Aside from the never-ending Child's Play (1988-) series and maybe the original Halloween (1978) film, I've never really been all that much into the slasher side of this horror sub-genre. I've tried giving it a fair enough chance on several different occasions, but so far it honestly hasn't impressed me one ounce of a bit and so I've finally deduced that they're just not my thing (I have more of a personal preference for killer animal horror films - when nature attacks mankind!). I mean, really now, what more can possibly be done with a deranged killer maniac on the loose going around butchering hapless people with a sharp knife (or some other form of blunt instrument)? Well, apparently you can't change things up too much in terms of having an innovative story and likeable characters who you genuinely want to root for, because otherwise the horror community will throw a right paddy if certain cliches aren't met. And no, just solely relying on "creative kills" isn't definitively what makes a good movie (to me).
The framework of this film's "plot" is, as with every one of these types of movies, is setup to be like that of a murder mystery story. But there's an issue with how it's done in here, and it's a big one. See, you really want to establish every character as a possible suspect pretty early on because that way you're then able to keep your intrigued audience guessing as to who the killer might actually be, constantly keeping them on their toes and in sheer suspense for a majority of the time (very much like how the masterful Alfred Hitchcock used to do). It's some edge-of-your-seat intensity that's sure to leave them in a perpetual mindset of nothing but theorising who it could really be. But no, instead of that, the true killer turns out to be none other than Mrs. Voorhees (Jason's middle-aged mother) who only shows up in a very delayed appearance near toward the end of the movie without having had any prior establishment (when there's no purposeful setup, then I immediately lose any and all interest in the worthless payoff).
Also, why'd they have to kill a real animal? When your production has a special-effects guy on standby, why do you feel the need to resort to using a SMALL and totally HARMLESS snake (literally, it's a non-venomous species) for quite frankly an unnecessary scene which involves the killing of said snake? When it comes to killing animals in this world, I firmly believe it should only ever be for food (meat consumption and dairy products) and other practical reasons such as humanely putting them down if they're in a tremendous deal of unrecoverable agony, or even culling a few (to help prevent the quick spread of harmful diseases). But when I see it's being done for the sole purpose of producing sleazy entertainment trash like this, that's where I STRONGLY draw the line (honestly, there was just no need for it!). I get the fact that it was of a very low-budget film for it's time, and all. But seriously, Tom Savini with all his convincing gore effects couldn't even be bothered to just make a fake prop snake out of rubber or something?
Hmmm, so it fails at building a decent mystery and it's guilty of deliberate animal cruelty... yep, sounds like a "great old time" (please note my SARCASM in that last bit). Saying that, was there anything at all I actually liked about Friday the 13th (1980)? Well, it was kind of an unsuspected surprise for me to see a youthful Kevin Bacon in this garbage. Hard to believe it was one of his earliest roles, but isn't that typically the case for a lot of young up-and-coming actors to get their start in rubbish horror films (so glad he'd eventually go on to bigger and better things, after first being in this overrated train-wreck).
The framework of this film's "plot" is, as with every one of these types of movies, is setup to be like that of a murder mystery story. But there's an issue with how it's done in here, and it's a big one. See, you really want to establish every character as a possible suspect pretty early on because that way you're then able to keep your intrigued audience guessing as to who the killer might actually be, constantly keeping them on their toes and in sheer suspense for a majority of the time (very much like how the masterful Alfred Hitchcock used to do). It's some edge-of-your-seat intensity that's sure to leave them in a perpetual mindset of nothing but theorising who it could really be. But no, instead of that, the true killer turns out to be none other than Mrs. Voorhees (Jason's middle-aged mother) who only shows up in a very delayed appearance near toward the end of the movie without having had any prior establishment (when there's no purposeful setup, then I immediately lose any and all interest in the worthless payoff).
Also, why'd they have to kill a real animal? When your production has a special-effects guy on standby, why do you feel the need to resort to using a SMALL and totally HARMLESS snake (literally, it's a non-venomous species) for quite frankly an unnecessary scene which involves the killing of said snake? When it comes to killing animals in this world, I firmly believe it should only ever be for food (meat consumption and dairy products) and other practical reasons such as humanely putting them down if they're in a tremendous deal of unrecoverable agony, or even culling a few (to help prevent the quick spread of harmful diseases). But when I see it's being done for the sole purpose of producing sleazy entertainment trash like this, that's where I STRONGLY draw the line (honestly, there was just no need for it!). I get the fact that it was of a very low-budget film for it's time, and all. But seriously, Tom Savini with all his convincing gore effects couldn't even be bothered to just make a fake prop snake out of rubber or something?
Hmmm, so it fails at building a decent mystery and it's guilty of deliberate animal cruelty... yep, sounds like a "great old time" (please note my SARCASM in that last bit). Saying that, was there anything at all I actually liked about Friday the 13th (1980)? Well, it was kind of an unsuspected surprise for me to see a youthful Kevin Bacon in this garbage. Hard to believe it was one of his earliest roles, but isn't that typically the case for a lot of young up-and-coming actors to get their start in rubbish horror films (so glad he'd eventually go on to bigger and better things, after first being in this overrated train-wreck).