User Reviews

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.

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

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.

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 ****

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.

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

One of the worst sequels ever made, Freddy's Revenge has an awful plotline, lame characters and is a poorly executed production in every conceivable way. Good thing Dream Warriors came along after this and saved the franchise.

1 out of 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..."

About a month after its debut, A Nightmare on Elm Street was already a success. His budget of approximately 1.8 million dollars was returned to a lucrative 10 million, which soon grew to a total of 25 million during his stay in American theaters. Still counting the positive reception for the character of Freddy Krueger, a sequel was a priority for New Line Cinema. Naturally, the colossal success of the first one (by its parameters) sparked the interest of producer Robert Shaye, founder and then owner of New Line, in continuing to make movies with Freddy. It is also reported that it was the success of this second film - which, with a budget of $3 million, returned to the studio $30 million in the US alone - that spurred and established the small production company amidst the giants of the movie mecca. Today, New Line was purchased and is a subsidiary of Warner Bros.

In Nightmare Hour 2, young Jesse (played by Mark Patton) moves with his family to the home where Nancy (the protagonist of the first film, who left Elm Street after the tragedy five years earlier) lived. Jesse becomes tormented in his nightmares by Freddy Krueger and discovers, upon finding Nancy's diary, that the house has a dark past of violence and madness. Some unexplained events, such as a toaster that catches fire even when it is unplugged and a canary that literally explodes in the air, as well as an infernal heat intrigue the family, who insist in not believing that something could be really haunting the place. But for Jesse the nightmares become more and more intense and Freddy is getting closer and closer to possessing him.

The screenplay, written by newcomer David Chaskin, misses ugly as it distorts the villain's original concept: Freddy now doesn't just want to sneak into his victims' dreams and torture them; the villain wants to take over the protagonist's body and, from it, commit murders in the real world. What makes the script even more confusing is the fact that the killer is not identified at any time: was Jesse possessed or Freddy himself "materialized" in our reality? And what would your real goal be? In one of the film's most embarrassing moments, Freddy attacks several young people who are at a party - everyone sees him, including the adults. But even worse is when the guy screams at the surviving teenagers that they are all his children and a big flame tries to attract the viewer's attention and connect Freddy with hell. They could have done it in a more creative way. It is good to remember that the great idea of the character created by Wes Craven was always another type of confusion, much more sophisticated, in which we do not know where the nightmare begins and where it ends; besides the character being seen only by the victims whose dream was invaded.

Immediately, it is an admirable idea in that it is not limited to a mere repetition of the original formula. It is even bold that Chaskin's script bets on very little presence of Krueger, focusing mainly on the promising mental game between Jesse and the dream killer and shocking images, like the teenager suddenly realizing the glove of claws in his own hand or the Freddy's head trying to pop out of his stomach. Promising ideas, but which are wasted on one of the looser and lackluster scripts. By the way, Chaskin himself admitted that he did the entire text to suggest a homosexual subtext, something that would be interesting and unheard of in the genre if worked out well, but which ends up sounding laughable when we have dialogues like "There's a man trying to get out of me! " or a nightmare sequence that involves Freddy torturing a gym teacher by hitting towels on his bare bottom... In a sauna... Right after a chase at an S&M club. Yeah, this really is classified as a horror movie. It's no surprise that Wes Craven didn't want any involvement with the project.

In this second film, the dark humor is accentuated and the sarcastic tone that would become characteristic of the character's lines begins to take shape. At one point, Freddy tries to explain didactically to Jesse why he will possess his body: "You have the body and I have the brain! "At the same time it rips the deformed skin off your head, leaving your brain exposed. As for the cast, none of the characters is captivating like Nancy from the first movie, and even though Jesse brings the necessary clichés to a horror character that breeds empathy, Mark Patton's performance is forced and downright irritating, as if no one is there - not even Patton or the director - take something there seriously. There's not much to say about the rest of the cast, unless Robert Englund is evilly fun as in the original and Kim Meyers is eerily reminiscent of a young Meryl Streep. Only in appearance, of course.

It is also incomprehensible why the great soundtrack created for the original (composed by Charles Bernstein and used in all the other films in the franchise) was forgotten in this sequel. Also in relation to the script, a positive point is the evolution of the mythology that involves the character and the perfect link with the first film (a hook that rests on Nancy's diary). It is also clarified that the killer Freddy, when alive, worked in a plant, where he took the children he kidnapped and murdered. When Jesse finds Freddy's glove in the basement, inside the old heater, we are led to understand that the house was once a murderer's home.

But the main merit (if we can use that term) is the great special effects and makeup of newcomer Kevin Yagher - in the future Yagher would be known for creating the Chuck puppet from Child's Play and the skull host of the Tales from the Crypt series, besides having worked on sequels 3 and 4 of A Nightmare on Elm Street and directed Hellraiser 4. Some other scenes deserve to be highlighted, such as Jesse's girlfriend's saving kiss on Freddy and the outcome, when the protagonist comes out of the villain, whose charred skin is breaking into pieces.

The director Jack Sholder also fails to understand the figure of Freddy and his immense potential. There isn't a single sequence capable of causing suspense or at least visual dynamism (with the exception of the opening on a school bus, but the fact that the best scene is in the opening seconds is worrisome), leaving the shine to the makeup and special effects department, who once again explore the gore caused by the murderer well. It lacked the dreamlike atmosphere and thriller of the first feature film directed by Craven, the explicit and uncomfortable violence, as well as a more elaborate direction; Jack Sholder's work (Night of Panic and The Hidden) is lazy and without style. Not knowing how to harness the good ideas and gigantic potential of its glorious monster, Freddy's Revenge is a disappointing and forgettable sequel, remembered only for its mediocrity. Fortunately, Wes Craven was watching from afar, and things would go better in the next chapter.

What they are missing are the campy little details that are hinted through-out the saga. Everything from the stretching tongue to the the exploding bird. You can't deny the fun watching Jesse Walsh shrieking like a scared little schoolgirl when he finds Freddy's glove on his hand. All this and after Jesse's girlfriend comes up to his room and says, "I thought I'd help you unpack." In her sexy voice, moving him toward the bed, they ACTUALLY start unpacking! None of the gags in Freddy's Dead is THAT funny!!!

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

You can't deny that Wes Craven's original "Nightmare on Elm Street" was horror of great significance and, although dreadfully overrated, it was a pretty clever and spooky film that introduced the legendary icon of Freddy Krueger. It was obvious right from the start that none of the several sequels would ever live up to the original and this first attempt immediately confirms so. Despite a dazzling intro, showing a school bus racing through a nightmarish wasteland with Freddy at the wheel, this is a very tame and soft teenage-horror flick, completely lacking coherence and logic. The story supposedly takes place 5 years after the initial Elm Street events and the house where Nancy lived has been sold to the Walsh family. The adolescent son Jesse begins to suffer from nightmares in which Freddy Krueger orders him to kill in his shape. The screenplay is a series of stupidities and continuity errors but the whole things basically is an excuse to show fairly impressive visual effects, so who cares about the story anyways? Jesse's transformations into Freddy Krueger are well staged and the murders he commits are decently gore. Several sequences and scenery don't make the slightest bit of sense (exploding parakeets, guard dogs with children's faces…) and the suspense-elements of the original have vanished entirely. The acting is considerably good, even though the hero screams like a little girl and the heroine looks like Meryl Streep's younger sister. At least in this first sequel, Robert Englund doesn't constantly fire off unfunny and embarrassing one-liners.

The hard to please critic

" A nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge"

Well first of let me say this movie sucked alot. The beginning shows a school bus going to no where and then all of a sudden its in the desert and you hear freddy laughing. Then the main character wakes up and relizes its a dream. Then he keeps dreaming. Nothing happens except freddy laughs. Then more into the movie he kills a phys ed teacher. But wait I thought he only killed KIDS in their DREAMS! But he killed an ADULT in the REAL WORLD! Then all the kids are at this party and Freddy comes and none of them are dreaming. Then the most idiotic ending. The main character becomes FREDDY! Then the whole bus scene is shown. I didn't think this had anything or made any sense with the original plot. This moive sucked a major load of balls.

Overall Grade: F

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.

A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge, tells the story of a new family that's moved into Nancy Thompson's house from the first film. The teenage son begins having disturbing dreams involving Freddy Krueger, and throughout the film, Freddy gradually takes over the teen's body so he can continue his killing spree outside of the dream world. This movie doesn't even have the same style as the first film, and the deaths are more violent and more ridiculous than before.

When the first Nightmare film was so good, it was hard to think the second film would be so utterly bad. The problem is that the script just doesn't have the same style and charm as the first movie. Wes Craven managed to create a creepy atmosphere, whereas this movie is like a joke. Freddy Krueger hardly appears throughout the film, and when he does, it's under the stupidest circumstances. There's one huge plot hole that bothers me. Why has this teenage boy who is moving into a house where bad things happened, on a street where bad things happened never heard of Freddy Krueger? Everything that was done right in the first movie was done wrong here.

The acting is just awful. Even Robert Englund seemed weak in the role that made him famous. Then again, he wasn't in the movie very much.

Overall, this movie is terrible and doesn't fit with the first film at all.

1/10

When the Walsh's move to the Elm Street, the teenager Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton) has a creepy nightmare with a burned man wearing a glove with blades called Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) that tells him that Jesse has the body and he has the brain. Jesse becomes close to Lisa Webber (Kim Myers), who also has a crush on him, and befriends his school mate Ron Grady (Robert Rusler), who tells him that his house had remained closed for five years since the former dweller Nancy Thompson that went to a mental institution after witnessing the death of her boyfriend on the other side of the street and her mother in the living room. Lisa finds the diary of Nancy hidden in a locker while Jesse is possessed by Freddy Krueger that uses him to kill his victims.

This sequel to the classic "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is underrated in IMDb. The story about possession is more romantic with the love of Lisa for Jesse, has plot holes but is also entertaining, with the use of great special effects. This movie is also the debut of Kim Myers, who has an impressive resemblance with Meryl Streep, in the cinema in a lead role. Again there is an open conclusion to give a sequel to the saga of Freddy Krueger. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Hora do Pesadelo 2 – A Vingança de Freddy " ("The Hour of the Nightmare 2 – The Revenge of Freddy")

I'm reading the reviews and do not understand why people hate this movie so much. Not only is it a worthy successor to the original, but in some elements it is somewhat better. The story and characters are better developed, it has a good pace and keeps the attention from start to finish, and some scenes are unforgettable. OK, I can understand that die-hard fans of 80's slasher horrors might be disappointed with total absence of female nudity, replaced with several indisputably gay scenes (based on hilarious dance on the bed scene and closing drawer with ass, as well as the scene in the school bathroom, I would dare to bet that the screenwriter and/or director are gay), but even those gay scenes were done superbly, and some moments in the film, as for example the scene with birds and scenes in the school bus, are among the best in the genre. There's a bit less Freddy than in the first movie, but it doesn't bother me. I prefer quality over quantity, so I prefer a movie with a well-developed plot, with occasional well-measured and effective kills, over two hours of pointless slaughter, like we have in "Friday the 13th".

9/10

Freddie is back, but wants to use a teenager's body to kill for him. Why? This does not make sense, as Freddie is a killer in his own right, having his vengeance on the Elm Street parents who burnt him alive. What does he have to gain by using a teenager's body? Excellent effects and still entertaining, though. The party scene was great!

Having recently moved into the same house as one of the victims in the original film, a teenage boy by the name of "Jesse Walsh" (Mark Patton) begins to have nightmares. Since he is new at school he doesn't have too many people to confide in until a fight erupts during physical education which pits him against another classmate named "Ron Grady" (Robert Rusler). After being punished by "Coach Schneider" (Marshall Ball) they then become friends. However, it's his new girlfriend "Lisa Webber" (Kim Myers) who learns of the most horrific nightmares due in large part to a diary they find in his house which was written by the female victim in the previous film. The only difference is that instead of wanting to kill Jesse, the monstrous apparition known as "Freddy Krueger" (Robert Englund) wants to possess him in order to continue his murderous rampage in the real world. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film wasn't quite in the same league as its predecessor in part because the overall plot limited the nightmares to just one person. Likewise, none of the actors really stood out. It did, however, have some very good graphics which added to the overall ambience and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Average.