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 66 Ratings

See All

5.5

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5.5	Your Score
5.5	User Score Mixed or average reviews based on 66 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

Stream On

Expand

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

TV Guide Magazine 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]

Empire 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

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

Gamzguy17

Aug 22, 2021

Ignoring the lore of its own series, "Part 2" tries to be its own beast underneath the surface. Like many a-solid Horror film, it has fun with itself and unashamedly so. For movie goers/pop culture analysts, it is a sweet little treat. General audiences will likely not care too much.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

akshatmahajan

Jul 4, 2021

A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge was average movie. This movie didn't have charm, originality and grasping power like the original.

The concept was same as original with some bad changes. The problem was that the execution of the idea was not good. Also, the acting wasn'tA Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge was average movie. This movie didn't have charm, originality and grasping power like the original.

The concept was same as original with some bad changes. The problem was that the execution of the idea was not good. Also, the acting wasn't good. Film contains some creepy moments, but not that much hyped moments.

Overall, this is an average movie but the bad direction and poor acting drag down this particular movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Habibiehakim

Jul 22, 2022

Even though at the very least or at the very worst there is still something that i can praise in this sequel which is all the great practical effect that they did, all the disturbing creatures that they made and the fact that i still entertained for the most part, it is horribly perform andEven though at the very least or at the very worst there is still something that i can praise in this sequel which is all the great practical effect that they did, all the disturbing creatures that they made and the fact that i still entertained for the most part, it is horribly perform and the story just can't get no sillier and stupider than this, silly and stupid but not in a good way, the sequel of the great classic A Nightmare's On Elm Street is just awful.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

AgentZ

Nov 17, 2020

Universally branded as the "gayest horror movie of all time", but it's not a COMPLETE cinematic disaster as some people make it out to be. Yes, it does have quite a bunch of homoerotic subtext in it and they are not THAT subtle, but it's still SORT OF a somewhat enjoyable sequel to AUniversally branded as the "gayest horror movie of all time", but it's not a COMPLETE cinematic disaster as some people make it out to be. Yes, it does have quite a bunch of homoerotic subtext in it and they are not THAT subtle, but it's still SORT OF a somewhat enjoyable sequel to A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). The acting is admittedly uneven, but gay lead actor Mark Patton's acting as the protagonist Jesse Walsh (who is a straight character) was solid despite his infamous girly screams, infamous snake scene, infamous gay dance scene, infamous gay bar scene, infamous boys' locker room restroom scene, and being dubbed a "scream queen" (which some people probably mean it as an insult). Yeah, some of those scenes are definitely awkward especially if you are a straight guy like me. Not to mention Freddy Krueger murdering people in the real world instead of in the dream world which creates huge plot holes.… 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 16 REVIEWS