Nightmare 2 - La rivincita

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.

"A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge" is hands down the weirdest and most divisive entry in the franchise Wes Craven created. And honestly, it's no mystery why-this sequel takes some wild, often controversial turns, even messing with some of the core rules that were so firmly set up in the original film. That kind of move could've been bold and refreshing, but what we get instead is a film that swings between genuinely gutsy moments and pretty cringe-inducing stumbles, landing somewhere in that frustrating middle ground between fascinating and flawed.

The first major shake-up is in the kind of horror the movie delivers. Instead of keeping Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) as the dream-stalking killer-the whole hook of the first film-"Freddy's Revenge" turns him into more of a parasitic entity who takes over the body of Jesse (Mark Patton) to kill people in the real world. At first glance, this feels like blasphemy, totally ditching what made the original so unique. But there's actually an interesting logic to it: Freddy's trying to come back from obscurity, and he needs people to fear him again. Using Jesse as a kind of vessel fits that goal... though the execution doesn't exactly nail the tension or internal consistency.

And that's where the script starts to wobble. Unlike the tight, escalating structure of the first film, this one kind of meanders. Jesse's a really passive protagonist-confused most of the time, sweating, screaming, and not really driving his own story forward. His emotional arc is fuzzy, and his relationships with other characters, especially Ron Grady (Robert Rusler), just don't feel fleshed out. One minute they hate each other, the next they're suddenly best buds, then they're randomly crashing at each other's places. It all feels kind of forced, which really dulls the emotional hit of Grady's death-even though that death scene is actually one of the most intense in the whole franchise.

That said, the film absolutely nails the atmosphere and Freddy himself. He's way more animalistic here, way scarier, and way less jokey-he feels like a straight-up demon. Robert Englund's makeup is darker and nastier, with scorched skin, razor teeth, and glowing red eyes. And Englund's performance is killer: sadistic, relentless, always lurking in the shadows. This might be the Freddy that feels the closest to pure evil-he's got less screen time, but he makes every second count.

Visually, "Freddy's Revenge" sticks with the franchise's stylish tone. The cinematography leans into heavy contrasts, neon lights, fog, and shadows, giving the whole thing a hallucinatory vibe. Freddy clawing his way out of Jesse's body is still grotesque and super effective, even with dated practical effects. And the pool party massacre? Total chaos in the best way-the kind of large-scale slasher mayhem that was rare back then. Director Jack Sholder shows real command during those intense scenes, even if the movie overall lacks cohesion.

But maybe the most talked-about-and most misunderstood-part of "Freddy's Revenge" is its heavy homoerotic subtext. It hangs over the movie like a thick, pulsing shadow. From Jesse's gender-neutral name to the loaded interactions with other male characters, the film seems to be addressing themes of sexual repression and identity. Freddy himself can even be read as a metaphor for Jesse's repressed desires-a dark force trying to take over his body. The issue is, the script never really tackles any of this head-on or with much sensitivity. What could've been a powerful psychological layer ends up being a weird patchwork of awkward scenes, some of which are unintentionally funny or just flat-out ridiculous (yeah, we're all thinking of that bedroom dance scene, and the over-the-top shower death). There's a really interesting film buried under all these layers-it just never quite breaks the surface.

Still, there's no denying that "Freddy's Revenge" holds an important place in the franchise. It broadens the scope, experiments with form, and takes some big swings, even if that means stepping on fans' expectations. It's far from a perfect sequel-let's be real, it's messy-but it's also scary, intriguing, and impossible to ignore. And in the end, there's something kind of chilling about hearing Freddy, more monstrous than ever, declare: "You are all my children now." Because like it or not, he's not wrong.

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.

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.