Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddyâs Revenge
Taking any kind of an established film franchise in an entirely different or even utterly radical new direction can almost always be seen as the most dangerous of ventures, as one runs the risk of upsetting both the tone and continuity of said franchise or even that of its own genre. And when it fails, particularly in a royal fashion, the franchise itself will tend to shun that entry for the rest of its run if it even has the good fortune of still having enough momentum to even continue with that series (the Joel Schumacher Batman sequels are an excellent example of that kind of stylistic shift that entirely killed the series at that point in time). One of the most controversial examples of this happening (even among key members of the cast and crew) was in 1985 with this second entry in the Nightmare On Elm Street horror franchise. Wes Cravenâs original had established Robert Englundâs Freddy Krueger as THE premier horror villain, that of a dream stalking boogeyman who used the worst fears and insecurities of teenagers against them as he carved his own path to cinema immortality. Come the making of this sequel (and Cravenâs refusal to be involved while Englund almost wasnât due to a salary dispute) and the series took off in a bizarre new direction that completely eschewed any continuing storyline from the original (which would be picked back up again in Part 3) and in essence became a âstand aloneâ story (with passing references to the first filmâs events) that might as well have been just another episode of Freddyâs Nightmares if it were not for the reason that it became a camp classic adored by members of the gay community and reviled by most of the mainstream fans. The big idea put forth here was that of Freddy using the power of full body demonic possession (something that he would never even so much as attempt ever again in the series) in order to be able to not only bring himself into the real world, but to be able to kill those who are wide awake. The quirk in the concept lies with him using as his âguinea pigâ a possibly gay teen (played by openly gay actor Mark Patton, making no attempt to hide his real life sexuality with his performance here) and thus bringing in the gay metaphorical subtexts and homoerotic overtones like itâs nobodyâs business (along with some VERY questionably placed dialogue), thus reducing Freddyâs character to that of a very evil older predatory type looking to use the young teenage boy for his body and thus instill his own wickedness within him. This of course causes major complications for the other people in his life, including his rich high school girlfriend (Meryl Streep lookalike Kim Myers) who nobly tries to get him to fight back and turn away from the evil being while also going the extra mile to convince the kid that heâd be better off if the two of them were actually together instead, as well as his high school rival turned best friend (Robert Rusler) with whom he has formed such a strong bromance with that when the rich girl practically throws herself at him, he winds up running away to this male best friendâs place so that he can spend the night with him. Thereâs also his concerned mom (Hope Lange) and absolutely, completely clueless father (Clu Gulager, a good actor collecting a quick paycheck for playing a total idiot) who are convinced that their beloved son is either on drugs or crazy or both. A more interesting angle concerns the high school gym teacher (Marshall âKuatoâ Bell) who likes to play the hardass but is really just a butch homosexual who likes to hang out in leather S&M bars (and given his age and the fact that Krueger does target him as one of his rare grown adult kills, makes it actually probable that he had known Krueger while he was alive, along with his frightened look of possible recognition when he sees Krueger coming at him). His death scene though, is one of pure gay fantasy that might give some straight viewers a squeamishly uncomfortable feeling bordering more on disgust and not actual fright. Other atrocities (besides Patton both seen and heard screaming like a 12 year girl early and often whenever something even remotely scary happens) include a laughably ridiculous killer parakeet attack (did Krueger possess the bird too?) that leaves the dad sporting a large band aid on his face for the rest of the movie, the tendency for any environment to become boiling hot whenever Krueger is near, one unlucky victim being literally impaled through his bedroom door while his mom and dad are right outside screaming, and of course the most outright blatant breaking and destroying of any rules of continuity in The Elm Street Series when Freddy emerges at a teen pool party (in the real world!) and starts merrily running around slicing and dicing (wide awake) kids left and right before standing in front of a fire and declaring that they are all his children now. While that line and the image that accompanies it might look great for the yearbook, the problem with the scene (and what ruins the movie) is the fact that over half the kids present at the pool party actually SURVIVE as living witnesses to what has just occurred (along with the parents who own the house), definitely enough people to where such an incident would be all over the media within hours and that all those who actually saw Freddy Krueger alive and well in the flesh on that given night would just be too much to perpetrate the idea in the later films that Krueger was merely a long dead local legend who may or may not have been responsible for the deaths of some kids in their sleep while this particular incident itself is never even referred to again as having ever actually happened. Because of the fact that this one scene alone basically shatters and destroys the entire credibility of the Krueger character and indeed the entire series, the only way to thus consider it as being in any way acceptable is really to look at the whole movie itself as just being one long dream from beginning to end, most likely on the part of the Patton character, and that idea even gains some credence when you consider that the film is not only bookended by similar ânightmareâ scenes showing Freddy hijacking a school bus (and where briefly at the beginning Englund can be seen without any makeup as the uniformed bus driver) with the main characterâs final fate being very much in question but that the entire âdreamâ (movie) was all about Freddy preying on the teenâs own repressed feelings of homosexuality in order to torment him over the course of a very long and detailed nightmare before finishing him off at the end. Now while the issue of whether or not he was a literal âElm Street kidâ (i.e. whether his parents had helped burn up Freddy years earlier) was certainly in question, mostly because he was portrayed here as being the ânew kid in townâ who had just happened to move into Nancyâs old house (with it also being implied that Nancy had been committed to a mental institution), itâs entirely possible that he and his parents were actually long time residents of the town (and that the parents HAD taken part in the burning) and that the nightmare had just shifted around certain events and places so that Freddy would have a more ideal dreamscape to work from. Despite that theory though, we are still subjected to the sight of Freddy moving in on the rich girl before hesitating and then we actually hear âI love youâ coming from him in both his own and in Pattonâs wimpy voice, with the rich girl even going so far as to actually KISS Freddy on the lips (while Freddy feebly tries to resist) in order to give Patton the power to overcome Freddyâs grip on him andâŚuh, you get the idea. It all comes down to trying out new ideas that were probably better off not even being implemented in the first place, and thus gives this 2nd Nightmare film the unique honor of having been embraced by, shall we say, a certain segment of the population, but otherwise outside of that it will forever be rightfully seen as nothing more than a failure, and not even a noble oneâŚ
5/10