the 2nd best installment...

In Wes Craven's mind, there were 'rules' in 1985 and after he read the script of this inferior dreck, he could see that most of it was in direct violation to the character and premise he created. From day one, the series was called 'A Nightmare on Elm Street.' Not "A Possession on Christopher Street." This whole movie skews so far off course that it can't be anything other than inferior.

And even if we forgive its willful (remember, they were just trying to put *anything* out on the heels of the original to leech off its success) ignorance about what to NOT do when it comes to the character of Freddy Krueger, the basic screenplay remains full of erroneous quirks and glitches that a professional should have demanded be ironed out and rewritten. And the Jack Sholder's direction was borderline awful. Some of the movie looks like it was edited with a damn VCR.

Don't try to put shoe polish on this turd. Freddy's Revenge is a bad movie. It has its moments and makes for quasi-entertaining viewing on a lazy Saturday afternoon, but bad it remains. Just about everyone associated with the movie seems either embarrassed or disgruntle about the way it turned out. Robert Englund, Wes Craven, Bob Shaye, Rachel Talley...hell even Mark Patton (Jesse) blasted this movie.

These cheer-the-underdog rubes trying to defiantly rail against general perception and championing this movie as some kind of understated masterpiece because it's "dark," has fewer puns or because they have some odd appreciation of Jesse's subjective sexual confusion (while offering a bunch of abstract/inconclusive theory in an attempt to make it make sense) are being disingenuous in their testimonial. This is a bad movie and everyone knows it.

I don't know if I regard it as the second best sequel, but definitely one of the better ones. Sure it broke the rules Wes intended, but the ones that went by the book after except for 3 (I'm looking at you 4 and 5) were truly awful. At least, 6 was so bad it was good. I saw part 2 back to back with part one just recently and was suprised by how much more I enjoyed the 2nd. I was put off by the slow pace of the original and by the bad acting of Langenkamp and Depp. Not to mention, the creepy atmosphere of 2 was enhanced by the music which was orchestrated wonderfully, not synthesized like the first one. It showed how Freddy would react with a crowd of people and some neat transformation scenes. As often with most sequels, of course there's going to be issues with the story, but I think it was executed decently. In both the endings of the first two, the strength and will of the individual prevailed.

The thing that gives 2 a bit of an edge over the rest of the sequels is that it still keeps Freddy mostly in the shadows like in the first one, and didn't go overboard with the jokes.

When Dream Warriors came along, it was good, but it was the start of people taking Freddy as a goofy character.

I just finished watching 3 for the first time. It was the first of the series that seemed jokey although I did like it. I really liked the claymation scenes of Freddy. I've always liked 2 and now I'm glad it's there because it gives me a reason to believe that Nancy has actually grown up, gone to college and med school and is now interning for these other kids. (She still looks like she's in high school.) I guess I'll move on to four and up. Wish me luck.