Review of A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985) by Filipeneto — 03 Apr 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 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.