A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 - Freddy's Revenge (1985)

Featured Audience Ratings

• AJ V

  
  I was actually deathly afraid of Freddy in the first movie, and now having seen the sequel that fear is waning. First of all, his power comes from the fact that he can kill us in our dreams. If he were to get a real body, he would be just a normal serial killer, and therefore not the… More
  I was actually deathly afraid of Freddy in the first movie, and now having seen the sequel that fear is waning. First of all, his power comes from the fact that he can kill us in our dreams. If he were to get a real body, he would be just a normal serial killer, and therefore not the scary monster he is supposed to be. Second, there are some very funny things that happen in this movie, I found myself laughing a lot at both the actors and their dialogue, which helped me not to be scared. I also loved the special effects, just like in the first movie, they are brilliantly done, fit the story, and boggle your mind. Overall, this movie is okay, but it has problems. It could have been a lot better.

• Jason C

  
  It's a testament to the original's greatness, that this pile of feces didn't stop the entire franchise dead in it's tracks. I've seen a lot of shitty sequels to horror movies, but the second installment of "...Elm Street" might be the worst. The… More
  It's a testament to the original's greatness, that this pile of feces didn't stop the entire franchise dead in it's tracks. I've seen a lot of shitty sequels to horror movies, but the second installment of "...Elm Street" might be the worst. The whole story is an idiotic departure from the original, made worse by the effeminate little fuck cast in the lead role. The movie accomplishes an unforgivably low body count while we watch "Jesse" scream like a bitch as Freddy tries to take over his body. We also get to see "Jesse" tortured by a gay gym teacher and struggle desperately to avoid intercourse with his girlfriend. Hmm? Unfortunately, that sums the whole movie up. It's garbage. If you're ambitious enough to attempt watching all of the Freddy films, you can avoid this movie completely without sacrificing any continuity. You'll be glad you did.

• Creep F

  
  This movie is fu*king hilarious. I loved it. It wasn't Freddy Krueger that was hilarious, it was the characters - (mostly Jesse and Ron Grady). Jesse's reactions of terror are funny (he looks constipated and feverish all the time). Jesse dancing to "Touch Me (All Night… More
  This movie is fu*king hilarious. I loved it. It wasn't Freddy Krueger that was hilarious, it was the characters - (mostly Jesse and Ron Grady). Jesse's reactions of terror are funny (he looks constipated and feverish all the time). Jesse dancing to "Touch Me (All Night Long)" while cleaning his room is funny. Grady always fu*king with Jesse is funny. The homosexual Gym teacher being whipped in the ass by flying towels is funny. Grady expressing his frustrations with food flying out of his mouth is funny. Everything is funny...until Freddy shows up! Then the terror begins. Krueger isn't funny in this one. I don't mean that in a bad way. What I mean is Freddy is terrifying in this. If Krueger wasn't in this movie it would've been a straight up comedy. Freddy was the most serious thing in this film. Part 2 is the most serious Freddy has ever been. Rewatch it if you disagree, please. Because you might have forgotten or did not study the facts on the case because Freddy is MEAN in this one. The only time he's been as serious is in Wes Craven's New Nightmare, but he's still meaner in part 2. New Nightmare, Freddy cracks some funny jokes (very few) where in this one he's straight up pissed off and vengeful. The title doesn't lie. This is "Freddy's REVENGE". Elm Street 2 has it's scary moments (Jesse's sister on the jump rope still scares the hell out of me), and it has it's bloody moments, but it's not as graphic as the first. If you want to laugh, be creeped out and have a fun time then watch this movie. It won't disappoint. Nowhere near as close to good as the first one, but that doesn't mean it isn't great. Freddy's Revenge is a delight treat for horror fans. <a href="http://s294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/JDHallowEEn/HorrorQf/?action=view¤t=ElmStreet2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/JDHallowEEn/HorrorQf/ElmStreet2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

• Jeff "

  
  Freddy's revenge had a lot going for it. The concept of the film was great. It's too bad the film fell short on many levels. One of the reasons why this film is so disappointing compared to the superior first is the weak cast of characters. The film went down hill for me… More
  Freddy's revenge had a lot going for it. The concept of the film was great. It's too bad the film fell short on many levels. One of the reasons why this film is so disappointing compared to the superior first is the weak cast of characters. The film went down hill for me because of a mediocre cast. What made the first Nightmare On Elm Street so much fun and entertaining was the combination of a great young cast of actors, and terrific spine tingling moments. But with Freddy's revenge there are a few spine tingling moments to be had in this weak sequel, but unfortunately some scares fall flat and it's just not effective. However is decently entertaining, but for a follow up to Craven's masterpiece, it's a fairly weak film. It ends up just being an average film.

• Chris G

  
  One thing is assured when a horror film does big money at the box office- it will get a sequel (or a dozen) and that sequel will be a cheap imitation of the original. Typically they're made cheaply and bank on name recognition. It's the same formula to make a buck. Friday… More
  One thing is assured when a horror film does big money at the box office- it will get a sequel (or a dozen) and that sequel will be a cheap imitation of the original. Typically they're made cheaply and bank on name recognition. It's the same formula to make a buck. Friday the 13th built an '80's franchise on this idea. Which brings us to Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, which takes Wes Craven's concept and sticks a firecracker up it's wazoo. The film takes place five years after the original film with Jesse (Mark Patton) who now resides in Nancy's old room. He starts having nightmares about our favorite child murderer eventually becoming the body for Freddy's brain, allowing the Fredster to escape into the real world of S&M loving gym teachers and exploding parakeets. This movie just flat out sucks. It's a thrown together piece of shit that really has nothing in common with the original other than Freddy Krueger. Wes Craven's brilliant concept becomes a side line that's eventually flushed down the toilet in this film. The brilliance is that Krueger could get you in the one thing that no one can run away from- your unconscious. In this film people are getting ripped apart left and right during waking hours because he has Jessie's body? Yet there's supernatural stuff allowing Krueger the ease of slicing the gym teacher like a ham. This film is a mess. And the acting doesn't help either. Englund is still creepy as Freddy in this one, but the rest of the cast is strictly D grade cheap actors (excluding Clu Gallagher) that haven't been heard from since unless it's crap on TV. Directed by Jack Sholder, who would gives us a much better film called The Hidden a couple years after this, really doesn't wow us in any directorial skill. It's like an after school special. We also have to lay blame on writer David Chaskin, who must have written this in an outhouse because it is a foul piece of work. Nightmare on Elm Street 2 is basically gravy train trash that banked on the name and the character and little else. (as I side note I have to add that Wes Craven refused to do a sequel because of the manipulation storyline and the fact he didn't want the film to spawn sequels. Ironically, this same year he directed a sequel to The Hills Have Eyes that is just as bad as this film)

• Wahida K

  
  Let the Nightmares begin. lol Freddy Kruger a legend.

• Conner R

  
  I actually thought this was a better story than the first, but It's not the better movie. The Jesse character was such a better protagonist than Nancy. The acting is just as good as the first. The movie's biggest flaw is in the mediocre directing and lack of style.

• Lady D

  
  Not as tense a film as it?s prequel, but a bit of a different storyline in that the take on this one is Possession. An average watch.

• Anthony L

  
  Not a bad idea for a sequel but poorly executed! (No pun intended)

• Jason O

  
  In my opinion, "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 - Freddy's Revenge" was a pretty good sequel. In this sequel, Freddy Krueger terrorizes a teen named Jesse by taking over his body and making Jesse think that he is the one that is murdering people. It's up to Jesse and… More
  In my opinion, "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 - Freddy's Revenge" was a pretty good sequel. In this sequel, Freddy Krueger terrorizes a teen named Jesse by taking over his body and making Jesse think that he is the one that is murdering people. It's up to Jesse and his girlfriend, Lisa, to try and solve the mystery of Freddy Krueger in order to find a way to fight him off. "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 - Freddy's Revenge" isn't as groundbreaking as the first movie in the series, but it's still a good movie in its own right. Parts of it are scary and suspenseful, the storyline goes along at a steady pace, the special effects are decent, and it has good acting by Jesse and Lisa. If you liked the original movie in the series, I would recommend seeing this movie. NOTE: That was my Amazon review from the year 2000

• Tim S

  
  I'd give it a C+. They jumped outside the Nightmare mythos and broke a lot of the rules, not to mention they made the lead a male, who is a bit on the gay side if ask me. I will commend them highly for the special effects however. They were spectacular.

• Dean !

  
  Doesn't live up to the first film, but has it's moments.

• _kelly .

  
  I must say that this is a formidable sequel (now remember I'm watching these in order and have only seen 1 and 2 thus far). The concept in this film is similar to the first: Freddy uses whatever teenager occupies his house to link himself to more people, and thusly more victims.… More
  I must say that this is a formidable sequel (now remember I'm watching these in order and have only seen 1 and 2 thus far). The concept in this film is similar to the first: Freddy uses whatever teenager occupies his house to link himself to more people, and thusly more victims. In this entry, instead of saving his central kid for last kill, he uses the kid to manifest himself in the real world temporarily. The acting is annoying (with the exception of Clu Gulager) and the two main characters do not get my sympathy, but that's fine because the effects and FX concepts in this one are just as cool as the firts movie. Freddy's makeup has gotten even better (no lighting tricks needed now - it looks like real flesh in a closeup). I was disappointed that this movie didn't show the grotesque "crime scenes" after Freddy has killed, which are highly memorable moments in the first movie. I like the bookend aspect of the script - the bus scene - and Freddy's new tactic. Some of the scenes are incredibly well directed and co-ordinated: when the coach is attacked by a roomfull of balls and sports equipment and the great pool party sequence. I wish there were more scenes of the sprite Freddy running about scaring people shitless as he does at the pool party, but his 'quickness' is not a signature feature of his in this one. Also I didn't experience a single "gotcha" scare. All in all, a good entry because Freddy is fantastic in this one, but the kills are less creative. These are more "knives in the chest" than elaborate dream kills, which the movie deceptively begins with. Still, Freddy looks great and the scene where he pops out of the main kid is just unbeatable.

• Curtis L

  
  The absolute worst Freddy movie of the whole series.

• A.D. V

  
  Removing all of the charm,style and scares of the first this lousy, unnecessary sequal finds a new kid has moved into Nancy's old house on Elm Street. The new kid finds her diary(?) and begins to have nightmares about Freddy. Nightmares become reality when people he knows start… More
  Removing all of the charm,style and scares of the first this lousy, unnecessary sequal finds a new kid has moved into Nancy's old house on Elm Street. The new kid finds her diary(?) and begins to have nightmares about Freddy. Nightmares become reality when people he knows start dying off and thus begins the new kids quest to defeat Freddy. Yawn.

• Cassandra M

  
  As every self-respecting horror buff knows, Wes Craven directed the original "Nightmare," which was a box-office smash. However, before the film had met with financial success, he sold the sequel rights, a move he has long regretted. "Freddy's Revenge" is… More
  As every self-respecting horror buff knows, Wes Craven directed the original "Nightmare," which was a box-office smash. However, before the film had met with financial success, he sold the sequel rights, a move he has long regretted. "Freddy's Revenge" is not a disaster, but it pales in comparison to the original. The story is pretty routine stuff, empathizing special effects and gore over plot. However, the central concept is fairly intriguing, and makes for some scattered good moments. Mark Patton is not a thespian, but he generates sympathy as the central character, a young man trapped by dark forces. Robert Englund, reprising his role as Freddy Krueger, is as engaging as charismatic as ever. The character is a creation of modern makeup effects (kudos to Kevin Yagher), but without Englund, he wouldn't be much more. As the parents, Clu Gulager and Hope Lange are okay, if unexceptional. However, the film's worst, most thankless role goes to Marshall Bell as the sadistic Coach Schneider. His character is yet another stereotypical high school coach. The homosexual undertones (the guy even hangs out in a gay bar!) certainly don't help. With some imagination, NOES2 could have held its own with the original, but it becomes yet another victim of lazy screenwriting. However, that didn't seem to hinder its financial success. Part 3 was inevitable.

• Kylie B

  
  If this is the one with the exploding budgie, then it was okay. Slightly silly, but sometimes horror and high camp go together a bit too well.

• Lafe F

  
  This was the first Elm Street movie I saw, and loved it. Then, when I saw Elm Street #1, I enjoyed it even more. 2 is okay, but it breaks a lot of the rules of Freddy's powers which were established in the first Elm Street movie. Some of the things just didn't make sense,… More
  This was the first Elm Street movie I saw, and loved it. Then, when I saw Elm Street #1, I enjoyed it even more. 2 is okay, but it breaks a lot of the rules of Freddy's powers which were established in the first Elm Street movie. Some of the things just didn't make sense, like Freddy coming out from Jessie's body - huh? It has many great scenes however. In the scheme of all the Elm Street movies, it fits in the least. It is still quality filmmaking however, and I often re-watch it.

• Dean M

  
  Freddy Krueger resurrected with a vengeance where his twisted soul takes possession of the innocent boy's body. This is the most terrifying special effects. Look for Robert Englund minus his Freddy face in the opening sequence. He's a real scream!

• danny d

  
  what happened in this one again?

Read all 20 featured audience ratings