I have to disagree, as not only are there more than a handful of scary "nightmares", the central premise has Jesse constantly waking up from "nightmares". That aspect is still essential to the story being told.
He's waking up from a nightmare for the first third and then Freddy starts possessing him... and we still aren't clear as to why he wants to possess Jesse. The first film establishes he stalks kids in their dreams. Here he stalks just the one so he can come out into reality to kill people at a pool party.
And what if Jesse was arrested at the scene of the crime, what would Freddy's plan have been then?
It's quite entertaining when I read those who feel NOES 2 was a huge departure, but NOES 3 incorporates the same logic!
I never mentioned the third film, or any other film in the franchise. I have issues with them as well, I'm here to discuss the second installment of the series and yes, comparisons to the first film are always inevitable. Dream Warriors was a step in the right direction but it still has its flaws. I use to rate it quite high but in recent viewings I see many flaws. So I'm glad you're entertained by these comments, but I never mentioned any other movie in the series, so... would you like to discuss them since you brought them up?
You mean how they "made up" the ending to the original film? Or cut out Glen's body rising from his bed which makes the sequence better but not quite logical and consistent with the previous deaths shown??
I'm not sure what you mean here... the original film is an isolated story and really can do whatever it wants. It's making everything up. You do a follow up film then you have to respect the rules set in the first story, not the third, fourth or fifth, let's get that outta the way. The first. In the first film did you ever get the impression Krueger was wanting to possess, say, Rod? Did you get the sense he wanted to come into reality to wreak havoc? He stalked you in your dreams, tormented you, then went in for the kill.
I don't know why make Rod's death look like a suicide though, I'm sure Freddy's weakness was not police officers. And Glenn's death was fantastical, but by this stage the story was engaging enough and as a visual it is jarring. It's not a perfect film, but an effective one.
Freddy's Revenge (against whom I never figured out), is also an effective film. But I stress following the original story it does not fit. You can claim it does and maybe for you it works. But film is subjective, always the argument, and if you liked it, great, wonderful, good for you. You like an 80's horror movie, I like most of them myself.
But, at this is just friendly critiquing, you seem to take any misgivings about this movie personally. Relax, maybe have a nap...
reply
share
ActionJunkie007
8 years ago
But, at this is just friendly critiquing, you seem to take any misgivings about this movie personally. Relax, maybe have a nap...
And my retorts were "Unfriendly"? Sorry you took them that way but I think you are mistaking personal for PASSION. I come to IMDB and discuss films because I'm passionate about movies. Aren't you?? If you just want to discuss things with peeps who are less passionate than I, by all means, feel free to not reply going forward. But If you can't take even a mild pushback towards your presented POV without jumping to such conclusions, why even bother in the first place? But if your game....
and we still aren't clear as to why he wants to possess Jesse.
You are all my children now and the absence of Freddy for the last 5 years should be enough to answer your question. Same goes for why it's called "Freddy's Revenge".
I never mentioned the third film, or any other film in the franchise
You mentioned the first film and if you are going to make comparisons with how part 2 "fits", I don't see the issue with adding the rest of the series into the conversation to illustrate just how it fits into the entire series. Certainly if you can draw parallels and inconsistencies between films 1 and 2, I certainly can between 2 and 3, right? Or 1, 2 and 3?
You do a follow up film then you have to respect the rules set in the first story, not the third, fourth or fifth, let's get that outta the way
Do you? Have you seen the Terminator series? Ever notice how the rules of time travel and what can be "changed" in T1 are completely reversed in T2? Is that only OK because the creator himself made it that way? There are no RULES in how a sequel needs to be handled. Many sequels change established rules/storylines, etc, even RETCON things later which changes everything. Any new movie, be it original, sequel, or remake has the freedom to do what it wants. Freddy is shown to enter dreams in the first film. He was shown to have been beaten(temporary) by Nancy because "You're only a dream". NOES 2 starts 5 years later and there has been no Freddy and no one living in the house. So isn't it logical that Freddy, once someone moves in, might want to try a new approach this time? You make it sound like it has absolutely no continuity with the first film, but it starts off exactly where Freddy left off, haunting the dreams of a teen living on Elm Street. From that starting point, we have a NEW avenue Freddy is exploiting. Simple as that.
You like an 80's horror movie, I like most of them myself.
Me too! 80's were a great era for solid slasher movies and genuine horror! What would you say are your top 10 horror films of the 80s?
Who's strangling the cat?
reply
share
dopeyguy89
8 years ago
You are all my children now and the absence of Freddy for the last 5 years should be enough to answer your question. Same goes for why it's called "Freddy's Revenge"
But why has he been absent? Nancy seemed to ensure she was safe from him, though her tactic of not fearing Krueger wasn't enough to destroy him. Yes, we get dialogue that fear gave him power and all of that. But admittedly no one was afraid of him until he haunted their dreams. So, is he trapped in the house? He pops out at the pool party, he seems to have supernatural powers in the real world. Disappearing one minute and popping up somewhere else the next. But the kids have no idea who this guy is, they just see some burnt looking homeless guy running around stabbing people.
Now, the pool scene is an awesome scene. When Krueger lunged his claws into the one kid who then stood there and screamed, that genuinely looked painful. No fast edits, I gotta say it was one time a kill made me cringe, every time I see it makes me afraid of actually being stabbed. Cool scene, I always stress, but wrong movie. I give this film full credit with the exception it does not feel like a Nightmare film.
Dream Warriors really brought the revenge motif to the foreground. Krueger is punishing the children of the people who killed him. I'm not sure why they would delete the scene from the original where Nancy's mom explains how she and her friends all have deceased siblings, it gives Krueger clear motivation. After Dream Warriors the series took a nosedive and became so muddled. Dream Master has some good scenes, but nothing that keeps it strung together. Dream Child is a mess and Freddy's Dead was pointless.
Freddy's Revenge has been and always will be the bastard stepchild of the series. It's better then most of the latter entries, but so far removed from the original that I find it easy to dismiss. Watching it on its own is fine, I think it's an interesting film. Scary at times. But not a sequel to the original.
In the end I only really love the original film. Wes Craven's New Nightmare as well, I consider that it's own thing and of course not part of the original franchise.
reply
share
ActionJunkie007
8 years ago
But why has he been absent?
The films doesn't immediately answer this and in the end, we only find out that the events of the first film took place 5 years in the past and none of the kids really know anything about Freddy. I believe the writer took the approach of having that aspect be a slow build to finding out that...
So, is he trapped in the house
..he's been trapped in the Elm Street house because the trail of kids to haunt stopped at Nancy. That appears to be what the writer rolled with and why this film feels much more like a "haunted house" approach. Krueger is weak and locked into the house. Jesse moves in and he is able to slowly torment him through his dreams. Now Krueger does appear to want to come into the real world, but "You've got the body, Ive got the brain" is the most telling in what his true intentions are. Jesse can sleep walk, something no one in the first film was shown to do, which gives Krueger means to use him in the REAL WORLD, but only while he;'s 'asleep". Just like Dream Warriors, Krueger is the puppeteer and Jesse the puppet.
Now, the pool scene is an awesome scene.
And I couldn't agree more!! It's definitely the highlight of the film and the "seal" on what Krueger is doing. He shows himself to everyone (Through Jesse's dream world which is amplified after the kills) and now, he has the power to invade every teens dream. They didn't know about him, so they couldn't fear him, but they sure know about him now, right? It is a very elaborate scheme and one I do feel was done by the writer. Add the gay subtext and I feel that it's one of, if not the smartest of all the elm street films.
After Dream Warriors the series took a nosedive and became so muddled
I agree with you here, though I feel it actually started with dream warriors. I mean, they added his skeleton which Krueger could control in the real world without anyone "dreaming". It's the film that I feel started the eventual downfall. It has some cool kills and a good premise with the kids, but Kruger's mom and the continuation Of Nancy/father took a weird twist. I used to love it as a kid but now, the first two films are really the only good ones, and for me, the second is the film that I really love the most.
Who's strangling the cat?
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
ActionJunkie007
8 years ago
Thanks Jediknight29! I love when I encounter posters willing to REALLY discuss and explain things so that's how I roll!
Who's strangling the cat?
reply
share
dopeyguy89
8 years ago
Dream Warriors, though took a fantastical turn with the killings, is the only sequel I'd say was worthy of the original. It does not match the first film, none of the sequels do, but I was entertained by it. The whole pulling people into your dreams was over the top, they had to find an angle in which everyone is in the dream together, so that can be forgiven.
The expansion of Krueger's background was dealt with in a solid way, we get just enough dialogue without overdoing it. I liked it, if you're going to do a follow-up this is the way to do it.
But the biggest flaw for me is the thing most people love, and that's the return of Nancy. I wanted more of her in the story, what was her motivation here? Did she willingly seek out this facility to work in because she knew the last kids of Elm Street would be there? And if she did, how did she know this? How did she propose to protect the children? I really love that she would come back, not as someone mentally scarred by her experience, but as someone who wants to protect these kids because she can relate to them. That she would be the kind of adult that believed them, the total opposite of what she went through. And Krueger taking advantage of that to taunt her with each killing.
I will forever stand by my statement that I felt the original didn't need a sequel to begin with. I watched these movies religiously when I was younger and was obsessed with them. But now being a little older, the flaws are no longer forgivable. 1984's A Nightmare on Elm Street, for me at least, is where the story began and where it ends.
reply
share
ActionJunkie007
8 years ago
But the biggest flaw for me is the thing most people love, and that's the return of Nancy
I'm with you here, because her coming back was handled quite poorly, story extension wise. I mean, so what REALLY went down in part 1 then? The mom died? Dad took off? And like you said, why come to this facility? And ugh, the worst part, why kill her with the stupid DAD scene? She is really that naïve??
I loved all the films as a kid too and I still revisit the entire franchise from time to time. Try and put myself back in the 80s "kid love" vibe and it works most of the time. I just feel Dream Warriors, its the tone that really took Freddy out of the "horror" genre. Parts 1 and 2 are still scary as hell and made to be scary. Everything else, it's like "lets root for freddy to kill people and make cool jokes!"
But hey, without all the sequels and what not, we probably wouldn't even be talking Freddy right now!
Who's strangling the cat?
reply
share