Ever since the remake of “A Nightmare on Elm Street” rather than looking back at the original film, many movie buffs around the web have been examining the infamous follow-up to Wes Craven’s sequel entitled “Freddy’s Revenge.” And after seeing it in its entirety for the first time ever, I’ll just say what everyone has examined from the get go: “Freddy’s Revenge” is one big metaphor for repressed homosexuality and its main hero’s confrontation with his demonizing and acceptance of his true sexuality.
Of course, that’s not a new analysis or summary of this sequel, but the movie is so noted for its approach toward homosexual themes, that it’s kind of become such an anomaly that now everyone has to see it. Kind of going for what I originally thought Freddy should be, Krueger this time acts as a sort of symbolism for our main character here who is so homo-erotic and must face the man with the claws who constantly submerges him in to the depths of homosexuality. Even the original poster acts as a metaphor as we see him hugging his hot girlfriend and Freddy’s vague reflection in his mirror. How else to explain the prologue in which main character Jesse is on a bus to school and makes an effort to avoid two attractive giggling girls flirting with him from a distance. When everyone leaves it’s just the three of them and Jesse does everything in his power to avoid their come on’s.
When Freddy makes his first appearance, he approaches the girls and Jesse makes a point of hiding behind them leaving them for the slaughter. And the rest is pretty much history. A coach is attacked by balls, Jesse forms a bromance with a bad boy named Grady, and he makes every effort to avoid come ons by the love lorn friend Lisa anxiously trying to tempt him. “Freddy’s Revenge” is a mess of a movie and one I was anxious to end mainly because it’s so damn awful to sit through. The acting is terrible and stilted (especially by Kim Meyers and Clu Galager), the dialogue is pointless and tedious, the characters are dull and one-dimensional, and plot devices are added just to give the story movie depth that it lacks. For example, we learn Nancy from the first film saw Glenn die, apparently kept a detailed diary chronicling her confrontations with Freddy, conveniently left it behind at the old house, and even watched her boyfriend get dressed everyday (no wonder Freddy was so in to her!).
And what makes the movie a mess beyond the lop-sided narrative is writer Chaskin can never decide what to do with the story. Is the house possessed or is Jesse possessed? Is Freddy possessing Jesse hoping to take residence in his body as a vessel, or is he trying to use him as a gateway? Is Jesse mentally disturbed or sexually repressed? Can Freddy control elements outside of dreams? Does he still have power once he steps out of a dream? And doesn’t that contradict the rule set in the original that Freddy loses his power once he’s out of the dream realm? What in this movie is a dream and what is reality? Writer David Chaskin just seems to write down whatever can best move the story along and never seems to want to make the slightest bit of sense, thus “Freddy’s Revenge” is a really awful movie, and one I don’t intend to see again regardless of the kitsch and camp value. Despite being considered a cult classic mainly for its overtones of homosexuality and homoerotic symbolism, “Freddy’s Revenge” is an uneven, tedious, and sloppy sequel with plot holes, lapses in logic and horrible performances not even Freddy can lure me back to watching ever again.