A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

Name: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge
Genre: Thriller, Horror
Released: November 1, 1985
Duration: 87 min
Rating: 43
Cast: Clu Gulager, Hope Lange, Kim Myers, Mark Patton, Marshall Bell

1985

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 6 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 50 Ratings

See All

5.1

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5.1	Your Score
5.1	User Score Mixed or average reviews based on 50 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, A (Trailer 1)

Now Playing: Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, A (Trailer 1)

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

Movie Details & Credits

New Line Cinema | Release Date: November 1, 1985 | R

Starring: Clu Gulager, Hope Lange, Kim Myers, Mark Patton, Marshall Bell, Melinda O. Fee, Robert Englund, Robert Rusler, Sydney Walsh, Tom McFadden

Summary: A teenager is haunted in his dreams by deceased child murderer Freddy Krueger, who is out to possess him in order to continue his reign of terror in the real world.

Director: Jack Sholder

Genre(s): Thriller, Horror

Rating: R

Runtime: 87 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Janet Maslin

As stomach-turning as might be expected, but it has a lot going for it: clever special effects, a good leading performance and a villain so chatty he practically makes this a human-interest story. Read full review

The plotline has more holes than a tea bag, and is essentially no more than an excuse for a series of well executed special effects. Nevertheless, the film hangs reasonably well together, not least because of good performances from all concerned. Read full review

Staff (Not Credited)

Beneath its verbose, title, Jack Sholder's follow-up to Wes Craven's 1984 hit is a well-made though familiar reworking of demonic horror material. Read full review

Staff (Not Credited)

A worthy successor to the original movie, NIGHTMARE PART 2 is surprisingly optimistic and moral. The power of love and kindness wins out over evil and violence--something not often seen in modern horror films. Read full review

Jay Scott

The second film, in which one teen- ager is possessed by the spirit of a murderer - this is a supernatural Jekyll and Hyde - sets horror film fans to laughing and eventually to booing.[20 Nov 1985]

Kim Newman

This hastily-produced sequel ignores the dreamstalking premise that had made A Nightmare on Elm Street successful and reverts to the overfamiliar possession story. Read full review

SEE ALL 6 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

babygorgeous

Oct 14, 2018

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. i enjoyed this flick because the acting was great and Freddy was still terrifying… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

Rcavey92212

Mar 16, 2020

Growing up I was all about the final girls. So this chapter in my favorite franchise wasn't at the top of my list. But as I grew up, realized I was gay and started to hear about the films in your face subtext. This became one of my favorite entries. Centering around Jesse played by a cute,Growing up I was all about the final girls. So this chapter in my favorite franchise wasn't at the top of my list. But as I grew up, realized I was gay and started to hear about the films in your face subtext. This became one of my favorite entries. Centering around Jesse played by a cute, likable Mark Patton who moves into Nancy's house. Before he knows it our favorite charasmatic villain starts haunting him in hopes of possessing him so he can be reborn into the real world. The film is flooded with the queer goods but in addition to all that it's actually a really unique genre film. Robert Englund is truly fantastic as Freddy he's darker, sexual, perverted and disturbing. The performances are pretty solid all around. Also impressive is Kim Myers as Tina our final girl next to our final boy. She's vulnerable, relatable and strong. Although the director still denies his homoerotic intentions. I mean the guy has a scene in a gay s&m bar and let's not even talk about when the coach is killed. Really it's quite obvious but the film is really creepy, fun and entertaining and has aged really well. It's more complex and relevant now than ever.

Budget: $3m
Domestic Box Office: $30m
Worldwide Box Office: $30m

4.25/5… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

robertoiglesias

Apr 26, 2018

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 might be strange, but it can be interesting and scary.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

JPK

Jul 4, 2019

Meh
It has some good scares, But it hugely lacks the magic of the original.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

Doppio2diavolo

Jun 22, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Holy **** what a letdown. I like the idea of Freddy taking control of someone to kill everyone but oh God the only scene I will remember is the pool one, everything else is so bad excecuted… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

FilipeNeto

Apr 3, 2021

After a good start, the "Nightmare" franchise quickly got off track with this film, which is quite stupid in its premises and has a very weak script. However, the best way to enjoy this film is not to compare it with the previous film and not to think too much about the script. It is a rawAfter a good start, the "Nightmare" franchise quickly got off track with this film, which is quite stupid in its premises and has a very weak script. However, the best way to enjoy this film is not to compare it with the previous film and not to think too much about the script. It is a raw film and has scenes that can shock the most sensitive, and it works reasonably nowadays if we give some tolerance to the obvious flaws.

In this film, a new family goes to live in the house where the main events of the previous film took place, and the young teenager from the new family quickly begins to suffer from many nightmares. It is, again, Freddy Krueger in action, but this time determined to possess the boy and to do his crimes through his hands. Everything else is quite predictable, with the boy being misunderstood by almost everyone as he tries to fight an evil he doesn't quite know how to defeat.

The film is not that bad, and director Jack Sholder shows that he wants to live up to the film that preceded it, without, however, making more of the same. In fact, there are disturbing scenes, and the beginning is promising. However, one of the film's biggest problems is predictability: as the film advances, the audience understands everything that is going to happen and is able to foresee the dangers and scares from miles away. It is also a less than atmospheric film, where the palpable tension of the first film being rarely felt.

The cast is another problem of this film. It is true that it is the only film in the franchise where the hero is male, and I even found this change interesting, but the fact is that the character is very poorly developed, does not have any kind of charisma and does not arouse any sympathy. It also seems to me that Mark Patton was not the right actor for the character, as he seems lost in the film, and most of the time he does nothing but cry and mourn constantly. The rest of the cast is there because it has to be, even though I liked the performance of Kim Myers, a young actress who knew how to grab her character and give it personality, even though she can't do much more than she did. In the middle of all this, it is Robert Englund who stands out and gives the villain of the series another film that certainly helps to make it memorable and iconic.

Technically, it is a discreet and notable film. Cinematography is the standard and is within what we could demand, but I didn't notice anything particular about it, nor in the sets or costumes, which seem to take advantage of some material from the previous film. I didn't get to say this in the review of the previous film, it was a forgetfulness of mine that the passing of the pen didn't allow me to amend, but I think the makeup department deserves applause for the way it idealized and concretized Krueger's makeup and made it look like real and grotesque burns. The soundtrack works well and the incidental music is quite good.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

MoviezNP

Mar 7, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Tell me, people! Please! Tell me! Tell me that this movie was a made for TV parody of A Nightmare on Elm Street which took itself too seriously, which accidentally got a mainstream release. Please!!
.
Bad : Seriously, what the f**k was this bulls**t? Does it even know what are the rules of this fictional universe? I hated the ending of the first movie for two reasons - producers sticking their f**king nose in the film and forceful franchising. You know why? Because we get films full of **** like this. To this date, I have not been able to figure out what the f**k was going on in this film. As a teen, I had a stupid fan fiction where Freddy is not a dream demon, but a simple ghost possessing people, just like in this film. My idea was very ridiculous, but it was way better than this film. You know what made the first one so creepy and disturbing, yet enjoyable? It was the feeling of presence of the entity named Freddy Krueger rather than his actual on screen presence. You may put any spin on the ending of the first film as per your wish, but absolutely none of them would ever be able to explain this bulls**t. How can Freddy possess people and do all the s**t that other generic ghosts do? Why? It just takes the stupid idea or belief of "anything can happen in a horror movie, because it is a horror movie" too seriously. Not only it isn't loyal to the first film, it is totally weird. Freddy appears during a pool party and literally kills people in the real world. He, then, vanishes as a sparkle of fire or something like that. He is Krueger, alright? He can torment people, whom he wishes to kill, in their dreams and gets the job done. Why would he need to possess anyone even if he could? Alright, he was being an a**h*le. But why the f**k he would he want to let people know that he really exists, or he did it? These are some of the weirdest, naive and pathetic plot holes this movie has. And believe me, there are many others. And, it may be just me, but there is a prominence of homosexuality in this film. A lot of it. Jesse dances like a lunatic and closes the drawer with his a$$ which looks ridiculously gay. The murder of Jesse's coach was so much the same. When Jesse finds out that Freddy is gonna kill his girl, he goes to Grady, Grady gives a gay dialogue. That made me think that the movie ends with Freddy leaving Jesse's body after Lisa kisses him, because Jesse was able to accept his heterosexuality. That's just completely insane and bizarre. I would've accepted this **** if it had no tie ups with the first one. But, it has a diary written by Nancy which works as a plot device. As ridiculous as it may sound, it's also totally nonsensical. Nancy was constantly trying to fight Freddy in the first film, she was watching TV and listening to music and stuffs like that. Okay, maybe, just maybe, she was writing a diary to keep herself awake. You think she wrote down literally everything that would serve as a convenience for this film? What the f**k movie? There are no enjoyable dynamic between Jesse and Grady or between Jesse and Lisa. This movie is a blant and stupid teenage fan fiction with Freddy Krueger jinxed in it. The movie shows more of what an apparently high teen does when he is alone more than a horror film, and I just mean horror films in general. It has pool party, dancing when you're alone, cheesy and funny as **** sequences that were supposed to be terrifying, etc. At least, as a consolation, it could've had some disturbing kills, but it is underwhelming in that part too. It is an unintentional insult to gay community. It doesn't even feel like a bad horror film. It's a teenage romance with some gruesome images. Unlike in the first one, it has no feeling of presence of Freddy Krueger when it is going on. Apart from this, the coach is a cringe character. The bird annihilation scene was a cringe scene. This film completely subdues Freddy and the original film. The slapstick part was worth a sarcastic laugh. It was a cashgrab. Nothing else. .
.
Conclusion : This movie is simply a big gigantic and complex network of sewage lines with all kinds of s**t in it. .
.
Rating. .
.
Score : absolute 0/10
Grade : F**k this movie… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

SEE ALL 11 REVIEWS