Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by zombitronic, Feb 13, 2009.

  1. zombitronic macrumors 65816


    Feb 9, 2007

    First of all, I'm a big fan of the original two, maybe three Friday the 13th films. Four was alright. Then they started getting ridiculous. Anyway, I just went to see the new Friday the 13th and now I should be on a hunt for Michael Bay's head with a hockey mask and a machete.

    This movie did not carry a subtitle, which, in movie terms, implies a remake, i.e., the recent remake of Halloween by Rob Zombie. That was a great film, by the way, by comparison. Rob Zombie gave the fans of the franchise a back story, somewhat likable characters (Laurie, Dr. Loomis, maybe the cop), some nostalgic homages and a raw, gritty style. Even Michael Myers was made into a character, instead of just a plot obstacle. It wasn't perfect, but it was a satisfying addition to the over exploited, under executed horror genre. This movie gave the original franchise fan almost none of that and on top of that they Michael Bayed all over it.

    There was no story. I take that back. The story was about some kids trying to steal weed and some rich kids being pretty. Way too much of this. The absence of a pointless story is actually what was good about the original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There's a brief intro scene which introduces you to the meaningless meat (characters) and then you get right into the hacking.

    In this new Friday addition we get way too many scenes with way too much lame, uninspired dialog and no character development. Especially when it comes to the most important character of all... Jason Voorhees!! (By the way, I don't remember hearing his last name mentioned, but I could be wrong.) The most clever dialog was when a kid asks Jason if a hockey stick he finds in a tool shed belongs to him.

    The biggest problem with this movie is the way it's being marketed. If this were Friday the 13th: Subtitle, I wouldn't be so hard on it, but this movie was sold with the same title as the original. With the number of remakes being xeroxed lately, we've come to expect a somewhat reminiscent of the original version of a film. This movie definitely picks from the original but is not a remake in any way. They start the movie with a few clips of Jason's mom slashing up camp counselors. She gets her head chopped off by the lone surviving counselor. So far, so good.

    I actually would've liked a bigger portion to cover the original story. Maybe explain a little about what happened to Jason after he had drowned. Where did he grow? Underwater? Or did he come out as a kid and grow on land? And how did he come back? Was he just holding his breath for a long time? Did his mom's psycho spirit possess his dead body? (That's my best guess.) What was he like as a kid? Crazy? Stupid? Momma's boy? Probably, but they completely ignore all events after his mother's beheading up until present day, where the film continues.

    First, we've got some attractive kids who are hiking around Crystal Lake looking for a crop of weed. Well, Jason obviously doesn't like people messing with his weed, especially if it's near Crystal Lake property, so he kills them.

    Then the screen booms with "Friday the 13th" and you can just smell the filmmakers smugness. By this point, I was unimpressed and was quickly losing faith in the film. There was nothing there to make me think it was a remake and the dialog and acting already sucked.

    Then we meet this guy who's in the area looking for his missing sister. Obviously one of the previous victims. He runs into a group of annoying preppie rich kids who end up being the main focus of the movie. They're going to one of their daddy's huge vacation houses which just happens to be right on Crystal Lake to drink, smoke, have sex and die.

    While this guy's going around town asking the locals if they've seen his sister, appropriate crazy old person clichè warns him that "he" (Jason) doesn't like people coming around "his" lake. People who go missing around here stay missing.

    Right there, that tells you that this is not a remake. If this were a remake, Jason would not have gone on any murder rampages, hiding bodies in clever places to fall down on a rope and startle you right before he kills you. But this old lady knew about it, so this was going to be just another sequel. Not just another sequel, but another, tired, flashy, 90-something minute Michael Bay visual showoff. And the gore really wasn't that good. The Saw movies are much more graphic, although they've all sucked after the first one.

    Was there anything good here? A little. Jason was keeping his mom's head in a crude shrine, which I believe was in Part 2. The first group of kids snuck into Jason's old house, which I guess was on or very near the lake. They found a little locket on a necklace with a picture in it that looked like one of the girls who was on the weed trip. Foreshadowing. We find out later that Jason is keeping this girl alive somewhere underground by feeding her backpack leftovers. He thinks she's his mom. Awww. I didn't mind this. It was a bit of much needed story.

    While the guy looking for his sister is meeting the town's folk, he runs into the guy who has been growing the weed. He says that someone has been stealing the kerosene. I guess Jason would be the culprit. I suppose he's using it to run generators at his house, the camp, and his underground lair. The movie doesn't go beyond mentioning missing kerosene, but it's either that or Jason is paying his utilities bill.

    At the end of the movie the guy rescues his sister but they're chased and they, of course, run into a barn. Before Jason kills the guy, his sister plays mom, also reminiscent of Part 2, and tells Jason it's okay. He can stop killing.

    Speaking of this, they only did the signature "kill, kill, kill," whispers once throughout the whole movie.

    Anyway, guy takes advantage of this, gets a chain around Jason's neck, and hangs him. They wait around for the sun to come up, dump the body in the lake and they're safe. That is, until Jason leaps out of the water, grabs the girl, and takes her under. This, of course, is the first glimpse we get of crazy Jason in the original Friday the 13th. I appreciated these few things. This all sounds alright, until you remember that the other 60 minutes are spent hanging out with the talking body counts.

    I had high hopes for this one, but knowing it was only the 12th in the series, (if you count Freddy vs. Jason), I still have hopes for the 13th installment. Maybe they can talk Rob Zombie into it because this one was an utter let down, especially since they used the title in its original incarnation.

    The writers sucked. Two of them wrote Freddy vs. Jason, which I liked. It payed homage to both series more this this sacrilegious piece of crap. The directing style wasn't particularly bad, but it was forgettable. It was the same director as the The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and it suffered from the same problems.

    And on top of that, you've got Michael Bay. I don't think he's a horror fan. Putting Michael Bay in the production chair is like trying to polish a turd. All he concerns himself with are visuals. That was the problem with Transformers. With all the movement in that movie, everything blended together. Yeah, it looked cool, but the story was missing. Most of the big fighting scenes just looked like metal and concrete shapes flying around the screen with unintelligible and undistinguishable robo-voices. Two great writers, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, agree. He knows how to make cool action scenes but he doesn't know how to tell a story.

    So far Michael Bay has ruined The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, and Transformers. And that's only what I've seen. I've heard that Pearl Harbor missed the point, as well.

    And, horror fans, do you wanna hear something really scary? He's producing the remake (or not a remake) of A Nightmare on Elm Street!!! Noooooooooo!!!!!!! I can't tell you how much that pisses me off.

    At least he's not touching Sleepaway Camp.
  2. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3


    Apr 6, 2007
    Portland, OR
    I'm psyched for this remake I'm looking forward to seeing a slightly different Friday movie. I mean... "Friday" and "Next Friday" were funny and Ice Cube was great, but I'm looking forward to the rumored "more intelligent" Ice Cube that I've heard about.

    but seriously, I'm really not looking forward to a Michael Bay Elm Street. The old ones were just too much fun. I think Craven should just do another Elm Street. Maybe even a remake.
  3. Music_Producer macrumors 68000

    Sep 25, 2004
    After watching Transformers I vowed never to see any michael bay film :p These guys get too into themselves and give every movie their 'trademark' instead of concentrating on the movie and giving it a presence of its own.
  4. eyesawred2 macrumors member


    Jan 23, 2009
    "...or Jason is paying his utilities."

    I LOVE THIS IDEA. They should implement it into the next turd of a movie hollywood produces.

    Jason's in his underground hideout. Laying on his knees worshiping the shrine dedicated to his dead mother. The phone rings, Jason's answering machine comes on. The message comes on from the electric company.
    "Mr.Voorhies this is Melissa with Crystal Lake Power and Water, your bill is two months PAST due, we will be sending someone out to disconnect your power, immediately"

    I expect nothing but crap from Hollywood and they have never disappointed me.
  5. MacNut macrumors Core


    Jan 4, 2002
    Why can't they just leave these movies alone and not remake them.
  6. obeygiant macrumors 68040


    Jan 14, 2002
    totally cool
    Because there is money to be made. The kids need a scary movie to go to so they can get close on their valentine's day date.
  7. MacAddict1978 macrumors 65816

    Jun 21, 2006
    This was a remake... it was a reworking of the first 3 films, none of which were known for rich character development or dialogue.

    If you are a fan of the first 3, you'll see where this film ties the one or two only plot elements aside from mass butchery into one tidy film.

    I liked the new version, but what it did not do was add anything new. The first 2 minutes of the movie are the end of the first movie. I think they could have branched this out more, added a new twist.

    There are some holes in it as well. And its ending mirrirors the ending of part 3, but its different.

    If you like fun murders, bad yet funny jokes, the cliche "people who screw all die," gore, nudity, etc. that go with this type of film, it's great!

    If you're expecting some artistic rendition of of a slasher film... you shouldn't be watching slasher films.
  8. MacNut macrumors Core


    Jan 4, 2002
    That's fine, just release the original movie for the kids to see.
  9. 99MustangGTman macrumors 6502

    Dec 3, 2008
    Germantown MD/ Columbus OH
  10. NT1440 macrumors G4


    May 18, 2008
    Sounds to me like OP is angry that this movie....was just like the others?:confused:

    I cant remember any of them actually having character development or any of that.

    Also, complaining that it never said what happend to make jason the way he is after he died? THATS THE MYSTERY IN THE ENTIRE SERIES! They've NEVER explained it, so why is it a hit against this one!?!?
  11. zombitronic thread starter macrumors 65816


    Feb 9, 2007
    Guys, I didn't want character development on the kids. I understand that they're just obstacles in Jason's way (or the other way around). I wanted character development on Jason Voorhees, like Rob Zombie did with young Michael Myers in the last Halloween.

    I know the originals were bad, but they had a certain charm associated with them, if only for the fact that I was a kid when they came out. They just seemed grittier, whether it was from the film quality, lighting, directing style or whatever. It would've been nice to see them emulate this just a little, but they didn't.
  12. zombitronic thread starter macrumors 65816


    Feb 9, 2007
    Another thing I was hoping for was that the new A Nightmare on Elm Street movie would give us the first half of the movie about Freddy's origin. His birth, his childhood, his twisted adulthood and finally his murder. After seeing this failure of a non subtitled Friday the 13th and knowing that this is the team that will be remaking A Nightmare on Elm Street, I have little hope.

    The problem is that in order to do justice to these old, somewhat awful but somewhat charming movies, you have to let a hardcore (and somewhat talented) horror movie fan remake them, i.e. Rob Zombie, but I guess he didn't want to do them.
  13. MacNut macrumors Core


    Jan 4, 2002
    The reason the original was better is because it was cheaply made, when they start trying to make a horror movie good they fail. The best horror movies were mistakes and never meant to make money.
  14. mac 2005 macrumors 6502a

    mac 2005

    Apr 1, 2005
    You say the movie sucked as though anyone should be surprised. The whole franchise is based on the slaughter of innocent people. It's gore mixed in with a gratuitous flashing of some teenager's breasts.

    Where exactly do you expect to find character development? The film is based on the murders of a sociopath.
  15. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3


    Apr 6, 2007
    Portland, OR
    Innocent? Giiirl the sluts die, no big loss...
  16. LethalWolfe macrumors G3


    Jan 11, 2002
    Los Angeles
    Saw it last night and was throughly entertained. It is what it is, an old school slasher flick.

  17. mak10 macrumors regular

    Feb 6, 2009
    I get what you're saying here, but I don't think the title really matters. It was the same thing with Texas Chainsaw Massacre (obviously done by the same group of people) and I thought it was decent. I enjoyed Zombie's take on Halloween, but there as a lot I didn't like about it, which I mention further below.

    There wasn't much of a story in the first 3 original ones either. The first had more of a story than 2 and 3 did and that was just the fact that it was Jason's mother in the end, but there wasn't really much of a plot overall. Some kids come to re-open the camp and start getting killed... basically the same plot as part 3...

    Have you seen the originals since you were a kid? You say you enjoyed those, but the dialogue in those is just as bad if not worse than the latest one. Although I will agree that "Trent" in this new one pissed me off and I couldn't wait for him to die.

    I don't get why saying "Remake" would have made you think differently of it. Obviously you had to have known it was a remake/re-imagining and not a continuation of the story, well I guess you might not have going into it, but the opening should have given some idea that this was the case considering it opened with his mother being killed and then Jason starts with the sack on his head, then he finds the hockey mask... granted the kids aren't there to re-open the camp in the new one, it's not a scene for scene remake, that would have been completely boring.

    The writers did this on purpose to preserve the mystery that surrounds Jason and I agree with them. Part of Jason's legacy is the fact that you don't really know what he is or how he came to be what he is, which is actually part of the reason I didn't like Rob Zombie's Halloween. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it for what it was, but I didn't like the fact that it took away all the mystery behind Michael Myers. Zombie basically gave him a backstory that you would expect, broken home, abuse, etc etc... I liked the idea of not knowing why he was how he was. In my opinion that makes the psycho killer in any horror movie more intriguing.

    Which is basically all that happens in the originals.

    The crazy guy from the original 2 is a classic character, you had to have him in the new one in some way, which was actually the crazy old woman in the house (same woman from Texas Chainsaw I believe).

    Like I said above, the crazy old man in parts 1 and 2 warned the kids going to the camp that they would die and that they were doomed, same as the old lady. And there were many instances in the originals where bodies were hung from places and fell as someone turned around. Maybe you just don't remember since you haven't seen them since you were a kid, but re-watch them now. You'll see. (I just watched parts 1-8 again).

    The whole locket/keeping the girl alive cause she looks like his mother was basically the whole ending of Part 2 when the lead girl put on his mother's sweater to confuse him, so it was basically a different way to portray that without using the sweater, which I also thought was a good change of pace.

    I think it was also another homage to Part 3, where the end took place in a barn that looked very similar to the weed smoking guy's barn and actually in Part 3, Jason died just outside the barn, and in this new one that's where he died (just inside the barn) so I thought that was a cool homage. Also, Part 3 is when he got the mask and here he finds the mask in the barn (from part 3)

    Exactly, as I mentioned above.

    I heard it a couple times, faintly (more than once), but I agree, in the originals it seemed like everytime they showed Jason's perspective you heard the famous "ki, ki, ki, ma, ma, ma"

    Yeah, I knew that ending was coming as soon as they dumped him in the lake, I liked that a lot, but what I didn't like was that they dragged his ass all the way to the lake just to dump him... why not burn him or something. But either way, cool homage none the less.

    I don't get why you're so hung up on the title. It was meant as a remake/re-imagining of the first 3 movies, so why not use the same title? Just like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre...

    The writers aren't terrible, I agree that they aren't the greatest and Freddy vs. Jason was just as bad, writing wise, but if you read some of the interviews with the writers it makes it a little clearer as to what they were going for. They wanted the people to talk more like kids today would talk as opposed to the scripted "this is what adults think kids talk about", although the "Trent" character was a little over the top frat boy to me. As far as the directing goes, I'll agree with you. It was good, I liked Marcus Nispel's directing in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but he seemed to use the shaky cam a lot in this one and there were a lot of quick cuts during some of the more brutal action sequences that kind of annoyed me. Also, and I understand the movie takes place at night, but a lot of the scenes seemed poorly lit. But in saying that, the darkness also added more in the fact that we don't see Jason standing in bright lights, so it makes him seem more menacing.

    Good old Michael Bay, people love to bash him and I think they have a decent enough reason, but the guy has still made some entertaining movies. They might not be the greatest, Oscar worthy movies, but they are entertaining. While he does have a say in what goes down in the movies he produces, it's ultimately the directors vision. Bay's production company produces tons of movies that he doesn't direct. Sure he probably comes to the set occasionally to make sure they are keeping to the budget and things are getting done, but he's not there constantly looking over the directors shoulder telling him what to do, especially on Friday the 13th. Think about it, Michael Bay was directing/producing Transformers 2 while Friday the 13th was being filmed, you think he really had time to watch over the crew? I don't think so. I'm sure he checked out an occasional daily and got set reports, but he was way too busy shooting Transformers 2 and trying to get it ready for this summer. Especially when there's only 19million invested in Friday the 13th and over 200 million invested in Transformers, which one do you think he's more worried about? All I'm saying here is that Michael Bay doesn't have as much pull in most of these movies to "ruin" them as much as people think. If you have a shotty script, decent but not great director, and a sub-par supporting cast, you're not going to get an amazing film, it's just not going to happen. I don't want to seem as though I'm defending Bay, cause he's done some crap as a Producer, but he's also produced some entertaining movies.

    I don't think Bay is going to be the one to ruin this, I don't have confidence that anyone other than Robert Englund can play Freddy, at least Jason is concealed by a mask and doesn't have much of a personable personality to him (more in his movement), but Freddy is all perosnality, so I don't know how I'm going to take to someone else playing him. But on that note I felt the same way when Heath Ledger as the joke was announced, and look how that turned out. I'm also not so confident in the fact that the director has never directed a feature (just music videos), so combine all those things and I'm very leary of this one.

    Wow, that turned into a lot longer of a response than I planned on writing. I'm not trying to bash your opinion of the movie, I just saw it a little different and wanted to voice my opinion. Maybe it was because I just rewatched almost all the Friday the 13th movies and I enjoyed the little tributes and easter eggs they hid through-out the new one, like the wheel chair from the handicap guy in part 2. I enjoyed the movie for what it was and thought it was a good reboot based on the first 3 original movies.
  18. Lava Lamp Freak macrumors 65816

    Jun 1, 2006
    I only had one gripe with the movie. How the hell did Jason get up on that roof so fast???

    I guess you just have to suspend disbelief and let a lot of things slide in movies like this. For example, where did Whitney deficate while she was chained up for 6 months? What did she eat? Why couldn't we see hair under her armpits after not shaving for 6 months? Why did she still look so awesome after all that time chained up underground? Who paid the electric bills?
  19. mak10 macrumors regular

    Feb 6, 2009
    It was 6 weeks, not months, but still doesnt explain the bathroom issue
  20. thewood11us macrumors newbie

    Oct 4, 2009

    Just watched this "movie".......ummm....yeah!
    Number one Jason doesn't run EVER!!!!!! trademark of Jason and what made him so great!!!!
    Number two this movie smelled way too much like Texas Chainsaw Massacre!!!
    He kept the bodies??????
    People should leave things well enough alone, let the kids watch the original movie if they want to see something classic and great. If not then it's thier loss.
    0 out of ten from me, sorry supporters but this was a butcher of a great horror classic.

Share This Page