ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2






(Review originally written at 25 September 2009)

You can pretty much expect this sequel being much weaker than the original. But it doesn't mean that this movie is a complete waste of time. It definitely has some entertainment value and is watchable as a sequel to the 1984's "A Nightmare on Elm Street".

The movie perhaps picks a strange approach with its story. It's however obvious that they at least tried to be original with it, making this movie different from its original. It still has pretty much the same atmosphere though, which is a good thing. Yet at the same time it's story just isn't ever convincing enough to allow the movie to work out.

As an horror it's also really lacking in some good scares and some well staged gore. The movie is lacking in its moments but luckily there is still Freddy Kreuger who compensates for this and adds some nice touches to the movie. He still is one of the best villainous characters ever appeared on film. Without his presence the movie would had been just extremely poor. It shows how great Robert Englund is with the character!

Of course it's a rather pointless sequel but as a movie this one really isn't too bad to watch. It's an average typical genre movie from the ' 80's, that is watchable enough by all standards.

6/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top