एल्म सड़क पर बुरा सपना २: फ़्रेडी का बदला

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 ****

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.

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.

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

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..."