Pesadilla en la calle del infierno 2

The original 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' is still to me one of the scariest and best horror films there is, as well as a truly great film in its own right and introduced us to one of the genre's most iconic villains in Freddy Krueger. It is always difficult to do a sequel that lives up to a film as good as 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' let alone one to be on the same level.

'A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge' is not to me the dreadful film as reputed, but, while its attempts to do something different is admirable, it should have been much better than it turned out to be. It is very difficult to not feel disappointed when you inevitably compare 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' to its first sequel and find that the drop in quality is so significant and hard to ignore. Whether 'Freddy's Revenge' is the worst of the series is debatable, to me and many others it is one of the weaker ones.

'Freddy's Revenge' is not a complete waste of time. It starts off very promisingly, with the bus scene is thrillingly unsettling. Easily the film's scariest moment and the scene one remembers the most. Robert Englund is still very freaky and shows why Freddy is so iconic as a villain, he may not be quite as terrifying but the material isn't as strong here and he is still highly effective.

It's not a bad-looking film, there is a slickness to it and there are some nightmarish effects. There are some eerie moments, though none of the rest of the film lives up to the bus scene, and some amusing dark humour. The music is suitably haunting.

However, there are also a fair share of problems. The scares don't come enough, and while there are effective ones there are also just as many that are perfunctory and pretty tame by 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' series standards. Credit is due for trying to do something different and there are parts that do intrigue. A tighter pace and less pedestrian direction would have made the execution better, as well as trying to do less and focus more on the quality of the scares and how the story is told.

Jesse is such a dull damp squib of a character who lacks a quick-thinking or logical brain let alone any kind of presence. The one-note expressionless acting of Mark Patton accentuates this. The rest of the cast are nowhere near as bad, but when it comes to the acting the only one to properly rise above the material is Englund. Lastly, the ending is a slap in the face and really undoes Freddy's character, he would never do what he does at the end and it doesn't make sense for him to do it.

Overall, not that bad but could have been much better. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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 ****

This has got to be the strangest horror sequel of all time, next to "Exorcist II: The Heretic," which was another brave risk that failed commercially due to it's weirdness and different tone. But the terms "weird and creepy" are not really an insult when describing a horror film. Those dark, sexual overtones in this movie lent it a haunting and sinister feel, and a truly nightmarish tone. I don't think audiences in 1985 were ready for something like this, but no matter; the reason to see this film is for the appearance of Robert Englund as the burnt child killer, Fred Kruger, and before this character was made into a joke in later films, this guy had to be the most horrifying monster of all time. And he is intensely scary in this film, which succeeds in preserving the dark tone of the original. Something the first two films managed to succeed in doing, was making scenes filmed in the bright sunlight, seem as scary and menacing as the night scenes with all the fog and shadows. Of course that locker room scene with the pervy coach was filmed at night, and I found that to be extremely unsettling, and like nothing else I had seen in other movies of the genre. Another good thing about this sequel is how it looks like the first film, with it's sets and lighting and camera work. That is the connection that it needed to connect to the first one, and the inclusion of Nancy's diary was a great way to bring her character into the new movie. The four friends in the sequel brought to mind the dynamics of the original, with the four friends dealing with the menace of Fred Kruger. I also thought the idea of Kruger possessing the body of the main character in order to be able to kill in the real world, was pretty intense. This one is different, and will not please some of the Elm Street fanbase, but the fact that Fred Kruger has never been more creepy and terrifying than in THIS movie, should make it a major selling point for "Freddy's Revenge..."

Freddy is back, but wants to use a teenager's body to kill for him. Why? Freddy is a killer in his own right, having his vengeance on the Elm Street parents who burnt him alive, so what does he have to gain by using a teenager's body?

The teenager in question is the nerdy, insecure Jesse (Mark Patton). This is probably why Freddy chose him as his vessel, because he is vulnerable and susceptible. Jesse also lives in the house on Elm Street Nancy used to live in. Freddy says he needs Jesse because Jesse has the body, and he - Freddy - has the brains. Jesse never kills anyone, though; it is always doing Freddy doing the killings, so I guess he uses Jesse to lure his victims. It still didn't entirely make sense why he needed a host, but it does allow for some excellent scenes in the form of make-up and prosthetics.

Jesse is seeing Lisa (Kim Myers - who, by the way, looks so much like Meryl Streep in this movie!). I found her a really nice character, who was caring and considerate. She is also a very strong character, who stands by Jesse.

This sequel might not be as good as the original, but it is a worthy entry in the series with some great kill scenes, a constant creepy atmosphere, excellent makeup, an awesome party scene, and a great performance once again from Robert England as Freddy. I also thought Mark Patton was really good portraying the troubled and confused Jesse. In general, this is a highly entertaining supernatural horror slasher.

This film is definitely the most different of the series. I mean first with the undertones and secondly with how Freddy decides to go after teens. I'm going to skip a synopsis since other people have done that plenty of times before but instead go over where this film succeeds and fails. First Freddy is still somewhat scary in this film and not goofy yet and in my opinion it is the best looking make up for Freddy of this series. Next the film has some very progressive undertones as in coming out and homosexuality, despite being disputed by the creators. Next I liked the atmosphere which was solid throughout. Finally the acting was decent overall but not super above average. Also the kills are still somewhat creative and there's some interesting body horror in it. The film does fail at a few things despite some creative kills there are definitely some that are just filler. Next the dream sequences are some of the weakest of the series. I also feel like the direction of Freddy taking over bodies in this film was a horrible one off idea, which thankfully was only in this film, unless you count Freddy possessing the stoner in Freddy V Jason, which was also bad in that film. Finally the film feels confused with where it wants to go, but luckily that problem doesn't arise again in the series until later in the films. Overall you should see it, especially of you're a completist or can find it for cheap, which is easy and it's included in a few different Nightmare box sets.