A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge Photos

View all photos

Cast & Crew

Mark Patton

Jesse Walsh

Kim Myers

Lisa Webber

Robert Rusler

Ron Grady

Clu Gulager

Ken Walsh

Hope Lange

Cheryl Walsh

Marshall Bell

Coach Schneider

Sydney Walsh

Kerry

Robert Englund

Freddy Krueger

Jack Sholder

Director

Robert Shaye

Producer

Jacques Haitkin

Cinematographer

Bob Brady

Film Editing

Arline Garson

Film Editing

Whitney R. Hunter

Second Assistant Director

Wes Craven

Screenwriter

Show all Cast & Crew

News & Interviews for A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

What Happened to Cinema’s Virginal Final Girl?

Horror Movie Survivor Hall of Fame

18 Halloween Highlights on TV This Week

View All

Critic Reviews for A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

Audience Reviews for A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

• May 10, 2016

  Making a sequel to what is a classic horror was always going to be difficult as there is always more pressure make it as good or better and to keep it loyal to the first and even though Part 2 isn't terrible it does stray allot from the first, The plot is good but bad acting, Literally no scares what so ever and the fact that it has lost its shock factor all make the film seem bland, The ending is again confusing which can be annoying after the first ended in a similar way, It had a good idea in this film it was just executed poorly.
  

  Super Reviewer
• Jan 09, 2016

  Definately the worst one of the series
  

  Super Reviewer
• Apr 26, 2015

  Its really hard to ignore the camp and definite homosexual subtext to Freddy's Revenge and the whole affair comes across as generally bizarre. It has its fair share of interesting scenes and deaths to add to the creative canon of Krueger's "killography" but its far more dated than the awesome predecessor. Ironically now openly gay Mark Patton does his best with the material, but even Englund in his, what 20 minutes of screen-time seems lost with the script.
  

  Super Reviewer
• Oct 07, 2014

  Nightmare on Elm Street sequels weren't exactly know for their high quality, other than this film's sequel, which I wanna see, that got surprisingly good reviews. I suppose I could count Wes Craven's return to the franchise in A New Nightmare in that list of good sequels, but I think that's more of a reboot than anything else and not an actual sequel, so I don't count it with the original franchise, even if Wes Craven created the series. But we can discuss the specifics later. Point is this film is no good. I can pinpoint why this film was no good. It's because of the fact that Freddie Krueger wasn't really the main focus of the story. The story was on Jesse and his struggle against Freddie's attempts to take over his body. Why does Freddie want to take over Jesse's body? You guessed it, so he can come into our world to create chaos, mayhem, and violence. The problem comes in the fact that Mark Patton, the guy who plays Jesse, isn't a particularly good actor and the character comes across as somewhat unlikable. So it's really hard to feel any sort of sympathy for the guy as he's struggling to keep control of his own life. You're really kinda longing for Freddie since that is when the film is, realistically, at its best. Not that it's even great during those scenes, but there's a certain creativity in the surrealism of Freddie's scenes. Because of that, I was a little disappointed. That general lack of Krueger. What I remember fondly about the franchise, that I grew up watching, was Freddie gleefully murdering people and then making fun of them for it with a cheesy one-liner. That's the Freddie I know and love. Of the 'big three' horror monsters (Jason, Freddie, and Michael), Freddie was always the best because of that verbal feedback. And, in many ways, while he was very violent indeed, his preferred mode of attack was first destroying his victims psychologically before destroying them physically. That's what made the first Freddie movie so cool. He just didn't come and kill and be done with it. No, he was very elaborate, theatrical even, with his psychological torture. I appreciated that. That's much different than Jason and Michael, who are big, lumbering giants that don't speak and it's all about their physical presence. This film, again, sees Freddie torturing Jesse psychologically as he attempts to take over his body, but in a much abbreviated manner. The fact that you depended so much on Jesse and Mark Patton's performance means that the film isn't as much fun as it could be, even if it wasn't good. With that said, the film did make me laugh at it. It's intentionally bad in some scenes. For example, whenever Mark Patton screams his little heart out. Each scream made me laugh more than the last. This guy just didn't have the pipes and he usually screamed in a very high tone. Not like grating or annoying, but enough of a high tone to make him sound like a 13-year-old child instead of the 21-year-old man he was at the time of this film's release. Other scenes made me laugh as well, just in how dated the film really is and the awesomely awful 80s hairstyles. So, even if I didn't think this film was good, I still had some fun laughing it at it. I don't consider it a waste of time because, at the very least, I got something out of it. I just wish I could've gotten something EVEN more out of it if Freddie had been given the spotlight more instead of focusing on poorly developed characters portrayed by actors that weren't exactly that good to begin with. Still, it is an 80s horror film, and it has that cheesy charm to it that means that even though I technically didn't like the film, I still had a good enough time watching it. Shouldn't take this seriously at all. It's no good, but it gives you something to laugh at for 85 minutes. However, I sure hope I can find the third film in the franchise as I'd really like to watch it. Hopefully I can achieve that before the end of this month.
  

  jesse o Super Reviewer