IMDb user comments for
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 27:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

267 comments in total

---

32 out of 39 people found the following comment useful :-
Pretty sad, 11 November 2003

Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois

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.

5/10

---

23 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Not as bad as some would have you think., 21 January 2006

Author: SickBoySimon from Brentwood, USA

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 ****

---

20 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Snubbed at the Oscars..., 8 July 2003

Author: RockytheBear (RockytheBear@aol.com) from Chicago

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

ALL MY REVIEWS HAVE SPOILERS. EVERY ONE OF THEM.

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.

---

22 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
Freddy's back to terrorize a confused teenage boy!, 17 June 2004

Author: Captain_Couth (sirjosephu@aol.com) from Sacramento, CA

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

---

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
underrated follow up, 2 February 2008

Author: acidburn-10 from United Kingdom

Plot = 5 years after the events of the first movie, a new teen and his family move into the same house where the events occurred and before long Jesse starts getting haunted by Freddy but this time Freddy wants something else other than blood.

I've rated this movie before and gave it a five and a pretty bad review but after viewing this movie a few more times I actually quite enjoyed it, OK it's not the best in the franchise, but it's still good and that's why I deleted my old review and started afresh. This sequel stands on its own, following its own rules without ignoring the original. This flick is basically a haunted house/possession flick with lots of weird stuff going on. Its not particularly scary but it is very spooky. The film also delivers in the gross out department, the scene where Freddy comes out of Jesse's chest is plain old fun times for the whole family. This sequel has many homosexual undertones. I mean the coach gets his ass whipped with a towel by Freddy (kinky bastard), Jesse ventures in a gay SNM bar, Jesse gets down with Lisa but then abruptly leaves her hanging to go sleep at Brady's house. This whole film could be a metaphor for a kid coming to grasp with his gay penchant. Jesse keeps on saying there's something inside of him that wants to come out…maybe Freddy equals his pansy side. Lots of people had problems with the gay stuff, I had a blast…funny shite. Ironically the actor that plays Jesse (Mark Patton) is gay in real life…go figure. Lisa's attraction and commitment to crazy Jesse did elude me, the guy is such a geek! But my main problem with the film is the anticlimactic ending. The ending feels rushed and his far from satisfying. The whole love conquer all shite was rubbish.

Mark Patton (Jesse) handles himself real well. He hits all the right emotional notes, too bad he screams like a girl and can't dress for shite. I thought gay men knew fashion. Kim Meyers (Lisa) is also very good Robert Rustler (Grady) has all the best lines and he's just way kool. The kind of guy I'd hang with. Clu Gulager (Ken) and Hope Lange (Cheryl) do good as the parents, they have wonderful chemistry and are very credible. Marshall Bell (Coach) is the scariest thing in the flick. Robert Englund (Freddy) has more screen time and gets to explore Freddy. Here Fred is more playful and has more lines. But fear not he's still scary, cruel and in the shadows.

All in all quite a good follow up.

---

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
I thought it was a good sequel, 23 May 2008

Author: Moviefreak4653 from United States

I honestly liked Nightmare On Elm Street 2, i think it was the appropriate sequel to the first one.It had that 80's aspect that for me somehow made it more enjoyable.It was so simple in a way because they were not trying to yet make Freddy Krueger a Dream Master, or a Psycho Dream dude who was psychologically ill and all this is just making the series into a confusing wreck.Here we have a simple plot that tries to explain some stuff, but not to much.I like all the references to the first one, i basically look for that in all sequels, i guess it makes me feel cool to say,"Oh i saw that happen, i actually saw what happened".Ill admit at times it was cheesy, and there were some really unnecessary parts to it, but i liked the film.Overall you might be one of many who hates this movie, but give it a chance if your a fan of the first one or a Freddy fan than you will give this film its props for that. 7.9 out of 10 stars

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
10 out of 10, 7 September 2007

Author: Bleeding-Skull from Review Land

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The first Nightmare On Elm Street is one of my favorite horror movies.It had an original plot and was very entertaining.Now this is the first of the many sequels that followed it.Sure its not as good as the first and its the second worst one in the series(in my opinion).But its still an entertaining and good 1980's slasher flick.The cast is different from the first film and neither of the actors or actresses from this film return for any of the sequels.In this film, a family moves into the house that Nancy lived in during the first film.Freddy possesses the teenager who lives in the house and makes him do his killings for him.With the help of his girlfriend, he must stop Freddy.Though the sequels are known for their comedy, this film wasn't meant to be a comedy.Yet there are a few laugh out loud scenes in it.Nightmare On Elm Street 2 is an alright sequel that slasher film fans should enjoy.

Rated R for Extreme Graphic Violence, Profanity, Sexual Situations and Brief Nudity.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Very underrated, 9 November 2002

Author: TheSkipper from London, England

*** This comment 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

---

8 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Not a bad sequel., 24 July 2002
Author: canot67 (canot67@hotmail.com) from Devon, England.

A nightmare on elm street started off a trio of these series,and the second one in the series doesn't do a bad job.This time another family have moved into the house and the son (Jesse),is stalked by Freddy and Freddy becomes him.

A nightmare on elm street 2 isn't bad on all stages,I have to admit,it has its flaws,but it kept me entertained for a couple of hours. Freddy isn't as scary but there is the idea of the school bus which I found creative.

I would reccomend buying this if you're trying to get hold of the collection,if not,don't. I rate 3/5.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Even through the eyes of a boy, Freddy is fearful and frightening, 1 February 2007

Author: Dr Jacques COULARDEAU from Olliergues, France

*** This comment may contain 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

---

---

Page 1 of 27:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history