scary than the original, like Lisa and Jesse's relationship was a love story that couldn't be topped. Appreciate the effort, Jack Sholder, but no thanks.

The film has very few scares other than the opening scene. The one that comes closest is when Jesse stays at his friend Ron Grady's (Robert Rusler, who also struggles to act) place for the night and Freddy bursts out of his body (a great effect) to kill him. What ruins it is Ron screaming for his dad to open the door to his room (he's grounded), and his dad screaming the same thing. Which side has the lock? A couple of failed jump scares include a boa constrictor wrapping around Jesse as he sleeps and a mouse jumping out of an old locker in a factory that Jesse and Lisa visit (where Freddy used to take his child victims in his past life).

In most film series, the first sequel is the best and the third is either a disappointment or just not as good. This time, it's the opposite. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge is a perfect example of how a new series can lose track of itself so quickly. Having a weak protagonist especially hurts the film, partly because it's jarring to go from such an intelligent and sturdy character like Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) from the original to a weakling who can't solve a serious problem like this himself. It does not make him more relatable.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
very big step down from the original but still a good movie!
MitchellCombden5 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. 7.3/10
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Possessed by Freddy Krueger
claudio_carvalho29 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")
25 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
ok not everyone's favorite, but...
bhicks5618 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!!!
22 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
At least it had the guts to be a bit different...
mentalcritic23 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.
24 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
awful sequel to an awesome movie
grkamerican19844 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
this movie was on youtube a few months ago. i swear this movie was probably the worst sequel ever, next to Friday the 13th Part 7 and 8. the acting was pretty awful. Robert englund was the only thing that kept this movie going. but there were some points in the film where he just disappeared and we got to see the weird days in the life of Jesse . that scene with the bird going crazy was kind of cool, but the dad's explanations and theories about the bird were just unbelievably stupid. the worst thing about this film was probably it's plot. even though this movie has the highest body count in the series, the movie's plot is so dumb! this movie is about Freddy, so we wanna see FREDDY kill people, not some weirdo kid who's sometimes Freddy and sometimes himself or some stuff like that. i think a really dumb scene was during the pool party. after Freddy destroyed half of the backyard and killed about six people, everything and everyone turns quiet, and some dumba** kid walks up and says to Freddy "it's alright, no one's gonna hurt you." this guy quickly gets the fate every dumb-a** teen in a horror flick deserves. when the words 'no one's gonna hurt you" were spit out, i was convinced that this teen would break out into singing "kumbaya" to Freddy and giving him a hug. speaking of stupid and weird characters, WHAT THE HECK was up with that gym teacher?! it's like he wanted to abduct Jesse or something, like some weird child predator. now we move onto Jesse again. No matter what happens, Jesse never has a reaction that looks like what it's supposed to be. when he's angry, he looks like he just sh** himself. when he's scared, he's calm at first and then just screams out of nowhere. the only things that make this movie watchable are Robert englund (freddy) Christopher young (music) and Kevin yagher (special effects)

Overall; this movie was really bad, and i don't recommend it to any fans of 80s horror flicks at all. how this movie managed to be the #1 horror film of 1985, i'll never know. if you wanna see a good Nightmare movie, watch 1,3,4,New Nightmare, and FVJ. Stay away from 2,5 and 6. that is all.

9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty sad
Smells_Like_Cheese11 November 2003
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge, the second installment in the Nightmare on Elm Street series and probably the worst in the series. I was lucky enough to get the boxed DVD set of A Nightmare on Elm Street series and I got to see all the sequels. I think this is the sequel that I disliked the most, just because it didn't at all add up to what the first film was. It was like watching a cheesy teenager show with a twist of Nightmare on Elm Street. The kid who's the new victim, Jesse, is like Kevin Bacon's character in Footloose where he's not excepted by anyone, now just mix Footloose with Nightmare on Elm Street and you've got A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge. The story had potential, but it just failed.

Jesse is the new kid in town and he has moved into Nancy Thomson's old house. Not too soon is he having the same horrific nightmares that Nancy was having about Freddy Krueger. Jesse confides in his neighbor/crush, Lisa, she doesn't believe him until she starts having the nightmares herself. She researches Freddy and finds out that he is after Jesse's body and wants to take it over. But she may be too late when he does enter Jesse's body and is after her and all the rest of the kids at Jesse's high school.

A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge isn't bad, just compared to the series, yeah, it's the worst in that category. The story had something, but it wasn't delivered well. But just think about what A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge was compared too with it's first film that was an ultimate classic. So maybe that's why we have such a problem with the film. But I would recommend it if you wanna see the sequels, but if you're watching it without knowing the first story, I don't think you'll enjoy it.

45 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Viewer's Worst Nightmare
Micsta20 January 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Some movies just shouldn't be made at all and Nightmare on Elm street 2 is one of them.

This movie is not only the worst of the series but it's even worse than some "straight to video" horror films.

If there is anything that gives sequels a bad name it is this film. When we look at sequels we usually abide by the rules of the original unless we are told not to. This film breaks the one rule that makes Freddy legendary by letting him appear in the real world instead of just dreams. Although this rule is kinda broken in part 3 and 6 its still not smart to even try this in a 2nd film approach.

I can't even give the writer or director credit for the idea that Freddy is inside the main character's body because it just doesn't work like that. That's a whole new topic for a different franchise. Freddy should be in everyone's mind to create good terror. That brings up the ultimate slashing pool scene (not a spoiler because it's revealed in the trailer at the end which, I must admit, one of the most funny sequences that I have ever seen in my life. But that scene would only work as a parody of the Freddy series.

I don't know if anyone but me realized this but there is more of a homosexual feel in the main characters of this film which is also a big no no for a Freddy movie. Society just wasn't ready yet for that kind of tone back then.

I can go on and on about all the problems I have with the film. I can also say that the director of this has a bad resume with Wishmaster 2 and Supernova and if I could I would have this guy arrested and beat down for making bad films.

For further info I am a really HUGE Freddy fan and I do own the Nightmare Collection. But I'm very close to either burning my Nightmare 2 DVD or simply just use it as a coaster. This film is not like other really bad films that still entertain, it's one of those films that make me sick every time I think of it. Stay clear of this one if ya interested in the series.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Overlooked, Big Time
PlayerSS23 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This movie seems like it has nothing to do with whole entire series. It does sort of? Really this one just furthers along the Freddy character and mixes in a few new elements as well. I've never really quite got a handle on this movie myself. It's still good to watch from time to time though. The characters are developed right and Freddy is shown an equally amount of good times throughout it, but there is still something missing to make it a true Nightmare movie.


The only thing I did not like about this movie is this is when the series started to take a fantasy twist. I also did not like the claws coming from Fred's fingers
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
90mins of my life i'll never see again
tangoorange_29816 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
seriously avoid this movie like the plague skip to the 3rd one.

you don't need the 2nd one to understand any of them it was a total waste of time making it. i'd rather bang my head against a wall for a hr as it would be less painful and more entertaining.

it wasn't bad enough to laugh at just cry because someone thought this was a good idea, seriously it's not at all whatsoever. the acting was bad too. freddy didn't do his running. he became real not just in dreams he was a total mess and uncoordinated. i think people forgot he's not meant to be real.

not scary not funny not worth watching that's all i have to say
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The weak one in the series of sequels
raymondknapik10 January 2008
The movie takes place five years after the events of the first film. None of the cast from the first film return. The Welch's have moved into the house that Nancy once lived. I didn't like Nightmare 2 has much.. The movie is about Freddy trying to take over the body of Jesse. The movie has great special effects by Kevin Yagher. Robert plays the bus driver in the beginning of the film. The film picks up during the last half of the film. Nancy is only mentioned in a diary that she left in the house that is found by Lisa and by Jesse's best friend Ron. This chapter in the series is for die hard nightmare fans only. I thought the third one was better and it brought back the Nancy character back and the dad back. So I would skip part 2 all together.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Weird, awkward and awesome
Bored_Dragon23 August 2018
I'm reading the reviews and do not understand why people hate this movie so much. Not only is it a worthy successor to the original, but in some elements it is somewhat better. The story and characters are better developed, it has a good pace and keeps the attention from start to finish, and some scenes are unforgettable. OK, I can understand that die-hard fans of 80's slasher horrors might be disappointed with total absence of female nudity, replaced with several indisputably gay scenes (based on hilarious dance on the bed scene and closing drawer with ass, as well as the scene in the school bathroom, I would dare to bet that the screenwriter and/or director are gay), but even those gay scenes were done superbly, and some moments in the film, as for example the scene with birds and scenes in the school bus, are among the best in the genre. There's a bit less Freddy than in the first movie, but it doesn't bother me. I prefer quality over quantity, so I prefer a movie with a well-developed plot, with occasional well-measured and effective kills, over two hours of pointless slaughter, like we have in "Friday the 13th".

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Unintentonial homoerotic horror
darksyde-635089 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The "Nightmare On Elm Street" franchise can be hit or miss. Some entries in the franchise work, while others fall flat on their face. This is one that kind of falls in between , even though most fans will readily admit that this isn't one of their favorites. Much has been made about this movies homoerotic undertones, and most involved with the movie will say that they didn't realize this until much, much later. I mean, how can't you realize this when Freddy tells a young teenage boy that he wants to use him for his body, and a high school gym teacher is found in a bar wearing leather S&M gear? But i don't really think any of that is why most fans don't really like this movie. The truth is, it just isn't all that good, and that's the main reason why its one of the weaker chapters in the series
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nowhere as good as the original but still effective.
alexanderdavies-993827 September 2017
"A Nightmare On Elm Street: Freddy's Revenge" is a pretty good sequel in all fairness. Robert Englund was back as Freddy Kruegar and his character was still being treated pretty seriously. It is true that the leading man can't actually his way out of a rubber johnny, let alone a paper bag. He has no talent at all and I can't imagine why he was even given the opportunity to be in this film. The same applies to the leading lady, she is simply hopeless. Neither one of them displays any of the vulnerability that the cast from before showed. I can't understand why there was that scene at the gay bar. OK, the high school coach is attracted to men but how is that relevant to the story of the film? Robert Englund is the reason to see this and the pace is fast-moving which helps. The opening scene on the school bus is both imaginative and atmospheric. I enjoy the scene where Freddy appears at the teenagers barbecue and reeks havoc. The kids try to cower away from him but it's all in vain. I can't believe I was cheering when I saw him! The moment when Jesse and Lisa discover the diary of Nancy Thompson is a telling one. It reveals the danger Jesse is in for the first time. As in the previous film, Robert Englund doesn't have much screen time but he comes into the film when required. Some fans are a bit divided over whether the idea of Kruegar existing inside Jesse was a good move. I'm not sure. It seems slightly far fetched but in Freddy Kruegar's world, everything is! For the first time, we get to see Freddy's domain - which is the old factory on the outskirts of Springfield. The previous film only showed the factory in bits and pieces, it consisted of small camera shots here and there. In "Freddy's Revenge," we see a real factory being used for the plot and it looks a great set. A worthy sequel.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A disappointing sequel and I'm sorry but this movie is NOT Underrated.
Sci-FiHorrorFan28 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was a let down compared to the first film and I can totally understand why most people don't like it.This movie was no where near as scary or as creepy as the first movie and That's one of the biggest problems i have with this movie.I think the biggest problem most people have with this movie is it's tone, there are times were it's very goofy and silly and I can totally understand the hate the movie gets.The first time I saw the movie i thought it was a disgrace to the Original and seeing it again i still feel the same way. The movie comes no where near to beating the Original.The first movie had much better characters much better writing better directing and it was much darker because we didn't know Freddy that well so he seemed like more of a threat.But in this movie he's the opposite he comes across as more of a joker and not as scary as he was in the first film.I only remember two scenes when he was slightly scary in this sequel but it wasn't enough, I definitely wanted to see more of the scary Freddy and instead i got less. That's one of the big problems i have with the sequels, Freddy gets more and more comedic and I don't think that's how his character should have been, Even the director of the first film Wes Craven said he wanted Freddy to be scary and he never wanted to do sequels but they got made because hard-core fans wanted them, so different directors came to direct the sequels except the last one which Craven directed.He made the Last movie so he could bring Freddy back to his roots and make him scary again which he knew True fans of the Original movie would love and he was right people liked New Nightmare because Freddy returned to his old scary self. movie 2 was boring and there was no suspense or tension.It Lacked everything that made the first movie Great. Another problem for me is Mark Patton i don't like his character or his acting.He screams like a girl and he acts too feminine and having him act that way was a mistake in my opinion. During the scenes when he's supposed to be angry he pulls this kind of face like he's constipated or something. I watched that and I thought what kind of man are you?. He acts more like a girl then a guy for some reason.There is a really Dumb cringe worthy scene where he's dancing and singing on his bed and when I saw that scene i wanted to Puke and close my eyes that's how UNFunny it was.This movie needed a hero like Nancy who could kick Ass not this Lame Idiot.

When Freddy Torments him he just stands there with this constipated look on his face that looks like a mixture between a girl that's about to have a hissy fit and a scared constipated child and it's laughable. The guy does not know how to act tough or look tough or be tough and he fails miserably as a main character. He was Boring and he was Not a Fighter and he wasn't much of a man.I thought Nancy was more of a man than he was and she's a Girl!. How Sad is that? Nancy from the first movie is more of a man than he is!.Nancy is also a much better character than him. Another problem i have with the movie are the gay references, I don't think the movie needed to be filled with Them. This is supposed to be a horror movie not a gay movie and all the subtle gay jokes and references felt weird and out of place in this movie and they should not have been in the movie.If people liked them fine good for you but I didn't like them, and having all of that Lame humour just made the film less scary and more of a Joke and I didn't watch the movie for jokes i watched the movie to be scared and entertained.This Movie should Not be called Freddy's Revenge either That title makes No sense.What Revenge? Revenge on who? Revenge on Nancy? who's NOT in this movie? (Yeah that makes loads of sense). Most of the characters in the movie i did not care about and That's another Big problem.When you have no-one to root for The movie becomes boring.The only character i Liked was Lisa.

The only thing this movie has going for it are some good special effects and a few action scenes. I Liked the scene when Freddy ripped his skin off his head and said to Jesse you've got the body and I've got the brain.And Freddy trying to take over Jesse's body and trying to force him to kill people.The idea was interesting but it didn't work for me because of how it was done.The idea had potential but I don't think it was handled right. Another scene I Liked was the pool party scene when Freddy shows up and starts slicing people up and everyone screams and runs away.I admit the scene was entertaining but it was too short lived and the movie needed more scenes like that when Freddy Hacks people up instead we are treated to dumb jokes.A couple of jokes worked but most of them Failed. I am Not a Fan of this movie.I Get that the director wanted to do something different and there's nothing wrong with trying something different but it needs to be done the right way and It was done the wrong way. What made the first movie Great was the fact that the characters were fighting Freddy in the dream world and In the dream world he can do anything he wants which makes it more fun to watch but in this sequel everything happens in the real world.Overall it's Not my Cup of Tea.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just skip this one and go directly to part 3
Derek2371 August 2003
Well, what can I say? This is a terrible sequel and very clearly the worst of the elm street series. The acting is bad (even for a horror movie), the scares are cheap, and it's just plain boring. My main reason for hating this movie so much is that they broke Freddy rule #1: no one dies in their sleep. If nobody dies in their sleep, where's the fun in watching a Freddy movie? There are people who can forgive this but I just can't.

There are arguments in defense in this movie like, at least Freddy is still dark and scary instead of being a joker like in some of the other movies. I guess I sort of agree with that, and yes, the scenes with Freddy are good. But when Freddy isn't on the screen it's dull. All of the other films at least had interesting scenes/plot lines without Freddy and characters you could actually root for. This one does not. At all. It misses that backbone, and that's why this movie ultimately suffers.

So seriously, if you aren't a Freddy fanatic and could stand missing some of the incoherent entries in the series, by all means skip this one and go directly to part 3. You won't miss anything at all since part 3 picks up where the first left off. Freddy's Revenge stands on its own anyway, since it seems like a completely different movie!

My Rating: 1/10
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Even through the eyes of a boy, Freddy is fearful and frightening
Dr_Coulardeau1 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The first sequel of a film like this A Nightmare on Elm Street is probably the most difficult task, especially if you change directors. It has to be in the line of the first film and yet change a few things to make it nothing but a repeat. The character of Freddy Krueger is kept with his three distinctive elements : the right hand four finger claws, the hat and the black and red striped pullover, plus of course his ugly mug. But then we move. First the main character is a boy something like a junior or senior in high school, so not really a boy anymore. But yet the boyish side is emphasized by a hairless body, shiny and pure skin, a skin that is widely shown and slowly brushed up and down by the camera. And that's the change. The camera really centers on his body, his skin, his flesh even, except of course his front sexual parts per se. Then it uses gym scenes and even locker room and shower scenes, but once again with restraint. Very little nudity and when there is some backside scenes it is in a very traumatic situation : the gay sports teacher who is tortured and whipped in the nude of course, tied up to the showers, while the boy in the nude too is shown slightly in some darkness and flittingly. Many scenes of the boy in bed only wearing his underwear, never really ambiguous but always sexy even if once again flittingly. Then some more elements are added : his friendship with another boy who is the rather of the macho type but who does not seem afraid of a masculine friendship. Both are victimized by the gay sports teacher on the football field a couple of times and in the end the boy, Jesse, will come to ask for help from his friend, Grady, and the first reaction will be nearly openly gay even if denied in some side remark, and Freddy will kill Grady through, from inside the body of Jesse : if that is not a repressed homosexual desire, what is ? And before Jesse had gone to a leather bar and had been literally kidnapped by the gay sports teacher and it is then later in the showers that Freddy again will kill this openly gay character from within the body of Jesse. If one case is a coincidence, two are not and that is the main change of this film from a girl-centered vision of fear to a boy-centered vision. In fact we must understand that Freddy is the real character questioned here. He is an old pedophile and after having recaptured some existence through the dream of a girl in the first film, and having thus gotten a couple of boys in his bag through the desire of the girl for these boys, now he moves directly to the main target of his desire : he wants to possess a boy from inside, he is a gay pedophile and Jesse, to defend his sanity in this invasion, will have to react against this gayness that is imposed onto him and kill the boys and men Freddy desires. But this can also be nothing but a tactic from Freddy to push Jesse into killing, to titillate him where it tickles and where Jesse does not really want to be tickled, though when Freddy forces Jesse away from his girlfriend at the very moment when he was getting excited enough to let himself slip into some sex can be seen as the revulsion of Freddy for that type of sex or as the fear of Jesse in front of that type of sex, which would lead to believing that Freddy managed to get back into existence through the homosexual desire of Jesse and at the same time his resistance to this sexual appeal. But that is a real change in that kind of horror films : to take a point of view that focuses onto a boy, his desires, his fears, and his anxiety, all of it emphasized by a castrating authoritarian father and a loving, maybe too much, mother. We must keep in mind that this is a common situation for many boys when they turn sixteen or seventeen. In no way is this sequel lower and less intense than the first episode. Note finally the use of an old abandoned factory to give some density to Freddy's old personality and past, but also to open another chapter in that exploration of fear : the fear we can feel in front of and inside those old factories that seem in many ways haunted. That is a dimension Stephen King has used over and over again in so many of his books and films. Nothing really new but something definitely effective, at least by reminding the audience of other frightening scenes in other films. Then the evaluation of that reference is a question of date to know who used it first and who is a copycat or an imitator, who can anyway also be a developer.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
My favorite of the sequels
Eraser811 September 2006
This one was definitely different than the rest of the Elm Street's. But I loved all of Freddy's scenes and the way he delivered his lines. Robert England knew which words to emphasize in order to be effective.

The teenage characters were all likable. Especially Kim Myers' character Lisa. She could have very easily abandoned Jesse when he started to get weirded out every day, but she stuck by his side to fight Freddy.

The special effects in this movie were really good. The best one being Freddy emerging right out of Jesse's body.

The film's humor wasn't bad either. The littlest things still make me chuckle.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed