Change Your Image
john_perry
Reviews
Friday the 13th (2009)
Different is not always better.
First off, I will say that there are some good things about the rehash of Friday the 13th. Though I was less than thrilled when they announced they were remaking one of my favourite franchises from the 80s, a little part of me wanted to see how they will remake this.
What's good about the film? The quality of film-making is much improved. Technically speaking, it's an attractive, modestly-budgeted film with great special effects. As well, the first 15 minutes of the film are strong, summarizing the plot of the first two films (Mother's massacre, Jason's revenge) and showing Jason as a stronger, meaner killing machine. It even gives a glimpse of how Jason actually lives, stealing from townsfolk and hiding in the woods, left to fend for himself.
Now... what's wrong with it? The characters are extremely unlikeable. Aside from the three leads (Jenna, Whitney, Clay), I cringed at most of the one-dimensional, obnoxious characters, even though the acting were fine. This is a contrast from the older films, where the characters were memorable and most of the acting was bad.
The plot holes. So let me get this straight... Jason is in the woods for all of his life, killing tons of people; yet the cops have no idea that anything is going on. "People go missing every day". The townsfolk don't, either. And, the majority of the plot takes place in a beautiful (and well kept) house in the woods owned by a character's rich father who goes there frequently... they never had a chance run-in with the maniac living in the woods for the past 20 years?
The lack of subtlety. The old films flirted with peek-a-boo nudity, mild language and quick kills, making it fun to watch and more effective. This one features full-on, almost explicit sex, F-bombs dropping almost every minute, and long, drawn out, unpleasant kills that make it more tuned for the "Saw" or "Hostel" crowd. I'll note now that I'm not a prude, I have no problems with sex and violence, but sometimes less is more.
All in all, I didn't hate Friday the 13th, but I hope five years from now I'll be watching Friday the 13th The Remake Part 5. Sadly, if they do make one I know I'll probably watch it.
Slaughter High (1986)
So bad it's good
Saying Slaughter High is a cheesy, stupid, low-budget slasher film doesn't do it justice. Rather, it's extremely cheesy, extremely low-budget and extraordinarily stupid. And that's why I enjoyed it.
Where do I start? The acting is atrocious, the dialogue hilariously bad, the special effects laughable... and the music. Yes, Harry Manfredini scored this one, but most of the score is bits and pieces of previous "Friday the 13th" films, with the exception of the punkish "I'll Get You" theme, which is played about 10 times through the movie.
The plot is simple. Nerdy kid is the subject of a cruel high school prank by the popular kids (played by bad acting adults in their 20s and 30s), and left burned and scarred for life. Years later, the popular kids (still played by the same bad actors in their 20s and 30s) are invited to a reunion held in the now-deserted school. It doesn't take them long to figure out they were the only ones invited, and they're locked in with the now-maniacal nerdy kid.
Now, what would you do if locked in a school with a serial killer, and you knew you were trapped with him? These characters aren't Boy Scouts, that's for sure: instead of hiding or getting help, they revisit their old auto class to fix up a car. They take a bath (high schools have bath tubs?!). They have sex with your high school crush. Do coke, drink beer laced with acid... you get the idea.
Surprisingly, there are a few tense and scary moments buried within. But there are also many ridiculously cringe-inducing scenes, ... it's like watching a train wreck and a slasher movie all in one.
Phenomena (1985)
A good movie... in its complete form.
As a teenager, I rented a film called Creepers back in the 1980s, after seeing that the girl from Labyrinth (Jennifer Connelly) and the guy from Halloween (Donald Pleasance) were in it. I hated it. It was incoherent, stupid, and not scary at all.
Years later, after watching a few Dario Argento movies, I learned that Creepers was in fact, a heavily-edited, U.S. version of Phenomena, which finally was released in its full form. I decided to watch it again and give it a second chance.
Wow - Argento should have sued the MPAA, or whoever hacked his film up for U.S. video release. Phenomena is a strange, original, creepy little shocker of a film. The normal Argento formula is there - a killer with black gloves, a weird musical score (that consists of metal bands such as Motorhead and Iron Maiden), and lots of memorable, grisly death scenes.
The only downfall the film takes is near the ending, when the identity and motive of the killer is revealed. Then again, the explanation was very Argento-esquire.
Hatchet (2006)
Meh... Hatchet is just average.
My hopes were high for Hatchet. Being a huge fan of old-school horror flicks - especially slasher flicks - I was intrigued to see what tricks this baby had up its sleeve.
The movie was entertaining, I'll give it that. However, back in the 80s when I watched movies like "My Bloody Valentine", "The Prowler", "The Burning" and any of the "Friday the 13th" films, I often enjoyed watching them a second or third time. I highly doubt I'd want to sit through "Hatchet" again.
One problem is that the kills are over the top. I see the filmmakers' point in making sure the film is gory, but when blood is being splashed all over the place, it loses its shock value and becomes ridiculous. It reminded me of how I was completely desensitized on boobs after watching 25 minutes of "Showgirls" that they lost their effect.
Another problem are the characters. Only the lead Ben (Joel Moore) has a likable, geeky quality to him; the others are just annoying.
I did get a kick, however, out of the in-jokes that only slasher fans would understand.
Halloween (1978)
The film that started it all...
The fun part of watching the original "Halloween" is seeing how many clichés were repeated in other slasher films. The heavy breathing, the POV camera, peek-a-boo nudity, etc.
"Halloween" is a classic because it pretty much introduced the slasher genre. There were other films before it that had similar plots ("Black Christmas"), however "Halloween" was far more successful.
One of the good things about "Halloween" that was different from other slasher films was its pace. Some may complain the film is slow - the body count is low and the action doesn't start until halfway through the film. That's what I liked about it: the film took time to develop atmosphere, introduce characters, and creep us out with subtle scenes of Michael stalking his prey.
However, now that I have seen it a few times, there are some large plot holes and inconsistencies that I never noticed before. For example: - in the beginning, the POV camera is at the height of an adult, not a 5 year old child. - Michael's sister's boyfriend must have severe premature ejaculation issues. Their off-screen love scene was what - 30 seconds? - who taught Michael how to drive so well as an adult, when he just stared blankly at a wall in the mental institution? - when Laurie and Annie are driving to the babysitters, Haddonfield suddenly goes from broad daylight to pitch black. How big is Haddonfield, and why would they babysit so far from home?
Halloween (2007)
I appreciate the new direction, but still...
I went into Rob Zombie's version of "Halloween" not expecting a simple rehash of the 1978 classic. I was not expecting another "Scream"-era slasher either. Given Zombie's previous film, the solid "Devil's Rejects", I knew this baby was going to be gritty, grisly, and disturbing.
For the most part, I was right. The film explores Michael Myers' past more than the original - his upbringing right up unto the point where he is institutionalized. This half of the film I quite enjoyed, as we get to see Zombie's version of how Michael grew up, and why he became the psychopath he did. Especially due to the performance of Sheri Moon Zombie - she completely abandoned her "Baby Firefly" character to bring forward a touching portrayal of the loving mother of a disturbed child.
Then, halfway through the film, it flashes forward to present day for Michael's escape. This is where the film stumbles. Instead of introducing 3 cute, likable teen would-be victims, we are introduced to 3 obnoxious, potty-mouthed, completely despicable vixens. In addition, while the performances are OK, the dialogue was so awful that I found myself squirming.
In conclusion, I think Rob Zombie did a better job on a "Halloween" remake than most of today's horror directors. In general, it should have either been left untouched, or kept as a prequel. I would have much more enjoyed an entire movie that explored Michael's childhood, but ended before his escape.
Family Guy: Family Gay (2009)
This was sooooo funny
Family Gay was one of the funniest Family Guy episodes I've seen in a while. It wasn't scared to be completely tasteless and politically incorrect (dead horses, glory holes, 11-somes, references to fisting... I could go on).
And, it was nice to see Mort Goldman again, he really is not in the show enough.
Lately the show is hit-or-miss; only once in a while does it reach the heights of the first few seasons. This is one of those instances.
Really as a gay man I should have been offended, but I was laughing too hard to care. It takes a lot to shock me, and Family Gay did it. Keep up the good work, Seth & Gang!!!
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
Something weird just happened...
I saw this movie back in 2002 and hated it. HATED it. Gave it a 2/10 on IMDb because I found it to be self-indulgent and incoherent.
However, over the years, I remembered the movie. I remembered specific scenes from it, and every time I saw Naomi Watts my first thoughts were, "That's the girl from Mulholland Drive!"
So, in late 2008, I decided to give it a second try. The movie is self-indulgent and incoherent, that's for sure - but now I enjoyed it. I don't quite know what David Lynch was getting at with the movie, but that's the point. It's a compelling, confusing, and brilliant movie.
See it. If you didn't like it the first time, wait a few weeks and watch it again. It still doesn't make sense, but it's worth the watch.
Hostel: Part II (2007)
Not quite sure what to make of Hostel: Part II
For some odd reason I rented Hostel: Part II as soon as it came out on DVD, even though I recall not being a huge fan of Hostel. The original Hostel, while it had an interesting premise and an intense ending, was marred from having an unfocused, immature first half that acted more as a teenage sex comedy than a horror film.
In comes Hostel: Part II. I usually swear off sequels, I was curious to check this one out, mainly because Eli Roth both wrote and directed it. So I believe it was a continuation of his own story, rather than a studio cash-grab made by other filmmakers.
There were a few things I liked about Hostel: Part II: the story itself is more focused, and the trio of heroines are more likable than the under-sexed frat-boys of the original. As well, Roth doesn't focus only on the would-be victims, he also fleshes out the characters of the torturers and takes a glimpse into the (hopefully) fictional underworld of Eastern European torture chambers.
Overall, however, the film boils down to a gross-out "I can't believe they just showed that" shockfest as it nears the end. When I say that the blood bath scene is probably the most disturbing scene I have ever seen in a movie, Roth would likely take that as a compliment.
My rating is pretty much neutral because both Hostel films are not ones I will watch over and over again, once is more than enough. Though I will say, if Eli Roth decides to make a third installment, I'll probably watch it.
Wolf Creek (2005)
Not worth the hype it got from horror fans...
I wanted to see Wolf Creek after reading the raves about it from several online horror aficionados, and wanted to see it more when Roger Ebert said it was so disturbing that it wanted to make him walk out of the theatre. I respect Mr. Ebert, but after he gave a positive review for 1971's Last House on the Left, I was curious to see what type of movie would disturb this man.
Now that it's said and done, I can say that I found Wolf Creek marginally enjoyable. It has its good qualities - good character development, beautiful cinematography, and a great performance by character actor John Jarratt. It also has some fairly intense moments.
However, it also has its bad qualities. The first half is far too slow; and some of the second half is filled with clichés and stupid character moves. Consider when Liz actually shoots the villain, he falls unconscious... and she doesn't bother to finish the job?! I know it's a movie, but come on - any rational person would have taken one of the (many) cutting utensils from a nearby table and made sure he wasn't getting up ever again.
I will say the movie did earn props for being pretty intense, even though it was also very unpleasant. Not the best horror movie in recent memory, but an OK effort.
One side note (Spoiler time)... I remember reading some people found this film misogynistic. I don't see that at all - other than the fact that the only survivor was a male. In 99% of slasher flicks, a female survives. So we're supposed to think that in the lone case where a guy survives, the film is suddenly against women?
Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)
The worst one, by far...
I have always been a huge fan of all the Friday the 13th films and still consider Jason Takes Manhattan to be by far the worst. Not only it is goreless, boring, and amateurish, it shows absolutely no respect for any of the films that preceded it.
Even the opening credits are different... "ki ki ki ha ha ha" has been replaced with "Jay-Jay-Jay son-son-son". The great Psycho-style music scores for the opening credits have been replaced with a cheesy song from the 80s, to accompany footage of New York, a.k.a. Vancouver. The "flashback scene" of how Jason drowned has been re-filmed, with some normal-looking kid (with a full head of hair!) playing him. The opening kill scene is over- acted and not inspired, personally I could have done without the girl's annoying screeching.
...and that's the first 10 minutes!
Then, the rest of the damn movie takes place on a boat. Except the last 15 minutes, in which Jason finally gets to New York, and even then nothing exciting happens.
After forcing myself to sit through this one several times (thanks to the From Crystal Lake to Manhattan box-set), I still can't see it's appeal.
Fat Actress (2005)
It's got potential, but things have got to change...
Kirstie Alley is back, and bigger than ever. The results are somewhat mixed - Kirstie is hilarious and has no problems shamelessly poking fun at herself in a variety of different scenarios. However, the supporting cast (mainly her two assistants) stand around looking lost for most of the episode. When subplots emerge and the story focuses solely on their characters, I find myself impatiently waiting for the show to get back to what Kirstie's up to.
I almost stopped watching after the totally unfunny second episode (with Kid Rock), but luckily the show got better with subsequent episodes (the episode with Leah Remini was a hoot). It's hard to say if this show will last, but better writing and more interesting supporting characters will definitely help.