Nightmare 2 - La rivincita

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

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.

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.

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

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..."