PDA

View Full Version : Did the Friday remake do Jason proud?


rhett
02-17-2009, 03:36 AM
Jason pwned the box office this weekend, and launching on the 13th was no doubt as superstitious a dream any horror fan could ever wish for. Did it live up to the hype? Do you hope they carry on the sequels from here? Where is Muffin?

Matt89
02-17-2009, 03:37 AM
Did the new Friday movie do Jason proud? Fuck no, it didn't even feel like Friday the 13th. The movie was a fucking disaster.

~Matt

vampyr789
02-17-2009, 03:50 AM
well, i loved it! (then again Matt thinks i love everything) Jason kicked ass, some great gore/death scenes. I think it was worth the wait. i cant wait for the extended version, and the 13th film! its not the best, but still very entertaining and a solid film

Matt89
02-17-2009, 03:55 AM
well, i loved it! (then again Matt thinks i love everything)

LOL IT'S BECAUSE YOU DO! :lol:

I just don't get how people thought this felt like a Friday the 13th movie. It was so much like the TCM remake it was like watching its sequel. They made Jason into Leatherface.

~Matt

MorallySound
02-17-2009, 04:13 AM
Hated it.

bigdaddyhorse
02-17-2009, 04:17 AM
Mediocre, almost good but not quite.

It had it's moments of good, lots of gratuitous nudity and comedy, some decent kills but I did feel cheated in that department overall.

The whole tone was wrong though. It felt forced and fake, and seeing Jason's house was weak. A fuckig hostage? Jason has never even come close to some shit like that. I kept expecting his family to come by for a diner scene.

Workshed
02-17-2009, 04:21 AM
I thought it was very entertaining, and it was exactly what I wanted out of a Friday night movie experience. The originals will always be there for me to peruse, and this remake cracked me up and brought the fun back to contemporary horror (without all the nudge-nudge, tired comedy that has bogged down plenty of recent films). It did not exceed my expectations by any means, but it was certainly good. The exuberant yet thankfully respectful theater agreed with me.

Mutilated Prey
02-17-2009, 04:28 AM
I thought it was very entertaining, and it was exactly what I wanted out of a Friday night movie experience. The originals will always be there for me to peruse, and this remake cracked me up and brought the fun back to contemporary horror (without all the nudge-nudge, tired comedy that has bogged down plenty of recent films). It did not exceed my expectations by any means, but it was certainly good. The exuberant yet thankfully respectful theater agreed with me.

What he said :)

ekent
02-17-2009, 06:20 AM
Good. A successful relaunch.

I'll never be able to figure out how people watched Jason Takes Manhattan, Jason Goes to Hell, Jason X, Freddy vs. Jason and then call this film complete shit.

I've been a Friday the 13th fan since the mid 80's when I was in 4th grade. The first film I was able to catch in theatres was part 7. Since then I have been dreaming of a back to the basics, wilderness slasher Friday the 13th. I got that last Friday and I couldn't be more happy about it. I truly regret that everyone doesn't share my enthusiasm.

Dave
02-17-2009, 06:34 AM
Good. A successful relaunch.

I'll never be able to figure out how people watched Jason Takes Manhattan, Jason Goes to Hell, Jason X, Freddy vs. Jason and then call this film complete shit.

I've been a Friday the 13th fan since the mid 80's when I was in 4th grade. The first film I was able to catch in theatres was part 7. Since then I have been dreaming of a back to the basics, wilderness slasher Friday the 13th. I got that last Friday and I couldn't be more happy about it. I truly regret that everyone doesn't share my enthusiasm.

Well, I'm consistent: They were all pieces of shit. Better?

Actually, having said that, I watched Friday 8 on HDNet the other day and while subjecting myself to the pain of the remake, I thought: Even Jason 8 is better than this turd. So, I'll be watching Friday 8 before this.

Prior to this past weekend I saw Jason X once, but I did buy the DVD. After watching His Name is Jason, I decided to give it another spin. You know, I'll agree with some people here that it's kind of a fun watch i you know what you're going into. So yes, Jason X is also better than the remake.

But I still dislike JGTH and I never really liked Jason v Freddy.

Angelman
02-17-2009, 06:41 AM
I liked it.

My feeling is that there is a certain nostalgic, romanticism to the old ones, which are, in reality, not very good. This was not great, but as a jumping off point, making 40 mil the first weekend, I say it was a good relaunch.

Thing is, I never expect much from these flicks so they always deliver. This wasn't great (i.e. no 2, 4, or 7) but it was as good as 5, 8 and certainly better than the craptacu-fest that is 9.

dave13
02-17-2009, 07:32 AM
yeah....lots of enjoyment to be had in this one. pretty much agree with ekent.

fattyjoe37
02-17-2009, 09:42 AM
I liked it. It's not the best, but it's also far from the worst. I'd put in the top half of the series.

thrashard76
02-17-2009, 09:43 AM
I hope to see this in the coming days.

MrVess
02-17-2009, 11:13 AM
If you take the trash era of "Friday", starting with "New Blood" and ending with "Freddy vs Jason", then this could be considered a somewhat fitting followup - a volume of garbage that came after volumes of garbage.

If you take the earlier Fridays, ending them with the pinnacle of the series and the only Friday film that's genuinely good on its own and outside the series, "Jason Lives", then there is no point in even trying to compare...

inkmachine
02-17-2009, 12:22 PM
Well, I'll say this much.....I don't remember the character's names LOL but the one chick who the guy said had 'perfect nipple placement' and had the all natural boobs, totally made up for anything bad in the movie LOL

Ash28M
02-17-2009, 02:18 PM
I thought it was mediocre. I didn't find Jason as scary and the score was not even close to as good as I come to expect from Friday film. I didn't hate it though.

Myron Breck
02-17-2009, 02:40 PM
I just don't get how people thought this felt like a Friday the 13th movie. It was so much like the TCM remake it was like watching its sequel. They made Jason into Leatherface.

~Matt

This is exactly why I stayed away, and will continue to do so. Sure, I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD simply because I have to, but I fucking loathed the TCM retreads abd this looks/sounds like the same shit.
:bs:

dolemite
02-17-2009, 02:51 PM
After watching it I said to my buddy that at least it was better than Jason Takes Manhattan. However, after waking up still alternating between disappointed and pissed off, I think I am gonna take that back.
The whole thing stunk of soul-less halfassery from the shaky prologue to the clever quip the sister said at the end that I still wanna throw shit at the walls when I think of.
I grew up in the eighties, watching every movie as it came out on VHS and, later, at the movies. NEVER had I sat there waiting for the damn end so I could go home until last night.
I am not a purist. Hell, I even liked Jason Goes to Hell. But what I saw last night was not a Friday movie.
I'll end up picking it up when it comes out on DVD and watching it again. Maybe it will grow on me a little.
But as I wanted to lean over and tell the high school kid whooping it up in the theatre last night (mind you, he was the only one), "Son, weed and titties does not a Friday make."

promnight13
02-17-2009, 04:49 PM
Awful - I would rather watch bad remakes of BLACK X-MAS and PROM NIGHT instead. No joke.

geeare
02-17-2009, 04:56 PM
Your age speaks volumes. :rolleyes:


I'm almost 40 and I loved it as well. It's very entertaining and I wish people would just get over their nostalgic reasons for LOVING the originals. I love the originals as well but I know why I love them. It's not because the acting was INCREDIBLE. It's not because the storyline was AWESOME. It's not because the characters were developed so much better. It's because it's what I grew up watching and that is pretty much it. Sure it was original back then but it's pretty hard to get original these days. This is a re-make/re-visioning after all.

spawningblue
02-17-2009, 05:14 PM
Good. A successful relaunch.

I'll never be able to figure out how people watched Jason Takes Manhattan, Jason Goes to Hell, Jason X, Freddy vs. Jason and then call this film complete shit.

Exactly! Horror fans cannot get past their nostalgia and enjoy a new movie. There is no way you can tell me this is so much worse then any Friday film that came before it. Mind you, I thought 1-7 were more enjoyable, but I wonder if that is just because of the nostalgia factor I have for them.

The characters and dialog were actually funny and not annoying, other then that one douche bag, but he was made to be like that so you would await his death. Jason was much different then before, but they had to modernize him I think, or else everyone would laugh at his cheesiness. He was smarter this time and more aggressive, and I although I hated the idea when I first heard about it, I actually enjoyed all the traps and the tunnels. It explains how he does what he does, and made him a much more realistic character. the opening with the sleeping bag, and the bear trap was pretty awesome! The only complaint I would have for the film is the kills could have been a little more creative. Don't get me wrong, there were a few decent ones, but next time I want to see much more. I'm sure they didn't go to crazy for the first film though, again, to keep it more realistic.

Anyways, I picked it was good. Didnt blow away my expectations, but it sure as hell met them, if not slightly exceeded them. The things I was most worried about didn't bother me at all, and actually made it more enjoyable. Overall I would give it an 8 out of 10, and I am happy to say Jason is back baby!

Matt89
02-17-2009, 05:28 PM
My main problem with it is that it just didn't FEEL like Friday the 13th. It has nothing to do with nostalgia, nothing at all. The Friday the 13th movies have a certain style to them, a certain vibe that just MAKES them Friday the 13th. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the movies were made in the '80s and fans can't look past that (it just so happened that these films were made in the '80s). No. They completely changed Jason's character to the point where he's NOT Jason. It was Leatherface with a hockey mask.

Sure it's no worse than most in the series, but Friday the 13th had this "feel" going for it that was completely gone from this one. The score: gone. The mood: gone. The movie just got so far-fetched that it becomes no different than 95% of the horror/slasher shit that comes out these days.

My point is, it's not a HORRIBLE film, but seeing as how they were making a Friday the 13th movie here, it was approached all wrong and thus...the movie ended up being a piece of crap for what it set out to do. (Okay there's the argument that it was a "reimagining" of Friday the 13th. Sorry, then it's not Friday the 13th. It's whatever stupid crap you make it out to be. What if they "re-imagined" Star Wars? It wouldn't be Star Wars, just like Nispel "re-imagined" Texas Chainsaw Massacre and fucked that one all up too.

~Matt

geeare
02-17-2009, 05:36 PM
My main problem with it is that it just didn't FEEL like Friday the 13th. It has nothing to do with nostalgia, nothing at all. The Friday the 13th movies have a certain style to them, a certain vibe that just MAKES them Friday the 13th. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the movies were made in the '80s and fans can't look past that (it just so happened that these films were made in the '80s). No. They completely changed Jason's character to the point where he's NOT Jason. It was Leatherface with a hockey mask.

Sure it's no worse than most in the series, but Friday the 13th had this "feel" going for it that was completely gone from this one. The score: gone. The mood: gone. The movie just got so far-fetched that it becomes no different than 95% of the horror/slasher shit that comes out these days.

My point is, it's not a HORRIBLE film, but seeing as how they were making a Friday the 13th movie here, it was approached all wrong and thus...the movie ended up being a piece of crap for what it set out to do. (Okay there's the argument that it was a "reimagining" of Friday the 13th. Sorry, then it's not Friday the 13th. It's whatever stupid crap you make it out to be. What if they "re-imagined" Star Wars? It wouldn't be Star Wars, just like Nispel "re-imagined" Texas Chainsaw Massacre and fucked that one all up too.

~Matt


I enjoyed the new TCM as well and for that matter the new Haloween. I guess I'm just a fan of horror movies and not a critic. thank god i am not a critic.

grodd
02-17-2009, 06:26 PM
As a huge Friday fan I thought this was far better than expected. Huge thumbs up. I want more. Best one since the first 3. Looks like the Godfather when compared to Fridays 5,8-X

spawningblue
02-17-2009, 06:36 PM
My main problem with it is that it just didn't FEEL like Friday the 13th. It has nothing to do with nostalgia, nothing at all. The Friday the 13th movies have a certain style to them, a certain vibe that just MAKES them Friday the 13th. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the movies were made in the '80s and fans can't look past that (it just so happened that these films were made in the '80s). No. They completely changed Jason's character to the point where he's NOT Jason. It was Leatherface with a hockey mask.

Sure it's no worse than most in the series, but Friday the 13th had this "feel" going for it that was completely gone from this one. The score: gone. The mood: gone. The movie just got so far-fetched that it becomes no different than 95% of the horror/slasher shit that comes out these days.

My point is, it's not a HORRIBLE film, but seeing as how they were making a Friday the 13th movie here, it was approached all wrong and thus...the movie ended up being a piece of crap for what it set out to do. (Okay there's the argument that it was a "reimagining" of Friday the 13th. Sorry, then it's not Friday the 13th. It's whatever stupid crap you make it out to be. What if they "re-imagined" Star Wars? It wouldn't be Star Wars, just like Nispel "re-imagined" Texas Chainsaw Massacre and fucked that one all up too.

~Matt

I don't know what you're talking about, as I felt the feel of the older films. Yes Jason has changed, but if they just did the exact same thing as before, then why bother. They couldn;t continue the franchise as since part 8 it has been mucked up to hell, so there only option was to remake the franchise, and in this soem changes had to be made. yes, we love the older films, but they are pretty cheesy. Show them to someone that has never seen them before and they will laugh at how bad they are. They needed to go more realistic and more aggressive, and I think in that regard they succeeded. I think the only thing it was missing from the other films was more creative kills.

And I really don't get all these comparison to the TCM remake. I wonder if it wasn't done by the same Company and Director, if it still would. I don't think so, as I don't think thye could further apart from each other. The dark and disturbing matter from that remake are not here. Like all Friday films, this was just a fun ride, where as Texas Chainsaw was trying to really disturb you. I don't think it was trying to be a fun movie. Yes, Jason has a prisoner in this film, but it wasn't done at all like it was in TMC. Jason's prisoner is barely even shown, and he sure as hell didn't torture or abuse her. Where as in TCM the scenes were quite disturbing and violent. Really, give examples how this film was like TCM at all as I don't see it one bit? As for the music, it probably could have used more of the original "Kill-Kill-Ma-Ma" tune, but what they used didn't bother me at all. And and other then a few scenes, the cutting wasn't as quick as TCM, and the cinematography was way different. This film was more more clean and bright then the dark and dirty cinematography of TCM.

Anyways, like I mentioned in the other thread, maybe a lot of you are just too old for the franchise now. If the characters in the film bugged you so much, it's probably because you don't know how teens or young adults are these days, as I thought they were hilarious, and quite real to people I know. Yes, this Friday film is different then the other films, but it has to be! A lot has changed in 20 years, and doing a film in that vein just wouldn't work for these times.

spawningblue
02-17-2009, 06:40 PM
Actually the one big disappointment I had for the film was that it didn't take place at a camp grounds, with the counselors getting picked off. This film would have worked better for the second film, as now it will be hard to make it believable that they would open up a camp resort after everything happened in this film. then again, I guess they did it for part 6! :D

bigdaddyhorse
02-17-2009, 06:51 PM
Prior to this past weekend I saw Jason X once, but I did buy the DVD. After watching His Name is Jason, I decided to give it another spin. You know, I'll agree with some people here that it's kind of a fun watch i you know what you're going into. So yes, Jason X is also better than the remake.



Welcome to the cult of X. Some will laugh, many will give you shit, but the movie will make you smile if not just crack up completely everytime.

Try watching Jason Goes to Hell while not thinking about it being Jason at all. That movie works, it's just not a Friday the 13th film. Had they left Jason out and inserted some new killer/demon/pressence, that would be a good movie. As it is, it doesn't fit to have Jason there. This is someone else's story with Jason thrown in at the last second.

Matt89
02-17-2009, 06:53 PM
How could you NOT see the similarities to TCM? They're as clear as fucking day. This movie had Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake stamped all over it. Jason acts and moves like Leatherface, has the same tendencies. This movie couldn't possibly be further than the feel of a Friday the 13th movie. How was it similar to TCM? It wasn't necessarily everything in the movie (the narrative), but the style and tone of the film. The cinematography was almost identical to that of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It was clear and bright yes, during the daytime scenes. You could say the same for TCM. The movie starts out clean and bright but eventually gets dark.

But the movies don't need to be remade for a newer audience. I totally see what you mean that the older movies are cheesy, they always have been. But that doesn't mean they need to be remade. They remake movies today for fucking stupid reasons. "We want it to appeal to a newer audience" is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Remakes aren't all bad, but their REASONING for producing remakes is what's the dumb part.

Some remakes are legitimate. Remaking Invasion of the Body Snatchers in the '70s brought new life to the film. They added something to it (the tone of it) that they couldn't have possibly done in the '50s due to the Hollywood Production code, same went for Carpenter's The Thing in 1982. It wasn't just about modernizing the movies and making them appeal to a newer audience, it was about putting a new edge on these films, a new perspective on them that wouldn't have been possible when they were first made. Movies today are remade for all the wrong reasons. About 90% of them are worthless garbage.

~Matt

grodd
02-17-2009, 06:57 PM
I don't know what you're talking about, as I felt the feel of the older films. Yes Jason has changed, but if they just did the exact same thing as before, then why bother. They couldn;t continue the franchise as since part 8 it has been mucked up to hell, so there only option was to remake the franchise, and in this soem changes had to be made. yes, we love the older films, but they are pretty cheesy. Show them to someone that has never seen them before and they will laugh at how bad they are. They needed to go more realistic and more aggressive, and I think in that regard they succeeded. I think the only thing it was missing from the other films was more creative kills.

And I really don't get all these comparison to the TCM remake. I wonder if it wasn't done by the same Company and Director, if it still would. I don't think so, as I don't think thye could further apart from each other. The dark and disturbing matter from that remake are not here. Like all Friday films, this was just a fun ride, where as Texas Chainsaw was trying to really disturb you. I don't think it was trying to be a fun movie. Yes, Jason has a prisoner in this film, but it wasn't done at all like it was in TMC. Jason's prisoner is barely even shown, and he sure as hell didn't torture or abuse her. Where as in TCM the scenes were quite disturbing and violent. Really, give examples how this film was like TCM at all as I don't see it one bit? As for the music, it probably could have used more of the original "Kill-Kill-Ma-Ma" tune, but what they used didn't bother me at all. And and other then a few scenes, the cutting wasn't as quick as TCM, and the cinematography was way different. This film was more more clean and bright then the dark and dirty cinematography of TCM.

Anyways, like I mentioned in the other thread, maybe a lot of you are just too old for the franchise now. If the characters in the film bugged you so much, it's probably because you don't know how teens or young adults are these days, as I thought they were hilarious, and quite real to people I know. Yes, this Friday film is different then the other films, but it has to be! A lot has changed in 20 years, and doing a film in that vein just wouldn't work for these times.


I think your minor complaints are the same as mine. A few more creative kills and a little more KiKiKi MaMaMa, would of helped. I wish some of the old Manfredini score was used also.

evildeadfan123
02-17-2009, 07:10 PM
Loved it. Especially Jared Padalecki as Clay. OMG. I am a huge fan of Jared/Jensen, and I loved My Bloody Valentine also.

spawningblue
02-17-2009, 07:28 PM
How could you NOT see the similarities to TCM? They're as clear as fucking day. This movie had Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake stamped all over it. Jason acts and moves like Leatherface, has the same tendencies. This movie couldn't possibly be further than the feel of a Friday the 13th movie. How was it similar to TCM? It wasn't necessarily everything in the movie (the narrative), but the style and tone of the film. The cinematography was almost identical to that of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It was clear and bright yes, during the daytime scenes. You could say the same for TCM. The movie starts out clean and bright but eventually gets dark.

But the movies don't need to be remade for a newer audience. I totally see what you mean that the older movies are cheesy, they always have been. But that doesn't mean they need to be remade. They remake movies today for fucking stupid reasons. "We want it to appeal to a newer audience" is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Remakes aren't all bad, but their REASONING for producing remakes is what's the dumb part.

Some remakes are legitimate. Remaking Invasion of the Body Snatchers in the '70s brought new life to the film. They added something to it (the tone of it) that they couldn't have possibly done in the '50s due to the Hollywood Production code, same went for Carpenter's The Thing in 1982. It wasn't just about modernizing the movies and making them appeal to a newer audience, it was about putting a new edge on these films, a new perspective on them that wouldn't have been possible when they were first made. Movies today are remade for all the wrong reasons. About 90% of them are worthless garbage.

~Matt

:lol: They remade it for money, obviously! That's why they did the countless sequels as well. You don't think they did those because they had anything original to say do you? All the sequels are the first film with newer kills. That's what this one was, what's the problem? The only reason it wasn't called Friday the 13th Part 11 is because they f-ed up the franchise by setting it in the future and in space, there was no way you could continue with it. I guess they tried when he fought Freddy and just ignored part 10, but even that movie messed him up. The franchise was so tarnished that I really don't see the problem in them just restarting it, but doing it as if it's just another sequel. I wouldn't have it any other way. If you are going to complain about this being made, then you need to complain about all the sequels being made.

As for the TCM remake comparisons, I'm sorry, I just don't see it. That whole movie was a bleak, dark, disturbing, dirty affair. This movie was a fun, not to be taken too serious ride. Yes, this film had night scenes, but they were not like the TCM. That film had a dirtiness present in every frame, that I didn't see in this film. Either way, it didn't bug me at all, and I didn't once think of the TCM remake while watching this. Other then when they had the grandma from the TCM remake film in this one. I personally liked the TCM remake, so maybe that's why I enjoyed this one so much. But I think in tone, they were two complete different films. TCM made me want to shower after watching it, it disturbed me, made me cringe, this film just put a smile on my face and was happy to see Jason return to his camp grounds. Although this is a different beast then the 80s version, I think it still had that feel, and I don't think they could have done it better, unless they literally went back in time and made it in the 80s. And again, although it was before that whole torture phase Hollywood jumped on, I thought the TCm remake had aspects of that, especially with the prequel. They really set out to make people cringe in their seats with those films, especially at the diner table scene. Again, I didn't see any of that at all with this film, other then maybe the beginning with the bear trap. The rest of the film and its kills were just good old fashion fun!

As for Jason moving like Leatherface... really? Leatherface was a big sloppy buffoon, where as this Jason was smart and fast. The only similarities I saw was that they were both very menacing presences, which in my opinion is a good thing.

captain_brandon
02-17-2009, 07:50 PM
Look's like I voted with the majority, once again, as I choose "Good. A successful relaunch" and voted.

I found this a finely acted for what it was, solid death sequences, loaded with tits & some stage blood affair that successfully re-booted this whole Jason Voorhee's mythology.

So yup, happy lad here. But please, have a lot more deaths in the sequel and some more overly gory and traditional F13th-style 'icky' deaths (loved the retro arrow-through-the-head gag in the film, I gotta say). Beyond that, I'm happy and I'll buy it on standard def DVD once it street's. Been talkin' with a good Canadian friend of mine via YouTube as of late about it, and I like it surprisingly a lot, some flaws and all.

geeare
02-17-2009, 07:55 PM
How could you NOT see the similarities to TCM? They're as clear as fucking day. This movie had Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake stamped all over it. Jason acts and moves like Leatherface, has the same tendencies. This movie couldn't possibly be further than the feel of a Friday the 13th movie. How was it similar to TCM? It wasn't necessarily everything in the movie (the narrative), but the style and tone of the film. The cinematography was almost identical to that of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It was clear and bright yes, during the daytime scenes. You could say the same for TCM. The movie starts out clean and bright but eventually gets dark.

But the movies don't need to be remade for a newer audience. I totally see what you mean that the older movies are cheesy, they always have been. But that doesn't mean they need to be remade. They remake movies today for fucking stupid reasons. "We want it to appeal to a newer audience" is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Remakes aren't all bad, but their REASONING for producing remakes is what's the dumb part.

Some remakes are legitimate. Remaking Invasion of the Body Snatchers in the '70s brought new life to the film. They added something to it (the tone of it) that they couldn't have possibly done in the '50s due to the Hollywood Production code, same went for Carpenter's The Thing in 1982. It wasn't just about modernizing the movies and making them appeal to a newer audience, it was about putting a new edge on these films, a new perspective on them that wouldn't have been possible when they were first made. Movies today are remade for all the wrong reasons. About 90% of them are worthless garbage.

~Matt

that's kinda what they did isn't it?

Matt89
02-17-2009, 08:13 PM
that's kinda what they did isn't it?

No not at all. Friday the 13th did not need to be remade. It was made in 1980, there were no limitations put upon it the way the Hollywood Production Code put limitations upon films made from the 1930s up until the early 1960s. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) came with a whole wave of "New Hollywood" filmmaking. Yes there was always the limitation of the MPAA, but the whole tone of Friday the 13th was perfectly accepted within the realms of its era (it fell into this era with Body Snatchers). Invasion of the Body Snatchers couldn't have possibly been made in 1956 the way it was made in 1978. This version of Friday the 13th was basically every sequel combined into one film, and they radically changed the film to the point where it wasn't even Friday the 13th anymore. You have way too much going on, they tried to make it scary, and failed. The movie relies on cheap scares as opposed to suspense (which is far more effective in the long-run) and I just don't see how this movie is any different or better than all the heaps of crap that the horror genre has produced in the past 15 years. People praise this and then bash a movie like The Strangers? I don't get it. This movie was dull, I tried to like it and enjoyed the first 20 mins or so, but I actually WANTED this movie to end. I kept checking my phone to see how much time had passed.

~Matt

geeare
02-17-2009, 08:37 PM
No not at all. Friday the 13th did not need to be remade. It was made in 1980, there were no limitations put upon it the way the Hollywood Production Code put limitations upon films made from the 1930s up until the early 1960s. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) came with a whole wave of "New Hollywood" filmmaking. Yes there was always the limitation of the MPAA, but the whole tone of Friday the 13th was perfectly accepted within the realms of its era (it fell into this era with Body Snatchers). Invasion of the Body Snatchers couldn't have possibly been made in 1956 the way it was made in 1978. This version of Friday the 13th was basically every sequel combined into one film, and they radically changed the film to the point where it wasn't even Friday the 13th anymore. You have way too much going on, they tried to make it scary, and failed. The movie relies on cheap scares as opposed to suspense (which is far more effective in the long-run) and I just don't see how this movie is any different or better than all the heaps of crap that the horror genre has produced in the past 15 years. People praise this and then bash a movie like The Strangers? I don't get it. This movie was dull, I tried to like it and enjoyed the first 20 mins or so, but I actually WANTED this movie to end. I kept checking my phone to see how much time had passed.

~Matt


well there ya go, I loved the Strangers as well so again I am happy that I am just a fan of the genre. I don't know how you guys go into movies and just sit there and do nothing but pick it apart for such rediculous reasons, haha. I'm glad I am me. Why would you even bother to goto these movies if they have all been crap for the past 15 years?

Matt89
02-17-2009, 08:45 PM
Why would you even bother to goto these movies if they have all been crap for the past 15 years?

Because occasionally you come across something great like the Dawn of the Dead remake, The Strangers or The Descent. A lot you can just judge by the trailers. For example, the Last House on the Left trailer for the remake played before Friday the 13th started, and well...I don't need to go see it to know it'll be shit.

~Matt

geeare
02-17-2009, 08:51 PM
Because occasionally you come across something great like the Dawn of the Dead remake, The Strangers or The Descent. A lot you can just judge by the trailers. For example, the Last House on the Left trailer for the remake played before Friday the 13th started, and well...I don't need to go see it to know it'll be shit.

~Matt


haha, i really never cared the original anyway therefor i am not real interested in this remake. there was something about it that i just didn't like. Not saying it was total crap tho as some people have said about F13 remake. It's not total crap, it's just that I don't like it.

indiephantom
02-17-2009, 08:54 PM
Mediocre, almost good but not quite.

It had it's moments of good, lots of gratuitous nudity and comedy, some decent kills but I did feel cheated in that department overall.

The whole tone was wrong though. It felt forced and fake, and seeing Jason's house was weak. A fuckig hostage? Jason has never even come close to some shit like that. I kept expecting his family to come by for a diner scene.

Agree with all these points, although the kills were uninspired. Still, the pretitle sequence grabbed me and the acting was decent for a 13th film. Best one since part 7, but still rates mediocre for me.

Stige
02-17-2009, 09:17 PM
dud!

the one thing that sealed its fate with me was just so NOT a Jason thing to do that I didn't even feel like it was a Friday ........ I'm sure everyone knows what I am talking about

Kim Bruun
02-17-2009, 09:38 PM
I enjoyed it... It doesn't have the atmosphere of the original films, but it was fun and fast.

I liked:

*Boob jokes. They worked for me.
*Jumps scares. Plenty of those.
*The ladies and the gay guys may not be offered the same smorgasbord as the straight guys, but we still get the jerk's ripped chest and Jared Padalecki's hot, flaring nostrils.
*The Winter catalogue masturbation joke.

I didn't like:

*Racial stereotypes. They didn't offend me, but they weren't funny.
*The fact that the jerk was too much of a jerk. It stretched credibility because his girlfriend was so nice. They could at least have made his death much more prolonged and humiliating.
*The fact that Jason kept a prisoner all that time. It shouldn't be within his capabilities.
*Jason's underground lair. The Part 2 shack worked better.

I missed:

*The camp setting - though not every Friday features it, there is just something essentially Friday about it.
*The creepy atmosphere of the original first three. The film was clearly made for young audiences with the attention span of a guppy.

Grim
02-17-2009, 09:54 PM
I say good. I always knew this wouldn't be the perfect Friday film that many were expecting it to be. Anybody complaining about the way it looked and felt after they saw it, well, you should have known that going into it. The trailers and plethora of still pictures were more than enough to let you know how this one was play out.

I mean the guys behind the film had a lot going against them and a real uphill battle, especially the writers. There was no way the film would ever get greenlit if it was the mother doing the killing the whole time. Yet, if they axe the Ms. Voorhees plotline, then Jason's motive and drive to kill is gone, so they have to find some way to work it in. They did the best with what they had to work with.

And all this talk about how it didn't feel like Jason. Please, there really hasn't been any consistency to the Jason Voorhees character, save for Kane Hodder's pushed out-chest, wrestler-stance Jason who turns his head slowly every ten seconds that every seems to love so much. Steve Dash and Ted White did it best, and to me Derek Mears encapsulated those two. A much more lean and agile Jason, yet still dark and brooding. Still, when it comes down to it, Jason is pretty much interchangeable with any other slasher movie killer (Cropsy, Michael Myers in Halloween 4+, Victor Crowley, the Miner/Axel, the Prowler, etc.) It's the mythology behind him, which they got right, that makes him unique, and shit, that ain't even that much different from the others.

I'm not trying to put Jason down because he honestly is my favorite of the horror villains, it just seems like people are giving too much credit to a bunch of guys in the early 80's who were mainly concerned with making a quick buck (Cunningham and Miner specifically). I'd even go as far and say that the producers, writers, and director behind this flick had more of their heart in this project than the guys behind the first three.

To each his own, though. I'm glad people are so divided. We haven't debates like these since the last Rob Zombie movie came out.:D

Bobbywoodhogan
02-17-2009, 10:07 PM
F*ck yeah I loved it.

I thought it was awesome, 8/10 from me, leaves room for improvement (NOT A BAD THING), bring on Part 2 :D

Buddusky
02-17-2009, 11:58 PM
Have to agree with Matt here :lol:, I thought it was shit.
It was like watching a another pathetic sequel and I couldn't wait for most of the characters to be killed as they annoyed the fuck out of me and it couldn't end quick enough for me! Also Jason was everywhere just walking about, nothing mysterious about him. I preferred it in the first films where he would just pop out of nowhere and kill his next victim. At least we all got a refund for it as 2 arseholes behind us wouldn't shut the fuck up! It was like having an audio commentary, then they were talking on they're mobile and then got chucked out :mad: So at least it ended in a good note. :D:banana:

bigwes15
02-18-2009, 03:21 AM
I have to admit that I didn't really like this one very much. Maybe what some of you are saying is true and I'm just too old to love the Friday experience like I did when I was seeing these as a kid in the 80's, but I don't know. I still love horror movies and have enjoyed several of the newer ones...even some remakes (I liked the first TCM remake and absolutely LOVED the prequel/sequel), so it's not just a condemnation of Platinum Dunes for me. There was all of the elements that should have made it a success...T & A, some fairly gory deaths that seemed to be mostly practical effects, and the fact that they were back at Crystal Lake. Even with all those factors in the movie's favor, it just left me flat. I didn't like the cast very much, Jason was too much of a plotter instead of a straight up unstoppable force, and they didn't do much with the atmosphere. 5 out of 10 at the most, and that's being overly generous.

The Chaostar
02-18-2009, 04:10 AM
I had fun with it. F13 (the original) was nothing special to begin with, for me at least - leaving the fond memories behind. It's not TCM or NOTLD. It's a slasher that feels a lot like Twitch Of The Death Nerve.

maybrick
02-18-2009, 05:46 AM
Just came back from seeing it tonight. I'm a bit tired so I'll keep it short: I liked it. It wasn't exactly like I thought it was going to be, meaning I don't think it's a remake (at least not of part 1). Near as I can tell, the events of regarding the mother happen exactly as they did in the original , so what this really is is just another sequel, but in the same way most of the Godzilla films are in what's referred to as "the Millenium series" (The only films that matter canon wise are the original and the newest one. All the rest are discarded.)

DVD-fanatic-9
02-18-2009, 12:33 PM
Did the new Friday movie do Jason proud? Fuck no, it didn't even feel like Friday the 13th. The movie was a fucking disaster.

~Matt
Agreed.

infinite
02-18-2009, 05:26 PM
possibly the worst friday in the series, the least effective and scary, and the wackest plotline ever. but hey, most of the sequels in this saga aren't oscar winners anyway. I prefer the first 8 films over this. it's not the jason I like to see, I guess I just love the really old ones the most

Matt89
02-18-2009, 05:31 PM
possibly the worst friday in the series, the least effective and scary, and the wackest plotline ever. but hey, most of the sequels in this saga aren't oscar winners anyway. I prefer the first 8 films over this.

WORD.

~Matt

Grim
02-18-2009, 06:38 PM
possibly the worst friday in the series, the least effective and scary, and the wackest plotline ever. but hey, most of the sequels in this saga aren't oscar winners anyway. I prefer the first 8 films over this. it's not the jason I like to see, I guess I just love the really old ones the most

Wackest plotline? It was basically Part 4 minus the Jarvis family. Say what you will about scares, gore, acting, score, direction, writing, etc., but the plot is identical to basically 60% of the entries in the series.

Angelman
02-18-2009, 06:42 PM
For example, the Last House on the Left trailer for the remake played before Friday the 13th started, and well...I don't need to go see it to know it'll be shit.

~Matt

HA. That trailer insured I will see it.

Harry Warden
02-19-2009, 01:35 AM
I have to agree with a few others here. I LOVED the new Friday the 13th. I can see how Matt89 may make some comparisons to TCM. The style of the film overall is very similar, but I also see differences. Regardless, I really enjoyed the new film and I am looking forward to the extended release on dvd.

eric_angelus
02-19-2009, 02:20 AM
I don't actually hate myself for watching this, but it was not good.

vampyr789
02-19-2009, 03:08 AM
HA. That trailer insured I will see it.

same for me...:rolleyes:

othervoice1
02-19-2009, 05:08 AM
Well I saw this tonight finally. Was cool to get a Last House on the Left (which didnt impress me at all) and a Transformers 2 Trailer. The movie was okay, it just wasnt as good as I thought it might or could have been. And they should have put in some of the Friday signature music/sound whatever you call it. I think I heard it in the opening credit sequence but not in the movie unless I missed it somehow. I dunno but I was not a fan of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake either, although I liked this one more than that. I will say I enjoyed the experience at My Bloody Valentine 3-D a lot more but the 3-D really helped that one IMO. I would say mediocre, didnt hate it but didnt love it.

mclay18
02-19-2009, 05:16 AM
It worked for me.

Honestly, you die-hard Jason fans nitpicky and hard to please. It has everything the '80s films did -- and the lack of gory or inventive kills was more in line with the "realistic" tone they had in mind. (Of course, you have to wonder how much say the MPAA had with the remake in terms of the violence.)

I'm not much of a Friday fan, but I liked this a lot better than the more recent entries. (A helluva lot better than the shitfests Part V and VII was.)

Paff
02-19-2009, 08:03 AM
OK, here's a little more from me, now that I've had time to digest it.

I mentioned in one of the other 7843 threads on this movie that after seeing it, we went to a midnight screening of The Disco Dolls in Hot Skin in 3-D, a 70s porn movie. Tongue in cheek (no pun intended...well, maybe a little), I said the acting and storyline were about as good. Obviously, that is not true. As bad as F13 was, it was made with a million times more talent. Of course, a million times zero...

Anyway, I did see a similarity between the two films I saw that night, if you'll bear with me. You see, I enjoy erotica and erotic cinema. Movies like Sex and Zen, Erotic Ghost Story, and other films with seduction and teasing. But then there's something like Disco Dolls, which is simply people fucking on camera. It's not the same. It's not erotica (granted, it never was intended to be).

Here's my analogy: Disco Dolls is to erotica what the Friday the 13th remake is to horror. As in, it ain't. Friday the 13th did not show horror; it showed people getting killed. While that is certainly horrific in real life, there was nothing remotely frightening about this movie. Nothing. And "jump scares" don't count, dammit! I want seduction, and teasing. And yes, I'm talking about horror when I say that. I want that super-creepy feeling that "something" is out there. I want there to be creaky noises and shadows moving, only to find it's the stupid cat. Build it up, dammit!!

No Friday the 13th movie is high quality cinema, but if you watch the first two films, you'll see the things I mention. Point of view shots (others have mentioned this too), some suspense, just....something. When I saw the original F13 last year at midnight, it was a raucous crowd, making fun of it, laughing AT it. But when shit started getting serious and counselors started getting killed, the crowd got a lot quieter. Like I said, not high quality cinema, not even among the upper echelon of horror films, but at least they worked the audience a little.

Not one bit of that here. Not one bit. Look at the opening 15 minute sequence. Clearly aimed at the audience members with the attention span of a gnat, 'cause if they had to wait more than 20 minutes to see someone get killed, they would have already gotten up and left. And doesn't that insult YOU, as a horror fan??

People throw around the term "torture porn" about the Saw and Hostel movies, but this is far far far closer to pornography in terms of filmmaker talent than any movie in those two franchises. A very bad movie, Friday the 13th is. A very bad movie. Rhett did not include an option for how truly bad it is.

maybrick
02-19-2009, 01:48 PM
:lol: Dear God, I haven't been frightened of a Friday the 13th film since I was 10 years old! Talk about some revisionist history going on here. F13 has always been all about the killing, "horror" be damned.

Look at the opening 15 minute sequence. Clearly aimed at the audience members with the attention span of a gnat, 'cause if they had to wait more than 20 minutes to see someone get killed, they would have already gotten up and left. And doesn't that insult YOU, as a horror fan??

This has to the funniest thing I've read in this thread yet! :lol: Dude: When have the makers of F13 EVER made the audience wait even 10 minutes for a kill, let alone 20? Don't you even realize that the criticisms you're making against Friday the 13th are the very same ones that critics have been making against the series all along?

My God, you guys are hysterical! :lol:

spawningblue
02-19-2009, 05:26 PM
:lol: Dear God, I haven't been frightened of a Friday the 13th film since I was 10 years old! Talk about some revisionist history going on here. F13 has always been all about the killing, "horror" be damned.



This has to the funniest thing I've read in this thread yet! :lol: Dude: When have the makers of F13 EVER made the audience wait even 10 minutes for a kill, let alone 20? Don't you even realize that the criticisms you're making against Friday the 13th are the very same ones that critics have been making against the series all along?

My God, you guys are hysterical! :lol:

:lol: No shit. it's like these people have never watched the rest of the franchise.

Matt89
02-19-2009, 05:41 PM
As much as I think the movie's a mess, ironically, the first 20 mins are the only thing I actually liked about this movie. It just took a nosedive after that. For me, my personal issue is that it didn't feel like a Friday the 13th movie. And it's not because the others were made in the '80s, they made Wrong Turn feel like a horror film from the '70s/'80s, so why weren't they able to do it here? That's really the only MAJOR issue I have with the film.

~Matt

maybrick
02-19-2009, 05:42 PM
:lol: No shit. it's like these people have never watched the rest of the franchise.

Exactly, and I have to also argue against this film's supposed lack of creative kills. I thought hanging a person over a fire trapped in a sleeping bag to be very original. That's the kind of thing that would've given me nightmares as a kid. I also really dug the quick stab through the top of the skull at the lake. Granted, none of these are over the top in gore, but I found them to be pretty effective. It's pretty funny that on the one hand there are people complaining that Jason is too smart and plotting with his kills and on the other the kills aren't creative enough. If you want it both ways then that's one hell of a contradiction when you think about it!

Anthropophagus
02-19-2009, 05:43 PM
I watched this last night, for free thankfully, I should preface this by stating that I was a big fan of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake;
If you have not seen this film yet and intend too, stop reading now.
I thought this Friday The 13th re-imagining was beyond awful and boring as hell to boot.
My issues with it:
1) It did not feel at all like a re-imagining it could have easily been called Friday The 13th Part III, Part VI, Part XX it would have fit in with the rest of the mediocre sequels that came after Part IV.
2) Absolutely no character development of any kind and did they intend to make the 'teenage' cast so annoying that I was actually looking forward to Jason butchering them. The characters were cringe-worthy and there was not one likeable character in the lot. It actually made the original casts of the Friday films look great by comparison, worst acting I have seen in a long time.
3) Aside from the presence of Jason, I thought this could have easily been any anonymous direct to dvd slasher film. I may be in the minority here but I enjoyed Joyride 2 more than this, even though that was pretty bad too.
4) I did not find the gore or kills impressive in the slighest, they reminded me at times of some of the classic kills in the eighties film but I was hoping to see the brutality stepped up in the vein of the TCM remake. This was just tired and ho-hum.
5) Jason was just not scary to me, I missed the slower, stalking portrayal by Kane Hodder. Grew up with it, sorry....
6) The scene where Jason got his hockey mask was a let down, not nearly as iconic as Part III.
7) Much like the Rob Zombie Halloween remake, I did not appreciate the white trash quotient too much. The character who wanted to fuck both the Hustler magazine and the wooden mannequin was a bit too out there for me. Really stupid and not necessary.
That being said, glad I did not pay for this, I may actually hate it as much as Zombie's Halloween.

spawningblue
02-19-2009, 05:43 PM
As much as I think the movie's a mess, ironically, the first 20 mins are the only thing I actually liked about this movie. It just took a nosedive after that. For me, my personal issue is that it didn't feel like a Friday the 13th movie. And it's not because the others were made in the '80s, they made Wrong Turn feel like a horror film from the '70s/'80s, so why weren't they able to do it here? That's really the only MAJOR issue I have with the film.

~Matt

Maybe they didn't want it to feel like a movie from the 80s? The 80s movies as awesome as they were fell flat, so maybe they wanted to step away from that and make it their own modern incarnation.

maybrick
02-19-2009, 05:49 PM
As much as I think the movie's a mess, ironically, the first 20 mins are the only thing I actually liked about this movie. It just took a nosedive after that. For me, my personal issue is that it didn't feel like a Friday the 13th movie. And it's not because the others were made in the '80s, they made Wrong Turn feel like a horror film from the '70s/'80s, so why weren't they able to do it here? That's really the only MAJOR issue I have with the film.

~Matt

No, it felt like a horror film from the '00s and I don't have a problem with that. I don't mean to compare apples to oranges, but Casino Royale didn't feel anything like a James Bond film from any other decade and I don't have a problem with that, either.

My biggest problem is that the storyline didn't involve people trying to reopen Camp Crystal Lake. Maybe they're saving it for the sequel.

Matt89
02-19-2009, 05:56 PM
Meh, maybe it'll grow on me. I'm definitely gonna give it another chance when it hits DVD/blu-ray. With that "alternate cut" there might be something there worth seeing.

~Matt

Mok
02-19-2009, 06:05 PM
Mediocre, almost good but not quite.

It had it's moments of good, lots of gratuitous nudity and comedy, some decent kills but I did feel cheated in that department overall.

The whole tone was wrong though. It felt forced and fake, and seeing Jason's house was weak. A fuckig hostage? Jason has never even come close to some shit like that. I kept expecting his family to come by for a diner scene.

I was with you bigdaddy up until I realized that any given F13 film is loaded with misses and sprinkled with hits - save for the first two.

I think it was good...for a F13 film. They didn't do the legend justice, but oh well, we got some great kills and some nice tits to look at.

EDIT: Paff, you pretty much summed up the last 8 Friday the 13th movies. However, as this was supposed to be a remake of the the first three, so I totally understand and agree with your disappointment.

I'd still say "good" though, just because of the franchise's track record.

Bobbywoodhogan
02-19-2009, 07:38 PM
:lol: Dear God, I haven't been frightened of a Friday the 13th film since I was 10 years old! Talk about some revisionist history going on here. F13 has always been all about the killing, "horror" be damned.



This has to the funniest thing I've read in this thread yet! :lol: Dude: When have the makers of F13 EVER made the audience wait even 10 minutes for a kill, let alone 20? Don't you even realize that the criticisms you're making against Friday the 13th are the very same ones that critics have been making against the series all along?

My God, you guys are hysterical! :lol:

Alot of peeps on here just outright hate remakes and reimaginings, end of the day its there loss.

Its like Jeepers Creepers is hated on here and pretty much everyone I know loves that movie yet on here they mostly thought it was s**t. Same with TCM remake which in my opinion is alot better than the original (which I dont like). They just dont like alot on here.

Hellbilly
02-19-2009, 08:12 PM
Good.

Enjoyed this. Had about everything I wanted to see in a slasher so yeah, bring on the sequel :)

Grim
02-19-2009, 08:38 PM
I always thought one of the draws of the series, except for maybe the first two, is to see a bunch of annoying and dumb ass teens get killed, so when I hear people complaining about the characters being so annoying that you just wanted them to die, I ask again, what did you expect?

I will agree that this doesn't have the feel of the entries from the 80's, but other than that, the plot and characters are pretty on-par with the bulk of the series.

drown021
02-19-2009, 08:39 PM
I went with mediocre.I was hoping form more brutal/bloody/gory kill's than I got. I've never been a big F13th fan although I did like FvsJ and Jason X. My buddy I saw the movie with thought it was pretty good , which was suprising because he doesnt really like horrror movies and I had to basically drag him to see it. It wasn't bad and it wasn't really good.I'm glad I saw it in theatres and I know I'll buy it when it hit's dvd but I'd give it a 6.5/10.Standard F13th imo. It was nice to see the boobies though.

othervoice1
02-19-2009, 08:51 PM
Same with TCM remake which in my opinion is alot better than the original (which I dont like). They just dont like alot on here.

Oh my......

Anthropophagus
02-19-2009, 10:04 PM
I always thought that the kids in the original franchise/series did not get truly annoying until Part V.

Anthropophagus
02-19-2009, 10:05 PM
...and there was nothing about Debisue Voorhees that annoyed me in Part V either.

bigdaddyhorse
02-19-2009, 10:55 PM
I may be in the minority here but I enjoyed Joyride 2 more than this, even though that was pretty bad too.


Madness! Joyride 2 was complete sun-dried dogshit, at least this was fresh brown turds.:D

...and there was nothing about Debisue Voorhees that annoyed me in Part V either.

Speaking of perfect nipple placement! :sperm:

uradouche
02-20-2009, 02:09 AM
where's the chopping mall remake? c'mon people!

gore
02-20-2009, 02:45 AM
Good.

Enjoyed this. Had about everything I wanted to see in a slasher so yeah, bring on the sequel :)

Good.

Enjoyed this. Had about everything I wanted to see in a slasher so yeah, bring on the sequel :)

Hey look, a remake!

Spit
02-22-2009, 07:42 PM
All right, much better then the recent Jason movies. I'd give it a 7/10. Only one jump scare really got me.

Spit
02-22-2009, 07:45 PM
where's the chopping mall remake? c'mon people!

dude! Totally! You maybe be on to something there. I mean hell if mbv got a remake a chopping mall one might not be out of the question.

DrHerbertWest
02-23-2009, 04:58 PM
Could be some spoilers in this, so pass on if you don't wanna be SHOCKED...

Gotta say I'm with Matt89 on this one. Just a really big disappointment. People can say that it's just like all the sequels and all the haters are being hypocritical because every movie basically has the same thing going on but Matt was right when he said FT13th films have a certain vibe to them. I don't really want to see Jason trapping women in some underground cavern that he supposedly dug out. I don't need to see burned dolls and dirty photographs. I don't need marijuana plantations. There's more I don't need but I don't want this post to get cut short. I have no problem with a "smarter" Jason but... putting a woman in a sleeping bag, setting a beartrap, putting the sleeping bag above a fire and then sitting back and watching is a little much for me. It's like Jason got a screener of Saw V and loved it so much he started watching "torture porn" movies. I'm also with Matt when he says this is just like Leatherface with a hockey mask. If I had no idea who had directed this and just sat down to watch it, about ten minutes in I would be wondering if this guy had anything to do with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake.

I guess I could go with a few positives... I thought Jared Padalecki did just fine. I felt sympathy for him and his sister (who I actually would've rather seen dead than "held hostage.") The black guy in the film was slightly-not-stereotyped and that was nice. I didn't mind him either. Jason being fast and brutal was cool. It's good to not see a zombie Jason getting hacked up and shot and stabbed and then still walking. Some of the deaths were kind cool... The aforementioned dude in the bear trap got a pretty sick little moment.

And did any one else hate that closing line? "JASON... SAY HI TO MOMMY...IN HELL!" I literally groaned out loud.

Spitfire
02-23-2009, 06:03 PM
I really liked this remake.

I thought that everything they added (new) enhanced Jason's character.

8/10 :glasses:

zombi3
02-23-2009, 09:45 PM
And did any one else hate that closing line? "JASON... SAY HI TO MOMMY...IN HELL!" I literally groaned out loud.

Agreed 100%!

maskull
02-23-2009, 10:54 PM
I liked the kills. I liked Jason. I liked the nudity (well the fake boobs were ugh! but the rest was cool). I hated the whole storyline with the sister/mother/captive. The other thing that really bugged me for some reason was when Jason turned on the spotlights to search and the wire across the path with the bells...made Jason seem more like a hunter than....Jason. But fuck I really hated the captive sister angle. Every time she was on screen I was rolling my eyes in disgust. Take that out and just have a straight up hack n slash and it would've been a decent F13 movie. Not the best but decent.

I didn't hate it and I'll prob buy the DVD (which another version...hopefully better), but it took some real potential and tossed it out the window because they felt they needed to have someone tied up to make it scary.

maybrick
02-23-2009, 11:43 PM
I agree about not really liking the kidnapping angle, but at least it makes sense. If Jason confused a woman with his mother it seems like a logical thing for him to do.

Spit
02-23-2009, 11:43 PM
(well the fake boobs were ugh! but the rest was cool)..

I thought most of the boobs in the movie were real, who's do u think were fake? I have my doubts about the water skiing chick...but the ones on the girl with 'perfect nipple placement' looked all natural to me.

maskull
02-24-2009, 12:43 AM
I agree about not really liking the kidnapping angle, but at least it makes sense. If Jason confused a woman with his mother it seems like a logical thing for him to do.
Oh I agree it made a certain amount of sense (though why is he chaining up his mom?). I just found the movie ground to a halt every time there was a scene dealing with that angle of the story and quite honestly it didn't really matter to the "plot" of the movie. Maybe if they'd expanded it rather than occasionally showing her chained up and a lame bit at the end...then it might have been a worthwhile addition to the story. This just seemed like a half-assed attempt to draw a parallel to the original movies.

Yet another movie featuring a woman chained up in some dingy room with "scary" crap on the walls? Wow, how terrifying(ly cliched).

I thought most of the boobs in the movie were real, who's do u think were fake? I have my doubts about the water skiing chick...but the ones on the girl with 'perfect nipple placement' looked all natural to me.

The first girl (with the party looking for the weed) looked totally fake and there was another, maybe the blond, I don't remember, but I remember that there were at least a couple that looked so phony.

NaturesMistake
02-24-2009, 01:36 AM
Ok... I just saw it, and I really enjoyed it.

People hated the music. I loved it. It had a Carpenteresque quality. I love the original scores too, but this wasn't a terrible listen by a long shot (plus it had the original "ki,ki,ki,ma,ma,ma").

People didn't like the kills. I thought they WERE a little tame compared to the films 80's counterparts, but there were some really good ones.

The sleeping bag roast (ala. Rituals)

The dock kill+ boat kill

cop kill

Tow truck kill etc.

Jason is much more like he was in 2 and 3. He is smart, runs, and loves his mommy. The kidnapping thing WAS plausible. Remember the end of part 2? He was tricked into thinking the heroine was his mom and that happened towards the end. Who says he wouldn't keep her? It made sense to me.

The film could have had a few more homages to the original four (and I say four because the sister brother thing was ripped right from final chapter), however, certain set pieces do have vibes of the sequels. The cabin felt like the one in three and Jason had his potato sack etc.

The film also has elements of other backwoods slashers, namely Rituals.
I know the kill was redone, but Jason now has characteristics of that crazy vet.

The ending was stupid with Jason coming up with his mask back on, but at the same time, that was cool too.

The only thing that was really far fetched was the underground thing, but with suspension of disbelief, it was a cool idea.

I enjoyed it and it felt like a Friday, especially with such a beautiful location.

I know this is a half assed review, but I'm kind of busy. I just wanted to get my thoughts out while they were still fresh. Maybe I'll elaborate more on the film later.

Grim
02-24-2009, 01:56 AM
The ending was stupid with Jason coming up with his mask back on, but at the same time, that was cool too.


This didn't bother me at all. In fact, I thought it was in line with the usual implausible last minute jump endings of the first three. Campy and absurd, just the way I like my Jason.

NaturesMistake
02-24-2009, 05:04 AM
I loved the jump, but I wanted him to be without the mask.

DrHerbertWest
02-24-2009, 05:23 AM
I actually thought the music wasn't bad. That was another one of the (few) positives for me. The chase scene through the woods in the beginning definitely reminded me of something John Carpenter might do and I liked it.

thrashard76
02-24-2009, 10:53 AM
Good. A successful relaunch.

dapigg
02-24-2009, 03:32 PM
I used my $5 off movie money from the His Name Was Jason DVD and saw this on Friday the 13th. It was fun but nowhere as mean and nasty as the TCM remakes or the Rob Zombie Halloween remake. Funny thing is I still find watching the trailer on TV to be more frightening than the movie itself.

spawningblue
02-24-2009, 05:16 PM
I used my $5 off movie money from the His Name Was Jason DVD and saw this on Friday the 13th. It was fun but nowhere as mean and nasty as the TCM remakes or the Rob Zombie Halloween remake. Funny thing is I still find watching the trailer on TV to be more frightening than the movie itself.

Well they said from the beginning that this wasn't going to be a nasty and disturbing movie like the Texas Chainsaw remakes. They set out to make a really fun slasher movie, and in that I think they succeeded. I actually have been dying to see this again, but I think I'll just wait until it hits DVD/ Blu Ray as there are lots of other movies coming out that I want to see. That and the wait will make me want to see it that much more again.

Oh, and I'm glad to see most on here can still enjoy a good slasher film! Can't believe how many people are analyzing this like it's Citizen Kane.

Matt89
02-24-2009, 06:13 PM
Oh, and I'm glad to see most on here can still enjoy a good slasher film! Can't believe how many people are analyzing this like it's Citizen Kane.

But that's the thing. It really wasn't just a good slasher film, it was mediocre at best and I'm starting to think that the only reason people seemed to like it is because it had Jason in it. I mean sure it's better than parts 8, 9 and 10, but that still isn't saying much. I don't see how it was so much "fun". I was bored to death, actually wanted it to end. I kept looking at my watch. I enjoyed The Strangers and The Descent MUCH more. (Hell, I even liked the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake more than this.) People just didn't like it. Some people did, some people didn't. It wasn't a very good movie, though. Even for a slasher.

LOL Citizen Kane...

~Matt

spawningblue
02-24-2009, 07:30 PM
But that's the thing. It really wasn't just a good slasher film, it was mediocre at best and I'm starting to think that the only reason people seemed to like it is because it had Jason in it. I mean sure it's better than parts 8, 9 and 10, but that still isn't saying much. I don't see how it was so much "fun". I was bored to death, actually wanted it to end. I kept looking at my watch. I enjoyed The Strangers and The Descent MUCH more. (Hell, I even liked the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake more than this.) People just didn't like it. Some people did, some people didn't. It wasn't a very good movie, though. Even for a slasher.

LOL Citizen Kane...

~Matt

Yeah but how many slasher films are actually GOOD films? How many Friday films are actually GOOD films? A lot of them are enjoyable, but I wouldn't consider them GOOD films. This remake was just the same. And I'm sorry you were bored, but I wasn't at all. I liked all the characters and thought they were funny thanks to the hilarious and realistic dialog. Trust me, people like that do exist. The black guy reminded me so much of one of my good friends. The characters were good enough that it could have worked as a teen sex flick if they wanted to go that route. The kills, although they could have been more creative were all pretty good. But most importantly it had a nice steady pace which kept me entertained throughout and never stopping to look at my watch. it's a Friday movie dammit, what more do you want!?

And exactly it is far from Citizen Kane, shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath, but it seems like a lot of people on here are analyzing it as such. If people went back and analyzed the franchise like they are with this film I'm sure there would be so much to complain about as well. Like Grim mentioned, look at part 2 , Jason (Which doesn't even make sense considering he was a child months ago) comes to the city and kills the Alice in her house. Like are you kidding me!? Part 7 stars Carrie who beats him up by making lamps fly at him! Part 8 he goes to Manhattan for gods sake and walks through the downtown streets! The list could go on and on, and yet people complain because he has lights!?

It's obvious you can't please everyone and their nostalgia, but like I mentioned before, I'm glad some people can look past that and enjoy it for what it was, yes, a good slasher film. There is no way you can go watch all the cheesy 80s slashers and say this is any worse unless you are letting your nostalgia come into play. I'm betting people that haven't seen too many slasher films would agree. Actually my girlfriend is a good example of this, she hasn't seen that many slasher films, and enjoyed it for what it was, and thought it was no better or worse then the rest of them.

Matt89
02-24-2009, 09:09 PM
And exactly it is far from Citizen Kane, shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath, but it seems like a lot of people on here are analyzing it as such. If people went back and analyzed the franchise like they are with this film I'm sure there would be so much to complain about as well. Like Grim mentioned, look at part 2 , Jason (Which doesn't even make sense considering he was a child months ago) comes to the city and kills the Alice in her house. Like are you kidding me!?

Well, no Jason wasn't just a kid a few months before part 2. Jason was a kid in 1958. Friday the 13th takes place over 20 years later, so Jason was definitely an adult by the time Friday the 13th came along, we were all just under the impression that he was dead. Him tracking Alice down is completely realistic. Maybe he followed her? We don't know where she lives, and by the looks of it, it looks as if she lives somewhere close to Crystal Lake. It's not as far out of left field as the whole hostage thing in the remake, which tries to be so much more than it actually is. Friday the 13th was simple, Friday the 13th the remake was simple, but STRIVED to be more complex, and failed horribly. The only thing I found really unrealistic about Part 2 is what did Jason live off of when he lived in the woods?

The remake was stupid. Like, all these murders happen and all the townsfolk know about the murders, but nobody does anything about it? They searched for the kids bodies but never noticed that big fuckin house in the middle of the campgrounds at Camp Crystal Lake?? WTF? Sure the original Friday movies were cheesy, but they were meant to be that way. This was a movie with a stupid concept that TRIED to be serious. I don't know how people don't see this as an almost direct clone of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. It has IDENTICAL cinematography, exact same production values. Sure Texas Chainsaw was more gritty in CONTENT, but not in TONE. These two films had the exact same tone and this movie took itself WAY too seriously for a Friday the 13th movie.

Part 7 stars Carrie who beats him up by making lamps fly at him! Part 8 he goes to Manhattan for gods sake and walks through the downtown streets! The list could go on and on, and yet people complain because he has lights!?

Friday the 13th Parts 7 and 8 are fucking crap. They've always been crappy and stupid, even for Friday the 13th movies. Every Friday movie made after part 6 has been stupid as shit. Totally out of left field. But even so, these films still didn't take themselves as seriously as the remake took itself. There's a certain amout of dark humor to almost every Friday movie that wasn't present in the remake. It has absolutely nothing to do with nostalgia.

~Matt

NaturesMistake
02-24-2009, 09:44 PM
The Texas Re-make gets a bad rap, but it was enjoyable in its own right. Descent was also decent, but LOL at the Strangers!

:lol:

Matt89
02-24-2009, 10:00 PM
The Texas Re-make gets a bad rap, but it was enjoyable in its own right. Descent was also decent, but LOL at the Strangers!

:lol:

What's so funny about The Strangers?

~Matt

maybrick
02-24-2009, 10:41 PM
I really hate to dissect your post this way, Matt, BUT...... :p


The remake was stupid. Like, all these murders happen and all the townsfolk know about the murders, but nobody does anything about it?

All of the townsfolk didn't know about the murders, only that crazy lady, who was merely an updating of the Ralph character from the original. She obviously knew about Jason (or thought she did) but everybody else treated him as a ghost story.


They searched for the kids bodies but never noticed that big fuckin house in the middle of the campgrounds at Camp Crystal Lake?? WTF?

They probably searched the camp and noticed the house, but just didn't think to check underneath it. Jason has lived in the woods undetected for 28 years so he's likely smart enough to know when to cover his tracks and to clean up after his kills.

Sure the original Friday movies were cheesy, but they were meant to be that way.

Again, gotta disagree with you,here. The original movies are cheesy because they're now considered dated. Back in the day they were meant to be completely serious and scary.

This was a movie with a stupid concept that TRIED to be serious. I don't know how people don't see this as an almost direct clone of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. It has IDENTICAL cinematography, exact same production values. Sure Texas Chainsaw was more gritty in CONTENT, but not in TONE. These two films had the exact same tone and this movie took itself WAY too seriously for a Friday the 13th movie.

You saw a different film than I did. There's a lot of humor to be found in this "remake": a lot more than I could find any of Parts 1, 2 and 4. It's simply the first FRIDAY in nearly 25 years that didn't have goofy over the top kills like punching people's head off or breaking a bed and sandwiching them in half. Really, Matt. When it comes out on DVD, please watch it again. You may still end up not liking the movie, but I swear you're dead wrong about there being a lack of humor!

Oh, and btw: I HATED the TCM remake. Hated? That actually isn't a strong enough word for how I feel about it!

spawningblue
02-24-2009, 10:42 PM
Well, no Jason wasn't just a kid a few months before part 2. Jason was a kid in 1958. Friday the 13th takes place over 20 years later, so Jason was definitely an adult by the time Friday the 13th came along, we were all just under the impression that he was dead. Him tracking Alice down is completely realistic. Maybe he followed her? We don't know where she lives, and by the looks of it, it looks as if she lives somewhere close to Crystal Lake. It's not as far out of left field as the whole hostage thing in the remake, which tries to be so much more than it actually is. Friday the 13th was simple, Friday the 13th the remake was simple, but STRIVED to be more complex, and failed horribly. The only thing I found really unrealistic about Part 2 is what did Jason live off of when he lived in the woods?

The remake was stupid. Like, all these murders happen and all the townsfolk know about the murders, but nobody does anything about it? They searched for the kids bodies but never noticed that big fuckin house in the middle of the campgrounds at Camp Crystal Lake?? WTF? Sure the original Friday movies were cheesy, but they were meant to be that way. This was a movie with a stupid concept that TRIED to be serious. I don't know how people don't see this as an almost direct clone of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. It has IDENTICAL cinematography, exact same production values. Sure Texas Chainsaw was more gritty in CONTENT, but not in TONE. These two films had the exact same tone and this movie took itself WAY too seriously for a Friday the 13th movie.

~Matt

Yeah but at teh ending of part 1 he is a boy when he pulls her in the water.

I don;t think it was meant to be taken as serious as you assume it was. It sounds like from the beginning they just set out to make a fun movie, at least that was the impression I got from a lot of the early interviews. They didn't want this movie to be taken seriously at all, just a faun t and a flick with some good kills.

There no thing showing the whole town knows about the murders other then the crazy old lady, which was just a crazy old lady like the crazy old dude from the beginning of part 1.

spawningblue
02-24-2009, 10:45 PM
You saw a different film than I did. There's a lot of humor to be found in this "remake": a lot more than I could find any of Parts 1, 2 and 4. It's simply the first FRIDAY in nearly 25 years that didn't have goofy over the top kills like punching people's head off or breaking a bed and sandwiching them in half. Really, Matt. When it comes out on DVD, please watch in again. You may still end up not liking the movie, but you're dead wrong about there being a lack of humor!

Not to gang up here, but I agree 100% with this statement. It seems like a lot of people got the humour in the film, and got the tone they were going for, others seem to think they were going for a serious disturbing horror movie which I just don't see. From the beginning I thought the makers of the movie said it would be nothing like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and instead would be a fun slasher.

Matt89
02-24-2009, 10:49 PM
I really hate to dissect your post this way, Matt, BUT...... :p



All of the townsfolk didn't know about the murders, only that crazy lady, who was merely an updating of the Ralph character from the original. She obviously knew about Jason (or thought she did) but everybody else treated him as a ghost story.



They probably searched the camp and noticed the house, but just didn't think to check underneath it. Jason has lived in the woods undetected for 28 years so he's likely smart enough to know when to cover his tracks and to clean up after his kills.



Again, gotta disagree with you,here. The original movies are cheesy because they're now considered dated. Back in the day they were meant to be completely serious and scary.



You saw a different film than I did. There's a lot of humor to be found in this "remake": a lot more than I could find any of Parts 1, 2 and 4. It's simply the first FRIDAY in nearly 25 years that didn't have goofy over the top kills like punching people's head off or breaking a bed and sandwiching them in half. Really, Matt. When it comes out on DVD, please watch in again. You may still end up not liking the movie, but you're dead wrong about there being a lack of humor!

Well I gotta respectfully disagree with some of what you said, but I'm definitely willing, and plan to give it another go when it comes out on DVD. Other than some of the characters themselves - yes I also know people who act like them - I didn't see the humor in this. (Maybe I missed it? Maybe it's just not there? Maybe people are interpreting something that's not there? Who knows?) But in terms of the humor in the old ones, yeah I guess it was more prevalent from parts 5 onward. (Part 3 was goofy too, but I believe that was intentional, the whole 3-D thing.) And yeah I'd agree that the originals seem goofy because they've dated, but I still don't think they were made with much serious thought. I mean, they were ALL made to make money. The producer (I believe it was Victor Miller who said it) said that Cunningham came up to him and said, "Well Halloween is making a lot of money - let's rip it off." I think the fact that they've aged has ADDED to them being cheesy, but other than a few jump moments, I don't see how they're completely serious films. Not as serious as the remake, I think anyways. Either way, it always comes down to two things: Denotation and connotation.

Although it is interesting to see how differently people interpreted this film.

~Matt

Matt89
02-24-2009, 10:52 PM
Yeah but at teh ending of part 1 he is a boy when he pulls her in the water.

Yeah but the ending of part 1 was a dream. You can't make any sort of rational judgment from a dream sequence.

~Matt

spawningblue
02-24-2009, 10:53 PM
The Texas Re-make gets a bad rap, but it was enjoyable in its own right. Descent was also decent, but LOL at the Strangers!

:lol:

Yeah apparently I am one of the few who too enjoyed the Texas remake as well. Don't understand the hate for it, as it is a well made tension filled disturbing horror movie, even more then the original. Mind you, I like the original better, but I think the remake has more tension and is the more frightening experience. Maybe it gets a lot of hate just because people didn't want to see it made in the first place. Oh, and the cinematography was quite good in it as well.

Descent was also incredible! One of my favourite horror films to come out in the last ten years. There were a few moments, like the first reveal of the monster, that actually made me jump!

As for The Strangers...

What's so funny about The Strangers?

~Matt

I agree with Matt, I thought it was amazing. One of the best directed horror movies in a while in my opinion. Didn't revert to a lot of quick cuts, almost felt like a modern day John Carpernter film, especially with that scene wear the masked man is in the kitchen. The first half scared the shit out of me when I first saw it in theaters. I'm a 25 year old horror fan, that doesn't happen to me very often! I do think the cat and mouse went on for a little long/ was a little repetitive, but other then that, great film. the acting was really good, and the ending, that is one of the biggest things people complained about I thought fit perfectly, and made the rest of the film that much more creepy.

spawningblue
02-24-2009, 10:57 PM
Yeah but the ending of part 1 was a dream. You can't make any sort of rational judgment from a dream sequence.

~Matt

I always thought that was one of those interpret it how you want moments. I always thought that it did happen. Kind of weird that she would dream Jason attacking her, and then a few months later an adult Jason actually does attack her. I thought in one of the interviews Cunningham stated that it did happen, and that him being an adult in part 2 was just one of the things that doesn't make sense with the franchise.

Matt89
02-24-2009, 10:58 PM
I agree with Matt, I thought it was amazing. One of the best directed horror movies in a while in my opinion. Didn't revert to a lot of quick cuts, almost felt like a modern day John Carpernter film, especially with that scene wear the masked man is in the kitchen.. The first half scared the shit out of me when i first saw it in theaters. I'm 25 horror movie fan, that doesn't happen to me very often! I do think the cat and mouse went on for a little long/ was a little repetitive, but other then that, great film. the acting was really good, and the ending, that is one of the biggest things people complained about I thought fit perfectly, and made the rest of the film that much more creepy.

Definitely. I can actually say I found this movie terrifying. It just very well represents something that could actually happen, and HAS actually happened. Bryan Bertino really knows how to build suspense. Such a great film.

~Matt

maybrick
02-24-2009, 11:00 PM
Yeah apparently I am one of the few who too enjoyed the Texas remake as well. Don't understand the hate for it, as it is a well made tension filled disturbing horror movie, even more then the original. Mind you, I like the original better, but I think the remake has more tension and is the more frightening experience. Maybe it gets a lot of hate just because people didn't want to see it made in the first place. Oh, and the cinematography was quite good in it as well.

The cinematography was shit! There were a few good shots that were lifted from the original, but otherwise it was almost nothing but fast editing and shaky cam from what I recall. Whoop-de-doo! That doesn't make me tense or frightened, it gives me a freaking headache. And the worst crime of them all is putting far too much emphasis on Leatherface and turning TCM into little more than a run of the mill slasher film.

spawningblue
02-24-2009, 11:04 PM
The cinematography was shit! There were a few good shots that were lifted from the original, but otherwise it was almost nothing but fast editing and shaky cam from what I recall. Whoop-de-doo! That doesn't make me tense or frightened, it gives me a freaking headache. And the worst crime of them all is putting far too much emphasis on Leatherface and turning TCM into little more than a run of the mill slasher film.

Well I don't know what to tell you, it worked for me. I think the original is a lot more fun, but I think the remake is a lot more messed up and disturbing. And for the record, quick editing doesn't seem to bother me like it does a lot of people on this board. Mind you, I would rather have a really talented Director who doesn't need to resort to quick cuts, but it doesn't make me hate a movie like it does many on here. Although I will admit in transformers it bothered me quite a bit as I had no clue what was going on during the big city destroying action scenes, but with Texas and other newer horror movies like The Descent, it didn't really bother me at all. Again, to each their own i guess.

Matt89
02-24-2009, 11:06 PM
I always thought that was one of those interpret it how you want moments. I always thought that it did happen. Kind of weird that she would dream Jason attacking her, and then a few months later an adult Jason actually does attack her. I thought in one of the interviews Cunningham stated that it did happen, and that him being an adult in part 2 was just one of the things that doesn't make sense with the franchise.

But this is one of those weird situations where you can interpret it one way, but then are forced into interpreting it another way. If the sequels didn't exist, then yes I'd be in total agreement here. But because Part 2 changes the story, you're forced into believing it didn't happen because it doesn't really fit within the realms of the narrative. If Jason disappeared in 1958, then from 1958-1979 he would've aged 21 years, thus him being a child is impossible...unless he's Banjamin Button. However, through Part 2 we find out that he was "thought" to have drowned - we're forced to believe this through the existence of Part 2 - and that he's actually been living in the woods this whole time. Well, because of this twist in the narrative, that HAD to have been a dream. If you look at part 1 by itself, sure you can interpret it any way you want, but with the inclusion of the sequels, you are forced into disbelieving what happened on the lake.

~Matt

spawningblue
02-24-2009, 11:12 PM
But this is one of those weird situations where you can interpret it one way, but then are forced into interpreting it another way. If the sequels didn't exist, then yes I'd be in total agreement here. But because Part 2 changes the story, you're forced into believing it didn't happen because it doesn't really fit within the realms of the narrative. If Jason disappeared in 1958, then from 1958-1979 he would've aged 21 years, thus him being a child is impossible...unless he's Banjamin Button. However, through Part 2 we find out that he was "thought" to have drowned - we're forced to believe this through the existence of Part 2 - and that he's actually been living in the woods this whole time. Well, because of this twist in the narrative, that HAD to have been a dream. If you look at part 1 by itself, sure you can interpret it any way you want, but with the inclusion of the sequels, you are forced into disbelieving what happened on the lake.

~Matt

Again though, that's just one of the problems with the franchise. I thought that has been mentioned many times that the continuity in Friday doesn't make sense, with the ending to part 1 being a great example. Then there's the ending to part 5. And then the ending to part 8, where they completely ignore it for part 9. And Freddy vs. Jason completely ignores part 10, ect. But I'm pretty sure Cunningham stated, and again I could be wrong, but I thought he said that the ending to part 1 wasn't mean tot be a dream. But then they wanted to have him as the killer for part 2, so they jsut ignored the ending to part 1 as if it never happened, or just pretended it to be a dream.

maybrick
02-24-2009, 11:12 PM
But this is one of those weird situations where you can interpret it one way, but then are forced into interpreting it another way. If the sequels didn't exist, then yes I'd be in total agreement here. But because Part 2 changes the story, you're forced into believing it didn't happen because it doesn't really fit within the realms of the narrative. If Jason disappeared in 1958, then from 1958-1979 he would've aged 21 years, thus him being a child is impossible...unless he's Banjamin Button. However, through Part 2 we find out that he was "thought" to have drowned - we're forced to believe this through the existence of Part 2 - and that he's actually been living in the woods this whole time. Well, because of this twist in the narrative, that HAD to have been a dream. If you look at part 1 by itself, sure you can interpret it any way you want, but with the inclusion of the sequels, you are forced into disbelieving what happened on the lake.

~Matt

You forget one other scenario: The real Jason died in 1958. What we DIDN'T know was that he had a TWIN!!!!!!

My God, how many times can this series jump the shark? :lol:

spawningblue
02-24-2009, 11:15 PM
You forget one other scenario: The real Jason died in 1958. What we DIDN'T know was that he had a TWIN!!!!!!

My God, how many times can this series jump the shark? :lol:

Exactly my point, if everyone is going to complain about the problems in the remake, well they should go back and watch the original movies, as there are so many continuity errors it's not even funny!

Matt89
02-24-2009, 11:17 PM
Well i don;t know what to tell you, it worked for me. I think the original is a lot more fun, but I think the remake is a lot more messed up and disturbing.

Really? The remake is made hard to believe because The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was made into Hollywood junk. The original has that heightened realism very rarely paralleled in the horror genre, simply because of the way it was filmed. The long takes, the low-budget aspect to it. The remake was far too glossy. I wouldn't consider the original as much a "fun" movie as it is interesting. For me, the remake is nowhere NEAR as disturbing as the original. Never was, never will be. We recently screened this in my horror film class and the scene where Pam gets it on the meathook caused a good 2/3 of the class to gasp. The girl beside me looked like she was about to throw up. The remake is nauseating in the way that it's edited and IMO, completely takes away the realism the first one had. Thus, making it far less disturbing because you're made AWARE that you're watching a movie.

~Matt

maybrick
02-24-2009, 11:19 PM
Exactly my point, if everyone is going to complain about the problems in the remake, well they should go back and watch the original movies, as there are so many continuity errors it's not even funny!

And yet see how neatly they could be tied up if you accept the premise that he had a twin! :)

Matt89
02-24-2009, 11:25 PM
And yet see how neatly they could be tied up if you accept the premise that he had a twin! :)

But dude, that would be TOTALLY OUT OF LEFT FIELD!! :lol: :lol:

~Matt

maybrick
02-24-2009, 11:31 PM
But dude, that would be TOTALLY OUT OF LEFT FIELD!! :lol: :lol:

~Matt

But not really. See, you know how whenever somebody yells "JASON" he stops in his track and cocks his head? Everybody has always assumed up until now that he was responding to his name, but that's only because he doesn't talk. Really what he's thinking is "Dude! Why the fuck do people keep calling me by my brother's name? I'm SPANKY, dammit!"

Matt89
02-24-2009, 11:38 PM
But not really. See, you know how whenever somebody yells "JASON" he stops in his track and cocks his head? Everybody has always assumed up until now that he was responding to his name, but that's only because he doesn't talk. Really what he's thinking is "Dude! Why the fuck do people keep calling me by my brother's name? I'm SPANKY, dammit!"

"Did you know that a young boy drowned, the year before those two others were killed? The counselors weren't paying any attention, THEY were making LOVE while that young boy drowned! ....His name was Spanky. I was working the day that it happened, preparing meals...here. I was the cook. Spanky should've been WATCHED! Every minute! He was - he wasn't a very good swimmer."

"You see? Spanky was my son...and today is his birthday."

:D

~Matt

maybrick
02-24-2009, 11:42 PM
No, no.... Spanky was the twin that was too RETARDED for camp, so he stayed at home with his father in the city, that's how he became streetwise enough to find Alice at the beginning of Part 2.

Which begs the question: who was Jason's dad? My money is on Crazy Ralph.

Matt89
02-24-2009, 11:45 PM
No, no.... Spanky was the twin that was too RETARDED for camp, so he stayed at home with his father in the city, that's how he became streetwise enough to find Alice at the beginning of Part 2.

Which begs the question: who was Jason's dad? My money is on Crazy Ralph.

Well, maybe Jason stayed with dad and he's out to avenge his mother's and brother's deaths?

But really, the big question has not yet been answered: What was Mrs. Voorhees ON when she was pregnant with Jason/Spanky? That's one thing I wanna know.

~Matt

maybrick
02-24-2009, 11:49 PM
Well, maybe Jason stayed with dad and he's out to avenge his mother's and brother's deaths?

But really, the big question has not yet been answered: What was Mrs. Voorhees ON when she was pregnant with Jason/Spanky? That's one thing I wanna know.

~Matt

What was she on? Mr. Voorhees' dick.

Matt89
02-25-2009, 12:18 AM
What was she on? Mr. Voorhees' dick.

That's some fuckin' toxic sperm then, Jesus Christ. :sperm: :nervous:

~Matt

maybrick
02-25-2009, 12:34 AM
That's some fuckin' toxic sperm then, Jesus Christ. :sperm: :nervous:

~Matt


http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsG/6794-6832.gif

Need I say more?

Matt89
02-25-2009, 12:42 AM
Hmmmm...Crazy Ralph eh?

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/images/RalphWiggum3.gif

Too retarded for camp?

~Matt

boycrieswolf
02-26-2009, 12:43 AM
it thought it sucked ass...sorry, but it's true. I'd elaborate but Matt89 pretty much already summed it all up...fucking joke of a film......

dolemite
02-26-2009, 02:55 PM
A guy was talking to tried to justify his liking of this movie with how much money it has made.
I told him Hitler was pretty popular in Germany for awhile, doesn't make him less of an asshole.
I know a lot of us prob take this shit too seriously, but when you love something you get protective of it.
I mean, if they remade the Star Wars movies and after Darth Vader tells Luke he is his father then goes, "Nah, I'm just fuckin' with ya." you'd have geek suicide bombers.
We just wanna bitch for awhile.
At least until the NOES remake.

maybrick
02-26-2009, 03:31 PM
I rewatched the first two Fridays this week and I hate to say it, but they're REALLY fucking boring! No matter how much I try, I fall asleep by the ending. This wasn't the first time that has happened to me either as it has happened EVERY time I've tried to watch them for the last 5 years. Maybe I've seen them too many times in my life.

DVD-fanatic-9
03-02-2009, 10:12 PM
WORD.

~Matt
Of course... It's not like everyone didn't know beforehand that this movie was going to be shit. Marcus Nispel directed it. I already said several months before that the guy can't direct a film to save his life. And, again: Platinum Dunes. "Here we are again." 6 years ago, we had the Texas Chainsaw Massacre disaster. I almost feel like people weren't paying attention. You can't divorce the filmmaker from the film. Nispel needs to go back to directing No Doubt videos and stay out of horror. Not that, of course, he ever really stood out from the pool of dipshits that are called "directors" in the horror genre today.

spawningblue
03-02-2009, 10:52 PM
Of course... It's not like everyone didn't know beforehand that this movie was going to be shit. Marcus Nispel directed it. I already said several months before that the guy can't direct a film to save his life. And, again: Platinum Dunes. "Here we are again." 6 years ago, we had the Texas Chainsaw Massacre disaster. I almost feel like people weren't paying attention. You can't divorce the filmmaker from the film. Nispel needs to go back to directing No Doubt videos and stay out of horror. Not that, of course, he ever really stood out from the pool of dipshits that are called "directors" in the horror genre today.

:lol: It's funny, because the last 5 threads I have looked at have been you complaining about some film and how you hate it. Holy negativity Batman!

Angelman
03-02-2009, 10:57 PM
I rewatched the first two Fridays this week and I hate to say it, but they're REALLY fucking boring! No matter how much I try, I fall asleep by the ending. This wasn't the first time that has happened to me either as it has happened EVERY time I've tried to watch them for the last 5 years. Maybe I've seen them too many times in my life.


It's sad - had my nephew watch the first one for the first time over Christmas and at the end he was like, "that's it?"

I'll skip to part 4 next. Give the kid what he wants.

DVD-fanatic-9
03-04-2009, 09:05 PM
It's sad - had my nephew watch the first one for the first time over Christmas and at the end he was like, "that's it?"
And that's what horror is about today, slowly dismantling everything that was great (or even remotely entertaining) about horror from decades prior.



I'll skip to part 4 next. Give the kid what he wants.
Eh, it's worth a shot. Something tells me though that I wouldn't be able to be in the same room as this kid without strangling him to death.



:lol: It's funny, because the last 5 threads I have looked at have been you complaining about some film and how you hate it. Holy negativity Batman!
If you're this fascinated with my life - you must really be bored with yours.

Also, the hopping-purple smiley is reeeeeally played out.

spawningblue
03-04-2009, 09:19 PM
Something tells me though that I wouldn't be able to be in the same room as this kid without strangling him to death.

I'm sure the feeling would be mutual.

If you're this fascinated with my life - you must really be bored with yours.

Also, the hopping-purple smiley is reeeeeally played out.

I'm not fascinated with your life, me like everyone else on here just like to read up on horror movies and find out what's good or not, instead every thread consists of you bitching about how you hate this and that. We get it, you don't like current horror films or remakes (Even though it sounds like you haven't seen half of them you bitch about), doesn't mean you need to come into every thread and say the same thing over and over again. Actually, for that matter, it doesn't sound like you like much in the way of horror films, except crap like Deadly Friend and Arachnophobia, that you then have the nerve to say we are idiots if we don't feel the same as you. Either way I'm not going to waste time arguing with you, as it's rather silly to have a computer fight haha, but it seems to me like you have some personal issues that you need to resolve instead of coming on here every 10 mins. to release your anger.

Oh, and no one cares about your thoughts on the hopping smiley face, look you even have to insult him with your negativity!

maybrick
03-04-2009, 10:43 PM
And that's what horror is about today, slowly dismantling everything that was great (or even remotely entertaining) about horror from decades prior.


If that's true for today then it was also true 20 years ago (and 20 years before that, and 20 years before that). There's absolutely nothing "new" about people shitting upon something simply for being old.

Bobbywoodhogan
03-04-2009, 10:55 PM
End of the day if someone else doesnt like it I could care less, I loved it and I am looking forward to the sequel.

It just seems that on here people just hate remakes for the sakes of it whether they're good or not, pretty sad really.

Angelman
03-04-2009, 11:00 PM
Eh, it's worth a shot. Something tells me though that I wouldn't be able to be in the same room as this kid without strangling him to death.

Was that really necessary? Saying you'd want to strangle my nephew just because a 30 year old movie didn't do it for him?

Dude, I've been a defender of yours but that is kind of a really wierd thing to say and kind of offensive to me.

I think I am going to hang out in threads a little less intense.

DVD-fanatic-9
03-06-2009, 11:29 PM
Oh, and no one cares about your thoughts on the hopping smiley face
That's immaterial. It's played-out. That's a fact. Start a MySpace Fan Club for it if you need to make-love with it so badly.



look you even have to insult him with your negativity!
I'm really worried about offending an animated-GIF file image.



Was that really necessary? Saying you'd want to strangle my nephew just because a 30 year old movie didn't do it for him?

Dude, I've been a defender of yours but that is kind of a really wierd thing to say and kind of offensive to me.
I'm a slave to honestly. Clearly, I shouldn't have said that if it bothered you so much. But honestly- I'm not sorry I did. So, long as we can both cope somehow with this turn of events... I think we'll survive.


Somehow

...someway.

maybrick
03-06-2009, 11:44 PM
"Honesty" doesn't entail having to blurt out every single half-formed thought you make. Why don't you try to have a little respect for others for once. That's all that anybody here is asking of you.

DVD-fanatic-9
03-07-2009, 12:12 AM
PREPARE FOR MAJOR OFF-TOPIC-NESS!



If that's true for today then it was also true 20 years ago (and 20 years before that, and 20 years before that). There's absolutely nothing "new" about people shitting upon something simply for being old.
Excellent Point, MB. And made so well, I can't argue with it. :D

I'll just say, we know the difference between the 80's and the 50's, 40's, 30's. That difference did not inhibit the 80's from producing several amazing horror films. Outright masterpieces. Several. The difference between the 80's and this decade is much more apparent to me. I've been paying attention. I can't say that anyone else is. At all.

I think, in fact, You All had my current reaction to this decade, 10-15 years ago: to the 1990's. I was a kid then. I was just learning what horror was. I was freshly getting it all into my system and it all kind of mixed together. Never did I have the attitude with which you guys approached the 90's ever while I was watching the horror of the 90's. I had as much respect for the previous decades as I had to the 90's. And even if I saw a movie that didn't impress me - I treated it with respect. I wasn't some snot-nosed fucking punk that talked shit about Halloween, Dawn of the Dead, The Hills Have Eyes, The Exorcist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and so on, just because I didn't love them immediately. I know that my tastes, and most other people's, are very fine and not always inclusive of everything I see that gets hyped or whatever. (However, when dealing with Ghost Horror - disregard that statement. I have a consistent and outright bias against 99% of all ghost horror films)

Obviously, this isn't just about Some Guy's Nephew anymore. This is about all the fucking little punks who are being raised on remakes right now. And the whole style-LESS style (Technique is more appropriate) of today's horror. All conformist. All looks and feels the same. How can anyone argue with that. It's the fucking God's Honest Truth. Everyone knows, the filmmakers are afraid to make it look and feel unique. Anyway - I know this leading into the same old routine I go on. But, I hope with this post I can at least set a precedence for anyone who might read it. And anyone who might see that this is a genuine effort to not slam anyone outright. I hope you guys can appreciate that. Because if I get a bunch of fucking prick responses like I got in the whole Cannibal Holocaust thing, whoever does: you know where you can shove it.

Besides - hasn't it occured to anyone that all these films coming out now should do as other horror films have done in the decades prior: build up a following over a long period of time. Seriously- how long did it take something like The Wicker Man or Basket Case or something even more obscure to get to where it is now? Everyone is way too quick to come up with a list of stupid movies for how great horror is doing right now. Nobody even wants to consider the opinions of someone who doesn't agree with them. I think it's for the same reason I don't want to see this shit going on - because we both think it's what's best for the horror genre.



"Honesty" doesn't entail having to blurt out every single half-formed thought you make. Why don't you try to have a little respect for others for once. That's all that anybody here is asking of you.
That was such a respectfully worded and made reply, I'm wondering how you must have responded to the last reply I made to you. I've made a point not to read that thread again - I was so fucking pissed at you the day I made it. I didn't even try to make it thoughtful and re-edit like I do with my replies to Matt. I just wanted you to know in no uncertain terms that I wanted to fucking punch you in the face. You must have felt some of that anger. I'm told I'm not a very subtle person.

Anyway - I had no right to get so stupid about it and if I had more patience, this kind of thing wouldn't have happened that way.

maybrick
03-07-2009, 12:27 AM
I just wanted you to know in no uncertain terms that I wanted to fucking punch you in the face.

I guess then I should feel lucky for just getting a mere punch in the face. If I were a 13 year old kid who didn't much care for Friday the 13th you would've outright killed me. :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: :lol:

spawningblue
03-07-2009, 12:30 AM
I've been paying attention. I can't say that anyone else is. At all.

Here we go again. You're right, we're all wrong. You're so smart and see everything the way it is, we are all blinded by our own stupidity.

I wasn't some snot-nosed fucking punk that talked shit about Halloween, Dawn of the Dead, The Hills Have Eyes, The Exorcist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and so on

You just talk shit about everything else.

Obviously, this isn't just about Some Guy's Nephew anymore. This is about all the fucking little punks who are being raised on remakes right now.

Wow you are ignorant.

And the whole style-LESS style (Technique is more appropriate) of today's horror. All conformist. All looks and feels the same. How can anyone argue with that. It's the fucking God's Honest Truth. Everyone knows, the filmmakers are afraid to make it look and feel unique.

They can argue easily as this is just your opinion, one I'm sure most on here would disagree with.

Anyway - I know this leading into the same old routine I go on. But, I hope with this post I can at least set a precedence for anyone who might read it. And anyone who might see that this is a genuine effort to not slam anyone outright. I hope you guys can appreciate that. Because if I get a bunch of fucking prick responses like I got in the whole Cannibal Holocaust thing, whoever does: you know where you can shove it.

Yes it is the same routine that we are all sick of hearing. You don't like new movies or remakes, blah blah blah... then STAY OUT OF THE THREADS!! As we are all sick of hearing your complaints, and how everyone that does lie these movies is idiots.

Besides - hasn't it occured to anyone that all these films coming out now should do as other horror films have done in the decades prior: build up a following over a long period of time. Seriously- how long did it take something like The Wicker Man or Basket Case or something even more obscure to get to where it is now? Everyone is way too quick to come up with a list of stupid movies for how great horror is doing right now. Nobody even wants to consider the opinions of someone who doesn't agree with them. I think it's for the same reason I don't want to see this shit going on - because we both think it's what's best for the horror genre.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: (I know you love the smileys, so I thought I'd give you a couple extra) Anyways, I think this statement is funny coming from you, considering you are the quickest to shit on everyone's opinions. And what, before we say whether we like a film or not, we should wait 20 years until we are all wearing diapers?

Anyway - I had no right to get so stupid about it and if I had more patience, this kind of thing wouldn't have happened that way.

Well you had no right to want to strangle someone's nephew either but you just don't think before you write something down, hence why most on here find it son hard to get along with you, or have a fair argument with. You love yourself and think your opinions are the only ones that matter. Seems like every thread that you are involved in turns into a shit fest because you don't know when to keep your thoughts to yourself.

Matt89
03-07-2009, 02:33 AM
It's funny, seeing horror movies in my horror film class really brings attention to a few issues:

The first is how badly horror films have aged and modern audiences' reception to them. I mean these are film students here, but still people can't help but laugh at movies like Halloween, Dawn of the Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Suspiria. The ones I've noticed that have held up best were actually Rosemary's Baby, The Shining (several people actually screamed during this one) and Carpenter's The Thing. These movies have aged, and yes while we can appreciate them for what they are you can't help but notice the fact that they have aged. Horror is probably the worst genre when it comes to films having a "dated" look. I'd say about 85% of them don't hold up well.

The second is that because horror films have aged, even the really well-made films lose much of their effect (I hate to say it but, especially a movie like Halloween). There's appreciation, sure because it's important to see where these films are coming from. But how many real "masterpieces" came out in the '80s? I mean, really? I honestly can't even think, off the top of my head, of a single horror film from the 1980s that is widely accepted as being a masterpiece.

And I think screening these films with large audiences really puts things into perspective. Are people really that brainwashed into thinking these movies are so fantastic and still hold up well? They don't. Sure they're good films and appreciated in retrospect, but you can't expect people to react now to them the way they reacted to them in the past. Horror is one of the worst genres when it comes to films aging poorly, and especially horror films from the '80s. (Why is it that a movie from the '30s or '40s still holds up better than a horror film from the '80s?) I mean I love films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween, but the truth is, they really DON'T hold up very well with modern audiences. And the fact of the matter is that horror is SUBJECTIVE. What one person finds scary may not be scary to another person, or what people find scary in a certain era may not hold up well 20+ years later. You can't say, "well I found this scary, so EVERYONE must've." It's a crock.

I myself didn't like the new Friday the 13th mainly because of the storyline, and the fact that it just didn't feel like Friday the 13th. I realize now that maybe that's me just wanting them to be the same. I know they could make it feel like one if they wanted to, but that brings me back to what I stated earlier: How would it have held up? I've done a lot of thinking about this movie and I think at first I was a little too harsh. I mean, I still think the movie sucked, but that's just because I don't like where horror has gone. I have my old horror films, so I'm gonna stick with those. Occasionally you get a great modern horror film like The Descent or The Strangers, but this is horror for a new era. And sure movies keep getting remade, but it's not like it takes away from the original. It's not like they're destroying every copy of the original and forcing you to only have the remake in existence. If you don't like them, don't watch them. I've stopped watching them because they frustrate me too much. So what do I do? I just watch a movie I like.

And Angelman's nephew didn't like Friday the 13th. Jesus, so fucking what? It's a terrible film in almost every respect. I appreciate it for what it is, and I do enjoy it, but I don't expect everyone to like it because here's a bit of a newsflash in case you didn't know: EVERYONE'S DIFFERENT. TIMES HAVE CHANGED, MOVIES AGE.

~Matt

Novosibirsk
03-07-2009, 02:51 AM
I'm really loving this thread. Thanking you.

Grim
03-07-2009, 04:47 AM
The first is how badly horror films have aged and modern audiences' reception to them. I mean these are film students here, but still people can't help but laugh at movies like Halloween, Dawn of the Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Suspiria. The ones I've noticed that have held up best were actually Rosemary's Baby, The Shining (several people actually screamed during this one) and Carpenter's The Thing. These movies have aged, and yes while we can appreciate them for what they are you can't help but notice the fact that they have aged. Horror is probably the worst genre when it comes to films having a "dated" look. I'd say about 85% of them don't hold up well.

Dawn of the Dead is my favorite movie, but yeah I'll readily admit that about 50% of it basically feels like any mid-70's exploitation crime/action/drama flick that just so happens to have zombies, right down to Goblin's horribly dated music during the action sequences (but I still love it and own a copy). I laugh at the film too, which I think was the point. It's funny when it's supposed to be and serious when it's supposed to be.

I think films are product of their times and any director that goes out trying to replicate that style and nine times out of ten fails miserably because it just can't be done with a self-aware mindset. Hell, even Tarantino's films, which are all homages to older films, still feel distinctly modern.

Matt89
03-07-2009, 05:38 AM
I think films are product of their times and any director that goes out trying to replicate that style and nine times out of ten fails miserably because it just can't be done with a self-aware mindset. Hell, even Tarantino's films, which are all homages to older films, still feel distinctly modern.

Yeah definitely. Why can't you make a horror film the way they were made in the '70s? It's simple. The '70s are over. It's not as much a director's style as it is the decade in which it came out and how it related to society at that particular time. We appreciate these films in retrospect. They certainly don't have the effect now that they did back when they were first released.

~Matt

maybrick
03-07-2009, 06:03 AM
Yeah definitely. Why can't you make a horror film the way they were made in the '70s? It's simple. The '70s are over. It's not as much a director's style as it is the decade in which it came out and how it related to society at that particular time. We appreciate these films in retrospect. They certainly don't have the effect now that they did back when they were first released.

~Matt

Exactly. Bela Lugosi's DRACULA was made for the 30s just as CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON was made for the 50s, ROSEMARY'S BABY for the 60s, HALLOWEEN for the 70s, RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD for the 80s, SCREAM for the 90s, and "Whatever" for the 00s. Times change. PEOPLE change. Films are made for the periods they were made in. You don't like how horror movies have turned out this decade? TOUGH SHIT! I'd like to introduce you to the other sorry sons-of-bitches that have bitched and moaned about the way life has gone since time memorial....

Matt89
03-07-2009, 03:34 PM
And as much as I love movies from the '50s and if given the chance to go back in time to that era, I'd do it in a heartbeat. (Hell, I probably wouldn't even come back.) But it's not gonna happen, so I just have to appreciate these films for what they are.

~Matt

DVD-fanatic-9
03-07-2009, 03:56 PM
Okay - so why don't we just Throw Away the horror genre? It's clear that it's worthless now. Oh, except: let's keep just the films that have been popular with movie going audiences over the past 11 years. Great plan.

Sorry, Matt. I know you were actually trying to be respectful toward me again. But, it's clear from your responses that you might as well be defending the people that are destroying this genre. It's not just times are changing. It's - they're changing too fast. And, now, it's pretty clear that nobody around here gives a fuck.

maybrick
03-07-2009, 04:22 PM
Okay - so why don't we just Throw Away the horror genre? It's clear that it's worthless now. Oh, except: let's keep just the films that have been popular with movie going audiences over the past 11 years. Great plan.

Sorry, Matt. I know you were actually trying to be respectful toward me again. But, it's clear from your responses that you might as well be defending the people that are destroying this genre. It's not just times are changing. It's - they're changing too fast. And, now, it's pretty clear that nobody around here gives a fuck.

I've heard your point of view before many, many times over. I've read about it in the negative reviews James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN received after it's premiere, when Hammer Studios began producing movies in blood dripping color, the clamor caused by Texas Chainsaw Massacre, gore films of the 70s and 80s. All of these were supposed to be the downfall of the genre and western civilization as a whole, but both have survived. You also remind me of Tipper Gore back in the 80s complaining about rap and heavy metal. There's nothing new about your stance, dvdfanatic. It's called "being a social conservative". You hold to a belief that things were better "back then" when in reality, there was no golden years. Everythings better in hindsight, but if we were all living in the 70s or 80s right now, you'd STILL be among those pissing and moaning about the state of modern horror because that is just your nature.

SEANVALEN
03-07-2009, 05:09 PM
I thought it was very entertaining, and it was exactly what I wanted out of a Friday night movie experience. The originals will always be there for me to peruse, and this remake cracked me up and brought the fun back to contemporary horror (without all the nudge-nudge, tired comedy that has bogged down plenty of recent films). It did not exceed my expectations by any means, but it was certainly good. The exuberant yet thankfully respectful theater agreed with me.

Good. A successful relaunch.

I'll never be able to figure out how people watched Jason Takes Manhattan, Jason Goes to Hell, Jason X, Freddy vs. Jason and then call this film complete shit.

I've been a Friday the 13th fan since the mid 80's when I was in 4th grade. The first film I was able to catch in theatres was part 7. Since then I have been dreaming of a back to the basics, wilderness slasher Friday the 13th. I got that last Friday and I couldn't be more happy about it. I truly regret that everyone doesn't share my enthusiasm.



Workshed Legend and ekent legend, your not alone.

Horror fans will always be divded very strongly on somethings, like Rhett Legend, he's one of the hardest to please, his strict Rhett Legend Laws make him the ultimate poster you wish liked the film you did. It feels good when all horror fans rejoice and raise a glass to a great flick, the solidarity of people who share similar passions in life. But it rarely happens, just be proud there are Rhett type people out there and forumers and then there are fans like us. The Equalibrium of the Horror Votex of Fans requires strict balance between two views.

This is why I respect Rhett Legend type laws, it's why he maybe did this thread, to see how different and diverse everyone is on a remake.

One fan may just think, well if it wasn't made in the 80s, anything made this decade is rubbish before it's filmed lol, some of us have loyality to the 80s, but perhaps the job of osme of us to help some others let go of the past to concentrate on the present, but in the end we can't force someone to like what we like, I've done it on other forumers, making someone try and understand your view, it's like trying to get inside a woman's head and understand what's she's thinking, it's one of life's mission impossibles, sometimes, but sometimes, we can influence another fan in maybe giving a film a 2nd chance or viewing, you never know, but even if you do, you might not always get their response in what they've learned in a post, because admitting you've had a change of heart on some views is one of life's true challenges for men on forums lol. It's annoying, but ultimately it's what makes the forums entertaining for all.

I'm a simple guy, stay fit and strong, watch films, treat myself to black coffee and pizza-one of life's true pleasures and watch films, it's a art form underappreciated. Asia Argento has blessed us all, she is our god. "Sometimes I could kill myself HAHAHAHA The Joker"

PEACE OUT AND RESPECT.
A TOAST TO RHETT LEGEND.:D
A TOAST TO ALL LEGENDS

You never grow old Michael, and you never die, BUT you must feed.

Bobbywoodhogan
03-07-2009, 07:29 PM
I dont have a clue whats going on here :D

Matt89
03-08-2009, 03:52 AM
Sorry, Matt. I know you were actually trying to be respectful toward me again. But, it's clear from your responses that you might as well be defending the people that are destroying this genre. It's not just times are changing. It's - they're changing too fast. And, now, it's pretty clear that nobody around here gives a fuck.

That's not the point. Times are changing too fast? What's the point of even complaining about something like that? There's nothing we can do about it. I honestly don't give a shit because there have been enough good horror films made in the past. I'll stick with those. You want good modern films? Then stay the fuck away from the horror genre. If you don't like modern horror (as I don't) then stop watching them, it'll only further piss you off. Rarely do I watch a new horror film. I'm content with the ones I've seen and they satisfy my needs. The horror genre has been crap since the late '80s, so this is nothing new.

And again, I'm not DEFENDING anybody. I'm just stating plain fact. Horror has changed, films have changed, times have changed. There's nothing you can do about it.

~Matt

Bobbywoodhogan
03-08-2009, 11:44 AM
Back onto the movie

One of my favourite bits is where he comes out from the tunnel into the hut when hes after Whitney, Derek Mears just looks so menacing there, thats a moment in the score I really liked aswell.

Grim
03-08-2009, 06:51 PM
That's not the point. Times are changing too fast? What's the point of even complaining about something like that? There's nothing we can do about it. I honestly don't give a shit because there have been enough good horror films made in the past. I'll stick with those. You want good modern films? Then stay the fuck away from the horror genre. If you don't like modern horror (as I don't) then stop watching them, it'll only further piss you off. Rarely do I watch a new horror film. I'm content with the ones I've seen and they satisfy my needs. The horror genre has been crap since the late '80s, so this is nothing new.



I feel the same way about music. I can name the bands from 1995 and above that like on two hands. Shits just different now. Oh well.

horror101
03-09-2009, 08:52 AM
I soo agree with matt89.I hate mostly any horror to come out in years.I stick to 70s-80s.

spawningblue
03-10-2009, 06:42 PM
The first is how badly horror films have aged and modern audiences' reception to them. I mean these are film students here, but still people can't help but laugh at movies like Halloween, Dawn of the Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Suspiria.

Although I think Halloween still holds up quite well today, I can see why some others wouldn't. My girlfriend watched it for the first time last year and thought it was kind of cheesy, as compared to a lot of stuff these days it's really tame. Same with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the new one she found to be disturbing, while the original she just thought was again rather tame, and I couldn't agree more. I know many will disagree with this, and argue that the original is a lot scarier because it's shot documentary style, but I think that only worked back in the day. Now that Texas Chainsaw is a horror icon, and you are watching a cleaned up DVD or Blu Ray transfer, the whole documentary feel doesn't hold up anymore. Suspiria is a beautiful film, but other then the music is far from creepy. The red paint for blood makes it laughable to the average audience, which i found out when I played it at my Halloween party. I was arguing how aweosme it is, but many just couldn't get over the bad effects. And Dawn of the Dead, well blue faced people are just funny. The whole thing is rather laughable, especially with the terrible music.

I honestly can't even think, off the top of my head, of a single horror film from the 1980s that is widely accepted as being a masterpiece.

The Fly? The Thing? Invasion of the Body Snacthers?

I myself didn't like the new Friday the 13th mainly because of the storyline, and the fact that it just didn't feel like Friday the 13th. I realize now that maybe that's me just wanting them to be the same. I know they could make it feel like one if they wanted to, but that brings me back to what I stated earlier: How would it have held up? I've done a lot of thinking about this movie and I think at first I was a little too harsh. I mean, I still think the movie sucked, but that's just because I don't like where horror has gone. I have my old horror films, so I'm gonna stick with those. Occasionally you get a great modern horror film like The Descent or The Strangers, but this is horror for a new era. And sure movies keep getting remade, but it's not like it takes away from the original. It's not like they're destroying every copy of the original and forcing you to only have the remake in existence. If you don't like them, don't watch them. I've stopped watching them because they frustrate me too much. So what do I do? I just watch a movie I like.

And Angelman's nephew didn't like Friday the 13th. Jesus, so fucking what? It's a terrible film in almost every respect. I appreciate it for what it is, and I do enjoy it, but I don't expect everyone to like it because here's a bit of a newsflash in case you didn't know: EVERYONE'S DIFFERENT. TIMES HAVE CHANGED, MOVIES AGE.

Nice to see someone finally admitting that remakes are judged more on us wanting them to be more like the originals then actually being bad films. Yes, I know you stated you thought the remake was still a bad film, but so were the other Friday films. We just enjoy them for sentimental reasons, and that's the reasons a lot of people hate remakes, as they can't enjoy them the same way as they don't have that sentimentality to go with them.

And yes, if they did the Friday remake like the earlier films everyone would laugh it and think it was terrible. They didn't make this remake/ reboot for us, they made it to attract new kids to the franchise. Guess what, they don't care about us old timers. We are the reason the franchise died in the first place because we got bored with them and stopped going to see them. They wanted to reboot the franchise to start fresh and attract a new fan base so they can have 7 more sequels and makes lot so more money, which in the end is what it's all about.

And to say people are stupid now because they enjoy these new horror films and dislike the older ones, well no, times are just different. They have grown up with different fears, different things frighten them then what frightened us years ago.

Yeah definitely. Why can't you make a horror film the way they were made in the '70s? It's simple. The '70s are over. It's not as much a director's style as it is the decade in which it came out and how it related to society at that particular time. We appreciate these films in retrospect. They certainly don't have the effect now that they did back when they were first released.

~Matt

Exactly!

spawningblue
03-10-2009, 06:48 PM
Okay - so why don't we just Throw Away the horror genre? It's clear that it's worthless now. Oh, except: let's keep just the films that have been popular with movie going audiences over the past 11 years. Great plan.

Sorry, Matt. I know you were actually trying to be respectful toward me again. But, it's clear from your responses that you might as well be defending the people that are destroying this genre. It's not just times are changing. It's - they're changing too fast. And, now, it's pretty clear that nobody around here gives a fuck.

What are you talking about!? Should time be slowed down so you can live forever and enjoy your favoruite films? You grew up in a different time, you are old, get over it! What you found scary, kids don't these days, that's just the way it is. You didn't grow up in a time where kids are shot and stabbed daily. Who is scary of a guy in a mask with a butcher knife when these days every kids carries a gun with them.

And no one said we should forget about older films or throw them away. They will always be there for us old timers to enjoy, but you can't expect every kid these days to get the same thing you did out of some old horror flick. They weren't alive back then so they don't understand why that is scary. You just cannot expect it to have the same impact on them as it did you. And like Matt said, there are some horror films that are still frightening to this day, and still hold up. But Friday the 13th or Halloween are not them. Yes they are amazing pictures and started the slasher craze, but to audiences these days they are really tame.

Grim
03-10-2009, 07:24 PM
Haha, a lot of you older fellas should just be happy that you got to experience a lot of the classics in theaters during your youth. I turned 17 in 2004 so that gives you an idea of the dreck I had to put up with on the big screen during my childhood.

Even if the films out now are not as good as the classics, I would still love to be young horror fan right now. The horror genre is definitely the best it's been since the mid-80's.

Grim
03-10-2009, 07:32 PM
What are you talking about!? Should time be slowed down so you can live forever and enjoy your favoruite films? You grew up in a different time, you are old, get over it! What you found scary, kids don't these days, that's just the way it is. You didn't grow up in a time where kids are shot and stabbed daily. Who is scary of a guy in a mask with a butcher knife when these days every kids carries a gun with them.

And no one said we should forget about older films or throw them away. They will always be there for us old timers to enjoy, but you can't expect every kid these days to get the same thing you did out of some old horror flick. They weren't alive back then so they don't understand why that is scary. You just cannot expect it to have the same impact on them as it did you. And like Matt said, there are some horror films that are still frightening to this day, and still hold up. But Friday the 13th or Halloween are not them. Yes they are amazing pictures and started the slasher craze, but to audiences these days they are really tame.

Agreed, man. Kids and teenagers aren't as naive about the world these days as they were back then. They think differently and find a lot of the things in the older flicks implausible or just silly. Hell, I'll even admit that I suffer from this. Not so much horror films from the 70's and 80's (I notice things that just make shake my head, but it doesn't impede on my enjoyment of them), but I really can't get into many horror films from the early 60's and back. Call me a spoiled youngster who doesn't appreciate the classics, but meh, that's just the way it is.

maybrick
03-10-2009, 08:01 PM
The Fly? The Thing? Invasion of the Body Snacthers?


Every single one of those is a remake of a classic from the 50s, and although all of them are indeed great films, none of them are unique to the 80s (especially Body Snatchers which is a remake from the 70s).

maybrick
03-10-2009, 08:28 PM
What are you talking about!? Should time be slowed down so you can live forever and enjoy your favoruite films? You grew up in a different time, you are old, get over it! What you found scary, kids don't these days, that's just the way it is. You didn't grow up in a time where kids are shot and stabbed daily. Who is scary of a guy in a mask with a butcher knife when these days every kids carries a gun with them.


Now it is my turn to say: "What are you talking about?" Of COURSE we grew up in a time where kids were shot and stabbed daily. It isn't as if sometime around 1993 people decided to begin killing kids. This has been happening ever since there have been people on Earth! This is what I was talking about earlier about the "Golden Years" effect. Things are more or less exactly the same now as they ever were, it's just a fact of human nature that as we age we tend to think things get worse. If anything, the murder rate has gone down over the past century. It's actually our perception of death that has changed. Death is rarer now and that actually makes people more scared of it when it happens. This is illustrated by the number and types of stories that are reported in the news today, not because these events have skyrocketed in recent years, but because they happen so rarely now they ARE news. A lot of news stories simply wouldn't have been reported 50 years ago before everybody had been vaccinated against most major diseases, were still smoking cigarettes and driving around in unsafe vehicles. A lot of people today think we've become too numbed towards death. I argue that we've become too sensitized.

Also, most kids in every generation have laughed at the movies of the older generations. Again, this is nothing new. This was happening back in the 80s, believe it or not.

spawningblue
03-10-2009, 09:57 PM
Now it is my turn to say: "What are you talking about?" Of COURSE we grew up in a time where kids were shot and stabbed daily. It isn't as if sometime around 1993 people decided to begin killing kids. This has been happening ever since there have been people on Earth! This is what I was talking about earlier about the "Golden Years" effect. Things are more or less exactly the same now as they ever were, it's just a fact of human nature that as we age we tend to think things get worse. If anything, the murder rate has gone down over the past century. It's actually our perception of death that has changed. Death is rarer now and that actually makes people more scared of it when it happens. This is illustrated by the number and types of stories that are reported in the news today, not because these events have skyrocketed in recent years, but because they happen so rarely now they ARE news. A lot of news stories simply wouldn't have been reported 50 years ago before everybody had been vaccinated against most major diseases, were still smoking cigarettes and driving around in unsafe vehicles. A lot of people today think we've become too numbed towards death. I argue that we've become too sensitized.

Also, most kids in every generation have laughed at the movies of the older generations. Again, this is nothing new. This was happening back in the 80s, believe it or not.

Yeah there were as many deaths, but not in schools or involving kids. Guns weren't as easy to get back then as they are now. How many school related deaths or massacres happened in the 80s or below? How many 16 year old kids were responsible for countless student deaths. These days it happens like every year. Fights used to be settled back then with fists, not with a kid coming to school with a machine gun and blowing away a bunch of people before committing suicide himself. People weren't afraid to go to school back then like they are now. Metal detectors weren't a requirement like they are now. Those days kids were more afraid of their parents then the other kids at school.

And I meant kids in the 70s seeing Texas Chainsaw Massacre were scared of the film, where as now not so much. Kids in the 60s were frightened by Night of the Living Dead where as now kids laugh it. I agree though, everyone laughs at what came before them.

maybrick
03-10-2009, 10:46 PM
Yeah there were as many deaths, but not in schools or involving kids. Guns weren't as easy to get back then as they are now.

Actually, guns were easier to get back then. No background checks! No wait!

How many school related deaths or massacres happened in the 80s or below? How many 16 year old kids were responsible for countless student deaths. These days it happens like every year. Fights used to be settled back then with fists, not with a kid coming to school with a machine gun and blowing away a bunch of people before committing suicide himself. People weren't afraid to go to school back then like they are now. Metal detectors weren't a requirement like they are now. Those days kids were more afraid of their parents then the other kids at school.


Kids going on spree killings (on schoolgrounds and elsewhere) has been happening for a lot farther back than coverage in the media would have you believe. They're also pretty biased in that they usually only really cover the ones that take place in upscale neighborhoods. The only thing that has really changed is how the media is choosing to report these events: by amping up the fear quotient.

Doing a quick search online regarding school shooting statistics I dug up this page. You may want to check it out:

http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/school-shootings.html

Burn
03-10-2009, 11:39 PM
Jasons' house?! He pays his electricity bills?! Does he have an American Express card, too?!

Matt89
03-11-2009, 01:48 AM
Although I think Halloween still holds up quite well today, I can see why some others wouldn't. My girlfriend watched it for the first time last year and thought it was kind of cheesy, as compared to a lot of stuff these days it's really tame. Same with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the new one she found to be disturbing, while the original she just thought was again rather tame, and I couldn't agree more. I know many will disagree with this, and argue that the original is a lot scarier because it's shot documentary style, but I think that only worked back in the day. Now that Texas Chainsaw is a horror icon, and you are watching a cleaned up DVD or Blu Ray transfer, the whole documentary feel doesn't hold up anymore. Suspiria is a beautiful film, but other then the music is far from creepy. The red paint for blood makes it laughable to the average audience, which i found out when I played it at my Halloween party. I was arguing how aweosme it is, but many just couldn't get over the bad effects. And Dawn of the Dead, well blue faced people are just funny. The whole thing is rather laughable, especially with the terrible music.

Yeah, pretty much. I meant in terms of watching these films with a large audience. They just don't come off as scary. Sure there are jump scares that still get most people, but the films don't exactly work the way they used to. We appreciate them in retrospect and see where they came from and respect these movies for what they are, but I don't care what anybody says. Most of these movies just don't hold up well. And I'm not saying that as just opinion, I've experienced this in the horror film course I'm taking. Most of these films come off as funny to many people. Most of them are just not scary anymore.

But yeah, pretty much in total agreement here.

The Fly? The Thing? Invasion of the Body Snacthers?

Invasion of the Body Snatchers was '78 (and one of the best horror/sci-fi films ever made), but yeah I guess The Thing and The Fly are up there as well. Funny how these all just so happen to be remakes, which totally proves the fact that it was the era that these films came out in that made them what they are. Remakes now don't have the same impact as these older films, merely because the '70s and '80s are over. We appreciate them in retrospect. They really said something about the time period in which they were released, and now remaking something like Last House on the Left obliterates all meaning. The horror films of this decade will not be considered classics years from now, I believe simply because these remakes and films of today are devoid of meaning.

~Matt

Horror Junkie
03-11-2009, 03:49 AM
Hated it, was Mindless Drab. They would have been better off doing a remake shot for shot AKA Psycho.

spawningblue
03-11-2009, 05:22 PM
Invasion of the Body Snatchers was '78 (and one of the best horror/sci-fi films ever made), but yeah I guess The Thing and The Fly are up there as well. Funny how these all just so happen to be remakes, which totally proves the fact that it was the era that these films came out in that made them what they are. Remakes now don't have the same impact as these older films, merely because the '70s and '80s are over. We appreciate them in retrospect. They really said something about the time period in which they were released, and now remaking something like Last House on the Left obliterates all meaning. The horror films of this decade will not be considered classics years from now, I believe simply because these remakes and films of today are devoid of meaning.

~Matt

Well I think the problem with horror films today is they are all trying to pay homage to movies from the 70s and 80s, where as back then they were really trying to do something unique and new. Films from the 70s and 80s weren't trying to resurrect films from the 50s and 60s, they were trying to surpass them, make them more real and scary. Personally I love horror from the 70s and 80s so I have no problem with the films being released now, even if they don't quite achieve what they set out to do.

spawningblue
03-11-2009, 05:26 PM
Doing a quick search online regarding school shooting statistics I dug up this page. You may want to check it out:

http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/school-shootings.html

Okay I will go with that, but I wasn't talking about the 90s. I was comparing school violence in the 60s, 70s and 80s to school violence now. From what I've heard from a lot of older people I talked to, a fight behind the school was a big deal back then, these days that would not happen, and instead it would end with someone getting a drive by. Kids weren't in fear to go to school back then compared to now where a lot of them are, especially if you live in some of the rougher cities. In To. not a day goes by that you don't hear about a young kid getting shot and killed. And they are getting younger as well. Not too long ago I'm pretty sure it was a 16 year old doing the shooting. In the 60s kids didn't walk around with guns. You can argue guns were easier to get back then, but you just didn't hear about kids with guns all the time. Switchblades maybe, but guns, I don't think so.

maybrick
03-11-2009, 05:41 PM
Okay I will go with that, but I wasn't talking about the 90s. I was comparing school violence in the 60s, 70s and 80s to school violence now.

According to this site, there was a surge in teen homicide between the years 1985 and 1993 but has since dropped back to the levels of the 70s. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm

spawningblue
03-11-2009, 05:49 PM
Again, that isn't really showing much. Take a poll on how many adults on here aged 20 and up were afraid to go to school compared to now. And even if it is just because the media is talking about it more, it still would have an effect on kids watching horror films and what scares them the most. My whole point is, how can a guy wearing a mask with a knife be scary, when a lot of kids these days have a bigger knife in their pocket or a gun in their pant leg. I'm more scared of gang violence these days then I am any horror creation.

Grim
03-11-2009, 05:49 PM
According to this site, there was a surge in teen homicide between the years 1985 and 1993 but has since dropped back to the levels of the 70s. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm

There was also that one gal in the late 70's that just started shooting kids because she didn't like Mondays.

Also weren't the girls involved in the Manson murders pretty young? I mean they weren't kids, but pretty damn close to it.

spawningblue
03-11-2009, 05:55 PM
All I know is all the adults I talk to said it wasn't like this when they grew up, and they didn't have to worry about this kind o stuff every day when they went to school. Hell I'd be afraid to go to a club these days without getting shot in the crossfire, thank god I'm a pub man myself. It was only last year I believe that a young girl got shot on Boxing Day due to crossfire. Yes there were lots of crazy people back then, but these days it's like the average kid just trying to survive a day of school that carries a gun.

maybrick
03-11-2009, 06:00 PM
Again, that isn't really showing much. Take a poll on how many adults on here aged 20 and up were afraid to go to school compared to now. And even if it is just because the media is talking about it more, it still would have an effect on kids watching horror films and what scares them the most. My whole point is, how can a guy wearing a mask with a knife be scary, when a lot of kids these days have a bigger knife in their pocket or a gun in their pant leg. I'm more scared of gang violence these days then I am any horror creation.

How many adults aged 20 and up still go to school? Just joking, I know what you meant, but I seriously doubt there's really all that many teenagers quaking in their boots at the prospect of going to school on a day to day basis. Gang violence was as just as large of a problem back in the 80s, even larger actually, that's why there was a spike in teen homicide from 85 to 93. While your point in and of itself may be valid, it's somewhat based on incorrect assumptions that don't hold up to the facts.

The truth is, School violence is at an all time low right now despite the dramatic large scale school shootings that make headlines.

spawningblue
03-11-2009, 06:00 PM
There was also that one gal in the late 70's that just started shooting kids because she didn't like Mondays.

Also weren't the girls involved in the Manson murders pretty young? I mean they weren't kids, but pretty damn close to it.

One gal in the 70s that started shooting people, compared to the what, school shooting every year these days.

spawningblue
03-11-2009, 06:03 PM
How many adults aged 20 and up still go to school? Just joking, I know what you meant, but I seriously doubt there's really all that many teenagers quaking in their boots at the prospect of going to school on a day to day basis. Gang violence was as just as large of a problem back in the 80s, even larger actually, that's why there was a spike in teen homicide from 85 to 93. While your point in and of itself may be valid, it's somewhat based on incorrect assumptions that don't hold up to the facts.

Fair enough, I guess we can just agree to disagree. I think if we want to continue debating this though we should start another thread, as we have taken up the last page on the Jason remake. :lol:

PS This is me admitting you won. Now I'm going to hide my head in shame.

maybrick
03-11-2009, 06:14 PM
Fair enough, I guess we can just agree to disagree. I think if we want to continue debating this though we should start another thread, as we have taken up the last page on the Jason remake. :lol:

PS This is me admitting you won. Now I'm going to hide my head in shame.

NOOOO!!!!! You can't concede! This is a message board. We're supposed to butt heads until we kill each other (or are booted by the mods). Don't you know the rules???? What's with this... oh, what do you call it... civility? I'll have none of it! Get dvdfanatic back in here, STAT!!!!

:lol:

Angelman
03-11-2009, 07:47 PM
I did a study on this and I don't have the statistics in front of me now but I seem to remember being shocked that youth violence levels have dropped substantively since the 80s/70s. Oddly, though, violence among young females has gone up...

shithead
03-13-2009, 09:07 PM
It was okay, i voted mediocre.

Mok
10-27-2009, 06:29 PM
I re-watched this last night on DVD since seeing it in the theaters. Guys, you'll all eventually have to admit it, this is one fucking shitty movie. After you see it again without the theater experience/influence, it really reveals itself as the huge let down that it is. At this point I'm done with Marcus Nispel. He was a one hit wonder on the TCM remake but shit the bed on everything he's done since.

There was one good scene in F13 remake and that's the water-skiing scene - and not because of the boobies either :p but because of the way it looked. The lighting and everything just looked really F13-ish.

I also like the idea of the opening scene with the bunch who get killed before the title comes up, but watching it again, it was just ok. Not enough to forgive the fact that they completely fucked up the Jason mystique.

Speaking of Jason, why does he look like Louie the Plumber? He's got a wife beater on and has a gut. There's one scene at the end where he's struggling to get free and I couldn't help notice that, "wow, Jason's got a huge ass!" What the fuck? Can anyone explain why they refuse to use Kane Hodder? Right there, you're casting someone who can make up for abominations like Jason X because of his cult status alone. Why do they have to re-imagine Jason's look every fucking time? And Jason's lair? How in the name of screaming fuck did that thing get built or even better, unnoticed by the Sherif's department when some dipshit kids find it immediately? Why are all the canoes still there? Decoration? There's a fucking teddy bear on Jason's bed?!?!?

Holy shit, the more I think about this, the more I realize they couldn't fuck it up any worse than they did. There's a scene where douche-bag's sister breaks free only to be captured again. What's the point of this? You could argue it's to keep the tension going because so much of that part of the film is consumed with the rich guy fucking that hot chick and the asian guy out in the tool shed acting like a wanker. Alternatively, you could argue that the audience totally forgot about the sister character and needed to be reminded because so much time was spent on watching the rich guy fucking that hot chick and the asian guy out in the tool shed acting like a wanker. Either way, it feels really unnecessary and stupid.

So finally all these kids and a police officer get murdered by some lunatic and our protagonists get the better of him and kill him and what do they do? Dump him in the lake!!! SURE, WE DIDN'T NEED TO SHOW THE COPS WHAT HAPPENED DID WE? (where's the "retarded" emoticon when you need it?)

Everyone who liked it when they saw it, I'm betting is going to realize it's a piece of shit when they watch it a second time. But I'm sure it will be argued that Friday the 13th is supposed to be cheesy and stupid. Whatever. Watch this and then watch part 2 of the original series and tell me that.

PS: I'd like to officially change my vote from "Mediocre" to "Dud. Bring on Jason X2!"

Grim
10-27-2009, 06:47 PM
I re-watched this last night on DVD since seeing it in the theaters. Guys, you'll all eventually have to admit it, this is one fucking shitty movie. After you see it again without the theater experience/influence, it really reveals itself as the huge let down that it is. At this point I'm done with Marcus Nispel. He was a one hit wonder on the TCM remake but shit the bed on everything he's done since.

Dude I watched it twice the day I got in on blu and countless times after that. I even watched it this past weekend when ripping the unrated version to put on my ipod. I still love it.

Holy shit, the more I think about this, the more I realize they couldn't fuck it up any worse than they did. There's a scene where douche-bag's sister breaks free only to be captured again. What's the point of this? You could argue it's to keep the tension going because so much of that part of the film is consumed with the rich guy fucking that hot chick and the asian guy out in the tool shed acting like a wanker. Alternatively, you could argue that the audience totally forgot about the sister character and needed to be reminded because so much time was spent on watching the rich guy fucking that hot chick and the asian guy out in the tool shed acting like a wanker. Either way, it feels really unnecessary and stupid.

I agree that her escape is ultimately a pointless subplot, but to me it did add that fun scene that we see in a lot of the Friday the 13th movies where the teenagers/counselors/whatever are doing it or something while something very sinister is right under their noses, such as Jack and Marcy doing it while Ned's dead body is above them.

And Jason's lair? How in the name of screaming fuck did that thing get built or even better, unnoticed by the Sherif's department when some dipshit kids find it immediately? Why are all the canoes still there? Decoration? There's a fucking teddy bear on Jason's bed?!?!?

Why didn't anyone ever find Jason's shack until that cop or Ginny did? How did Jason find Alice? Or get to her for that matter? How do the Jarvis' not have any idea about the plethora of murders happening around the very lake they live on? And Rob with all of his research on Jason even though he killed his sister only a couple days prior. I can go on and on.

So finally all these kids get murdered by some lunatic and our protagonists get the better of him and kill him and what do they do? Dump him in the lake!!! SURE, WE DIDN'T NEED TO SHOW THE COPS WHAT HAPPENED DID WE? (where's the "retarded" emoticon when you need it?)

Alice sees all of her fellow counselors killed and decapitates someone and what is the first thing she does? Take a nap in a fucking canoe.

I'm not excusing the screw ups in the new film because there are quite a few, but to rag on this film and just ignore equally moronic things in the original films seems kind of biased to me.

Mok
10-27-2009, 06:59 PM
I agree that her escape is ultimately a pointless subplot, but to me it did add that fun scene that we see in a lot of the Friday the 13th movies where the teenagers/counselors/whatever are doing it or something while something very sinister is right under their noses, such as Jack and Marcy doing it while Ned's dead body is above them.
It went on too long to justify for that reason alone.

Why didn't anyone ever find Jason's shack until that cop or Ginny did? How did Jason find Alice? Or get to her for that matter? How do the Jarvis' not have any idea about the plethora of murders happening around the very lake they live on? And Rob with all of his research on Jason even though he killed his sister only a couple days prior. I can go on and on.
Finding a huge series of underground tunnels not to mention a human head in an abandoned camp grounds, is no where near the same as finding a shack made of sheet metal buried in the woods.

Alice sees all of her fellow counselors killed and decapitates someone and what is the first thing she does? Take a nap in a fucking canoe.
After running for her life for the entire evening, she was exhausted and decided to isolate herself in the middle of the lake - right after she killed Mrs Voorhese (a split decision made that same evening). Makes sense. Tell me how the remake's ending made sense, when they decide to dump Jason in the lake the next morning!

I could also go on defending certain aspects of the earlier films, some are undeniable dumb as well, but here's the thing, the remake is shit, plain and simple and nowhere near as good as the first two original films. You or I, or anyone on these boards for that matter could have easily written a better movie.

Kim Bruun
10-27-2009, 07:46 PM
There's one scene at the end where he's struggling to get free and I couldn't help notice that, "wow, Jason's got a huge ass!"

That made me laugh. Thanks! :D

Can anyone explain why they refuse to use Kane Hodder? Right there, you're casting someone who can make up for abominations like Jason X because of his cult status alone.

For one thing, I think they wanted to start fresh. I have nothing against Hodder, but his Jason was never the Jason that creeped me out. He does have the distinct disadvantage, though, of entering the franchise at a point when it had long since abandoned trying to be scary. And I didn't like anything about Jason X - for me, it is as much about how Jason is shot, how his story is told, as it is about who is playing him.

Grim
10-27-2009, 07:55 PM
After running for her life for the entire evening, she was exhausted and decided to isolate herself in the middle of the lake - right after she killed Mrs Voorhese (a split decision made that same evening). Makes sense. Tell me how the remake's ending made sense, when they decide to dump Jason in the lake the next morning!

I agree it makes no sense. It could have been a dream, but if that was the case, the creators should have included some kind of indicator of such. Still, I'm used to illogical things in this series so it didn't really bother me.

I could also go on defending certain aspects of the earlier films, some are undeniable dumb as well, but here's the thing, the remake is shit, plain and simple and nowhere near as good as the first two original films. You or I, or anyone on these boards for that matter could have easily written a better movie.

I don't think this film is nowhere near as good as the first 2, or even the Final Chapter and Part 6, but I don't think it's shit. It's dumb and stupid, but I like it. I don't go into these films looking for things to make sense. If that was the case then I would have ditched this series after the first film. As long as there is the big guy killing people, drugs, and T&A, I'm satisfied. I guess that's why I even like the much hated films like 8 and JGTH.

It's funny you brought up the TCM remake because exactly what you're saying happened to you with Friday the 13th happened to me with that. Who knows, maybe down the road I will hate the Friday remake, but as it stands right now after viewing it multiple times, I'm chalking it up to individual taste.

MisterTwister
10-27-2009, 08:26 PM
This was the first F13th since The Final Chapter where I wasn't rooting for Jason. As much as I love Jason Lives, The New Blood etc. I was rooting for Jason the entire time and wasn't scared once. The remake made Jason scary again and made me feel sorry for (some) of the victims. I also like some of the different things they did with Jason this time around (you know the rambo like hunter stuff fanboys keep complaining about).

Mok
10-27-2009, 09:34 PM
(you know the rambo like hunter stuff fanboys keep complaining about).

I actually didn't mind that idea.

maskull
10-29-2009, 03:40 AM
I've watched it a few more times since I first saw it in theatres and to be honest, the last time I couldn't even finish the movie. The sub plot about the sister is killing this movie for me. I mean there's plenty of other things I wasn't crazy about, but I could've gotten over them as long as there's plenty of blood and boobs....but I DON'T NEED SUB PLOT IN A F13 MOVIE!!!! Just have Jason running around the woods, killing people and it's a successful Friday The 13th movie. The whole thing with the sister just drags the action to a stop and is completely unnecessary.

Another thing I noticed about this one is that there are no likable characters in the entire movie. No one that I cared about whether they lived of died. Every other F13 (with the exception of Jason X) flick has had at least one likable character. Sure you want a big body count but you need someone besides Jason to cheer for. Or at least I do.

othervoice1
10-29-2009, 03:48 AM
Another thing I noticed about this one is that there are no likable characters in the entire movie. No one that I cared about whether they lived of died. Every other F13 (with the exception of Jason X) flick has had at least one likable character. Sure you want a big body count but you need someone besides Jason to cheer for. Or at least I do.
This is very true and a major flaw in the movie that bothered me when I saw it at the theatre. It has some good kills and some great boobs- but yet at the end it just felt kinda blah. And this point is pretty much why it rang kinda hollow to me.

Grim
10-29-2009, 04:08 AM
I liked Padelecki's character. And the guy who played Trent pulled off the rich prick part perfectly if you ask me.

Vortex
10-29-2009, 10:54 AM
I legitamately would like to see a sequel to Jason X. It wouldn't have been any worse than the remake we were subjected to.

Copyboy
10-29-2009, 12:21 PM
WOW! I can't believe I haven't read this thread until now. I was avoiding it when the movie came out and figured I'd check it out after watching it on DVD but totally forgot about it. Movie? Suckfest. Totally did not capture what I was hoping for in a new Friday movie. But then, none of the sequels captured the feel of the first 2. Cast? Most annoying and unlikable bunch of kids since The Final Chapter. But then, who really remembers any of the secondary characters AFTER The Final Chapter? Rambo Jason? Fucking sucking ridiculous. Derek Mears AS Jason? Excellent. Didn't notice the wifebeater or fat ass as someone mentioned earlier and I didn't care for his funky Shaft-looking leather jacket, but damn, the ONLY thing I liked about this movie was having a LIVE Jason back! So many people are all about Kane Hodder but I'll take Steve Dash, Richard Brooker or Ted White anyday. Hell, even Ari Lehman was fucking scarier than the standing, staring, walking zombie Jasons that came after that littler fucker Feldman ruined everything. So yeah, Derek was great. Just put him in a decent getup, cast him in a decent Friday, get some likeable kids to kill off and I think Nouveau Jason Part 2 could be alright. I doubt it though. But we can always hope.