There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

The original 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' is still to me one of the scariest and best horror films there is, as well as a truly great film in its own right and introduced us to one of the genre's most iconic villains in Freddy Krueger. It is always difficult to do a sequel that lives up to a film as good as 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' let alone one to be on the same level.'A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge' is not to me the dreadful film as reputed, but, while its attempts to do something different is admirable, it should have been much better than it turned out to be. It is very difficult to not feel disappointed when you inevitably compare 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' to its first sequel and find that the drop in quality is so significant and hard to ignore. Whether 'Freddy's Revenge' is the worst of the series is debatable, to me and many others it is one of the weaker ones. 'Freddy's Revenge' is not a complete waste of time. It starts off very promisingly, with the bus scene is thrillingly unsettling. Easily the film's scariest moment and the scene one remembers the most. Robert Englund is still very freaky and shows why Freddy is so iconic as a villain, he may not be quite as terrifying but the material isn't as strong here and he is still highly effective. It's not a bad-looking film, there is a slickness to it and there are some nightmarish effects. There are some eerie moments, though none of the rest of the film lives up to the bus scene, and some amusing dark humour. The music is suitably haunting.However, there are also a fair share of problems. The scares don't come enough, and while there are effective ones there are also just as many that are perfunctory and pretty tame by 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' series standards. Credit is due for trying to do something different and there are parts that do intrigue. A tighter pace and less pedestrian direction would have made the execution better, as well as trying to do less and focus more on the quality of the scares and how the story is told.Jesse is such a dull damp squib of a character who lacks a quick-thinking or logical brain let alone any kind of presence. The one-note expressionless acting of Mark Patton accentuates this. The rest of the cast are nowhere near as bad, but when it comes to the acting the only one to properly rise above the material is Englund. Lastly, the ending is a slap in the face and really undoes Freddy's character, he would never do what he does at the end and it doesn't make sense for him to do it.Overall, not that bad but could have been much better. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Well, Freddy most certainly did get his revenge with this film. Sadly, none of the cast members from the original film returned for Freddy to give his revenge to. In all, the second film in this iconic franchise isn't anything new besides a few scares and Freddy doing Freddy things. But even to that point, it's not always Freddy wearing the glove and committing the crimes, and it diminishes the effect when it's not him.The one thing this film does do is build the mythology around Freddy Krueger's history on Elm Street. Of course he would come back and haunt the same house that Nancy Thompson lived in, now inhabited by the Walsh family. His main target, a timid and constantly nervous, Jesse Walsh. Freddy has a different relationship with Jesse than he did with Nancy, and it just doesn't have the same emotional impact as it did the first time around.It's the same old high school drama, bullying, and sexual tension that plagues the teens in this sequel, and those things nearly outweigh Freddy's screen time. Like any good horror villain, he spends his time working in the shadows, but that only works when the horror is amplified at the important times of the film. That's not the case here.The one incredible moment from this film is Freddy's re-birth sequence. Terrifying and visually impressive, that scene is easily one of the most powerful moments of the series. Overall, this is simply one of those horror films you'll watch on cable, and nothing you need to spend valuable time on.3.4/10

"A Nightmare On Elm Street: Freddy's Revenge" is a pretty good sequel in all fairness. Robert Englund was back as Freddy Kruegar and his character was still being treated pretty seriously. It is true that the leading man can't actually his way out of a rubber johnny, let alone a paper bag. He has no talent at all and I can't imagine why he was even given the opportunity to be in this film. The same applies to the leading lady, she is simply hopeless. Neither one of them displays any of the vulnerability that the cast from before showed. I can't understand why there was that scene at the gay bar. OK, the high school coach is attracted to men but how is that relevant to the story of the film? Robert Englund is the reason to see this and the pace is fast-moving which helps. The opening scene on the school bus is both imaginative and atmospheric. I enjoy the scene where Freddy appears at the teenagers barbecue and reeks havoc. The kids try to cower away from him but it's all in vain. I can't believe I was cheering when I saw him! The moment when Jesse and Lisa discover the diary of Nancy Thompson is a telling one. It reveals the danger Jesse is in for the first time. As in the previous film, Robert Englund doesn't have much screen time but he comes into the film when required. Some fans are a bit divided over whether the idea of Kruegar existing inside Jesse was a good move. I'm not sure. It seems slightly far fetched but in Freddy Kruegar's world, everything is! For the first time, we get to see Freddy's domain - which is the old factory on the outskirts of Springfield. The previous film only showed the factory in bits and pieces, it consisted of small camera shots here and there. In "Freddy's Revenge," we see a real factory being used for the plot and it looks a great set. A worthy sequel.

This movie was just okay,not great,not bad.First,the pros,the beginning,it was suspenseful and very creative.I like the fact that they tried to be different with the gay undertones,it really sets the film apart from the other sequels,and makes the main character more interesting.All of the stupid moments give the film a "so bad it's good" feeling,and make it highly entertaining.The characters are decently developed,the main character,played by Mark Patton is especially well acted.I thought the story was decent,there were some cool scenes and the effects were good.The best thing though,Robert Englund,he is still very dark and sinister.Now,the cons,I felt that the ending was very generic,and anticlimactic.The scares,they were very stupid and ridiculous(but hilarious).I feel like there wasn't enough kills or Freddy,in the first movie,it didn't matter,but here,it did.The worst part though,the tone,it tries to be serious at times,but the movie feels like an 80s sitcom.Nightmare 2 is better than others in the franchise,but not the best.