MovieChat Forums > A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985) Discussion > This movie is appallingly bad and the wo...

This movie is appallingly bad and the worst of the series.

posted 9 years ago by XoMoDe
47 replies | jump to latest

So many things wrong here, I may as well go down a list:

1 - Weak congruity and virtually no story progression.

2 - Terrible script. The screenplay barely bodes well. Glitches all over.

3 - Pitiful special effects. For instance: Freddy blasting out of Jesse in Grady's bedroom is one of the most horrendous things I've ever seen on film. It resembled a manikin show.

4 - No one is killed in a nightmare. That all by itself makes this movie the bastard stepchild of the franchise.

5 - Freddy's motivation and reasons why are lost. Furthermore, Krueger is supposed to be a dream killer, not a possessor. Here he comes off more like an evil Patrick Swayze in Ghost.

6 - Overloaded with 2% tricks and theoretical things that don't work or bode well (exploding parakeets, canine face mutants.)

7 - No scenes from Freddy's boiler room.

8 - Freddy, himself, is this movie comes off as inept, generally ineffective and borderline lazy.

9 - Freddy's own death here is absurd and embarrasses the character. In what other Nightmare movie would something as simple "I love you" be enough to defeat Krueger?

10 - The super vague and inconclusive ending essentially renders the whole thing pointless.

How anyone can like this junk is bizarre to me. This is the most exceedingly bad of all the Nightmare films. Every little thing about it was ridiculous or random. A serious drop in quality from the gem Wes made with the first film that would later be completely upstaged by the vastly improved third movie. The one thing I give this movie kudos for is the opening sequence on the school bus, arguably one of the best moments of the series. Too bad the rest of the movie is tripe.

[–] manchof1 9 years ago

100% agreed there.

[–] AdrianLePier 9 years ago

This movie simply didn't know what it was or needed to be. In a haste to capitalize on the momentum of part one, it took sporadic fragments of the original and tried to jam them into a new outline that was halfbaked and didn't make sense. The result was a movie that was haphazard and superficial. This is why Bob Shaye quickly went crawling back to Craven and Langenkamp for the next movie. They knew they screwed up with part two and needed to quickly make things make sense again.

[–] HereMyDear 9 years ago

Don't see what's so special about the school bus scene. That was the only nightmare in the movie but it led to no actual deaths.

[–] XoMoDe 9 years ago

True. I was just trying to give this movie credit for SOMETHING. The bus scene I think was the best produced segment of this clusterf#ck of a movie but I see what you mean about it going nowhere.

[–] Coconut_Kaasa 9 years ago

Weak congruity and virtually no story progression.

Isn't weak congruity the point of movies like this? It's literally a mind-****

Terrible script. The screenplay barely bodes well. Glitches all over.

You may be right, but the first movies screenplay isn't much better.

Pitiful special effects. For instance: Freddy blasting out of Jesse in Grady's bedroom is one of the most horrendous things I've ever seen on film.

In all my years of seeing this movie - I have no idea what you're complaining about here. Would computer generated effects be better than the practical ones displayed here? Please, give me more examples.

No one is killed in a nightmare. That all by itself makes this movie the bastard stepchild of the franchise.

So it's something 'new' and different then. Isn't Freddy a bastard stepchild? That's sounding like a compliment to me.

Freddy's motivation and reasons why are lost.

This movie isn't about Freddy though. It's centered on the Protaganist and his Girlfriend, once again learning who Freddy is. He's more of a side character than Bruce Wayne in the original Batman. What more motivation do you need than what you already know?

Furthermore, Krueger is supposed to be a dream killer, not a possessor.

Sounds to me like someone's got a case of the “s'pose'das."

No scenes from Freddy's boiler room.

Another complaint about a franchise movie doing something new and different.

Freddy, himself, is this movie comes off as inept, generally ineffective and borderline lazy.

Isn't being a 'Dream Killer' itself lazy? Throughout the series he's always messing with victims without even touching them.

In what other Nightmare movie would something as simple "I love you" be enough to defeat Krueger?

Moulin Rouge!

The super vague and inconclusive ending essentially renders the whole thing pointless.

You can say that about any Horror or Franchise movie.

Just Blue Sweeeeeeet!

[–] UCFKnightInKC 9 years ago

Not even close... New Nightmare is by far the worst of the series.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jones82176 9 years ago

Part 4 and 5 way worse...part 5 is one of the stupidest things I've ever watched

[–] zeeboe82 9 years ago

"Freddy's Revenge" is one of my favorite sequels in the Elm Street franchise. One of the biggest reasons why is because Freddy is actually scary and not a clown.

[–] BobGunn 9 years ago

part 5 is one of the stupidest things I've ever watched

Haha yeah.

If I'm not mistaken, Part 5 had its effects scenes done and shot first and the rest of the movie was written around them.

If that's true, it'd explain why the movie barely makes any sense at all. (Other NOES movies have their problems, but I don't remember any of the others seeming so clearly rushed) Part 4 has a similar feel, but isn't nearly as bad... not great, but better.

I don't think any of them are all that great (almost all are great visually) but otherwise not so much. Even the first one isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's good, but I'd never say it's miles above any of the sequels, really.

Part 2 is easily as good as any of them, and far from the worst.

[–] AdrianLePier 9 years ago

Part 5 is a dud and personally bores me, but it has a more cohesive story than this film does. Just about nothing pertaining to Freddy's Revenge is logical, because truth be told it has no story. The whole thing is randomly based around "Nancy used to live here." But none of them even know her, so even that angle is uncooked. And unlike in every other film in the series, Freddy's motives and reasons why are so obscure and unrefined that they become senseless. Yeah the movie is "dark" but I don't think it's all that scary and is more bark than actual bite. Parts 1 and 3 are much more legitimately frightening -- as far as Krueger goes -- than part 2.

[–] qazu 9 years ago

This movie is moronic as *beep*. It's the cheapest looking and most dated feeling entry. Little about it makes sense and it doesn't know what it is or wants to be. All the climaxes and jump sequences are silly. Freddy doesn't even act like Freddy here. He's some feeble boogie man with an attitude problem who laughably tries to get some wimpy kid to do his bidding for him and that fails most of the time. Revenge is the "ISHTAR" of horror.

[–] Electrical1 9 years ago

The darkest, most serious and best depiction of Freddy in the whole series is in part 2. Its a well made horror movie unlike most of the crappy sequels which slowly started turning freddy into a joke starting with the overrated, dated campy part 3.