Giving An Often Disliked Sequel It's Finest Hour (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (DVD))

Member Name: FilmsAtLarge

Product:	A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (DVD)
Date:	12/12/03 (29 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Genuinely Scary, Decent Acting, Gory

Disadvantages: The Idea Isn't Original Anymore, Lackluster Ending

Once again I prove how much of an idiot I am with a review in favor of the much disliked sequel to the classic "Nightmare On Elm Street." What really perturbs me is that not many sequels are given much of a chance. Perhaps it's because the original films are so good that in our minds nothing can top them. Maybe it's because we refuse to admit anybody besides the acclaimed director of said masterpiece can create something as good. That's not the case here, however, as Wes Craven's first film entered into this series is still the best. The second installment is often considered a cinematic piece of crap. It's beyond me as to why most feel this way as I found it to be an eerie, surprisingly good film that went beyond what I expected from it. It may not be a classic, but that's not to say that it's not better than most of the sequels that came after it.

New kid Jesse (Mark Patton) and his family move into the house on Elm Street that said "insane" Nancy from the first film once occupied. Strange things begin to occur and Jesse finds himself having nightmares. It mirrors what happened to Nancy in the original "Nightmare On Elm Street," though Freddy seems to have something else on his mind. He plans to use Jesse's body to enter the real world rather than killing teenagers in the dream world. Carnage ensues as the fine line between dream and reality is drawn as Jesse isn't sure what's happening and the heat of Krueger's vengeance literally worsens. This time nobody's going to wake up. A great setup for a "Nightmare" film and it actually makes way for one of the better entries into the series. If you're expecting originality in its purest form, go find an Oscar award winner, you don't belong in the Horror section.

One aspect of a Horror film you don't expect is decent acting. You may catch a break here and there ("Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massac


re III," "Candyman," "Scream") but it's usually not a common factor. One of the more surprising details of this movie was the fact that the acting was above average. Star Mark Patton proves he has talent and has a more human quality that separates him from Freddy's sinister possessions. To be able to see the difference from the personality being portrayed and that of Freddy's influence is something to behold. A lack of corny line reading also helps, though the mediocre script is a downfall. But even with that said, Patton proves that those years spend doing plays pay off when it comes to a main character that we need to care about. I honestly felt bad for his character; Horror movie characters can also depict emotion, as the film goes to show. He was honestly believable and I had no trouble believing his performance and watching in horror as Freddy attempts to possess him. He's rather likeable and hits all of the right emotional notes. This just goes to show you that maybe sequels aren't as bad as we make them out to be.

The co-stars are slaughter waiting to happen and they seem to know this. They don't give anything they're all as they know they're going to die and they play this to the hilt. Cornball antics ensue as the purposely horrible acting reminds me why I enjoy Horror movies as much as I do. The side characters try they're best to stay within the role and do quite well at that. A noticeable stand-out is Robert Rusler who portrays Grady. A bit of character development and a lack of one-dimensional acting proves that Rusler possesses talent. It's a shame he doesn't have a lot of screen time. Probably the only shining co-star, the rest possess positively no emotion and spew their lines with such a sophomore tone that you would expect this to be a student film. Does this make the film awful? No, I've seen much worse. But as stated before, Robert Rusler does a great job a
s someone the audience doesn't want to die. I know I didn't want to see Freddy make him just another number to his list of victims. The character is rather likeable and Rusler is probably the only one in this film who gives it 110%. If anyone ever argues with me that co-stars in Horror films can't act worth anything, I'll let them in on this movie's little secret.

The real highlight, however, is Robert Englund. His portrayal of Freddy Krueger is dark and sinister. If you mistake this film for being one of the many where he spews puns stupider than the Crypt Keeper's, you're mistaken. This is the dark, torturous Krueger and Englund lets us know that. Although he does have, at the most, two "one-liners," they aren't jokey and comical. Instead, there more of sickly twisted, often macabre comments that bring more impact to a certain situation. For example, in a scene which Freddy pulls back his scalp to reveal his brain, just before he does so, he states "you've got the body, I've got the brain." Not so much funny as it is darkly unsettling. The scriptwriters certainly knew how to make Freddy scary and it's these moments that we are reminded that he's not the clown jester of Horror films, but rather an evil, hideous monster who takes joy in killing. I would even go as far as to say that Englund does better in this film than he did in the original "Nightmare." Unarguably, Englund's is the best performance throughout the duration of the film.

It's becoming known fact that Horror films and/or they're sequels is as far from scary as you can get. A welcome aspect of this movie is the fact that along with Freddy still being terrifying is director Jack Sholder's setup. He doesn't waste time making the viewer feel enclosed and doomed, much like the character of Jesse. He does a great job at providing sufficient lighting and creepy, drawing set pieces. The use of
camera angles and strange occurrences masked with an edge of mystery provide the atmosphere to a "T." Sholder certainly knows how to create moods and uses this to the films advantage. No opportunity is wasted as each dark, suitably lighted location is used to its full potential. Even if no horrifying event occurs, the simple fact that you expect one to leaves you on edge until the scene(s) end. Moments of dread are also common and help to create that sense of terror Craven knew about so well in the original film.

As is the rule with sequels the body count is higher and the blood and gore is in more abundance. On top of Freddy's nightmarish ways to terrify Jesse and simply mess with his mind (such as Krueger ripping of his scalp to reveal his brain) he gets knife happy quite a bit. Victims are slashed, faces are cut, blood is mixed with water and seen across a floor, Freddy is seen coming out of Jesse's chest graphically in many different angles among other things. The more disturbing aspect of this is it isn't done in a sense that "Evil Dead" utilized, it's done realistically and graphically. Don't expect an effect to be overused but instead realistically detailed and an appropriate amount of blood; a face that is cut can be seen with skin hanging from the wounds, for example. The FX look good and still do even to this day. This isn't one to let the kids watch, parents.

With this sequel there isn't much not to like. The atmosphere remains intact, the acting is above average, more gore is present, the plot device of possession works great, and Jack Sholder's direction is top-notch. It may not be as good as the original, but who can honestly expect that. This is a good sequel that has been unfairly underrated. I actually found myself being afraid of the dark upon first viewing it and images of the film still slightly scare me to this day. If a film can do this to a seasoned Horror veteran, I do beli
eve it needs a re-evaluation.

Summary: