the 2nd best installment…
-
walkertroy96 — 9 years ago(November 10, 2016 04:10 PM)
alot of the ANOES movies have nonsensical moments regarding what freddy can and can't do. some more extreme than others (2,4,5 and freddy's dead)
(side note, side note: a new nightmare is worst than freddy's dead? you already lost major credibility riight there.)
but that didn't make or break part 2 for me. it still was effective at the type of story (a insecure young man dealing with finding his identity.) is it perfect? far from it but it at least surpasses the most installment in the series (including the first :)). -
NorthernCross — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 10:37 AM)
No, I disagree. FR is IMO the best in the series.
FR is scarier than dream warriors.
It has great atmosphere.
The acting is by far the best.
People dont give a F about consistency when this is just part 2 of a serie. What are you complaining about really? Freddy turning up in the real world? Thats the best scene. Nothing in the first movie really sets the rules on how this works. He's a supernatural being ffs.. -
BobGunn — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 09:11 PM)
Seconded. Especially on the last point the first one was made in '84 and this in '85. You can't complain about them bending the "rules" after ONE movie. Nothing was really set in stone and there wasn't a rabid fanbase to whine about what Freddy should and shouldn't be able to do. Better that they went in a different direction than doing a complete rehash.
-
michaeluk26 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 11:38 PM)
It does not surpass the original in any way. However it is extremely underrated because people say it broke the rules when the first movie has Freddy doing things in the real world, just like part 3 does. Its in the top 4. New Nightmare is easily the 2nd best.
Haters gonna hate -
KruegerLoomis — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 11:24 AM)
I think this movie is a pretty good installment. I need to watch the series over again to rank them, but I wouldn't put this any lower than the top 4 in the series. It has plenty of flaws, but Freddy is really good in this one.
-
BobGunn — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 08:57 PM)
2nd best at least.
The original movie's concept was pretty original, and the sequels are very memorable in their own ways, but aside from aesthetics, none of them are really very good movies.
I think Freddy's Revenge is as good as the original. People generally give Part 3 a ton of praise along with the original. I can understand it with part 1, but I see parts 3-5 etc. just as rehashes of roughly the same idea over and over getting progressively more cheesy and schlocky.
At least Part 2 tried to do something somewhat different.
The fact that mostly new, unrelated people worked on it didn't really hurt things if you ask me. It was only made a year after the first one, after all. -
AdrianLePier — 9 years ago(February 07, 2017 08:29 AM)
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 Talleyhell 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.