La Revanche de Freddy

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 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.

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

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..."

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.