Movie Defense Force: Friday the 13th (Reboot)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Friday the 13th (Reboot)

: Yes, Michael Bay was involved. Yes, it's a reboot. 2009's Friday the 13th is still one of the good ones!

Watch Video

Running? Seriously? Don't these slasher killers make a habit of appearing suddenly and then disappearing when the protagonist looks back at them? How did people think they moved so quickly?

I think the annoyance with it is that it seems to have thrown the original movie out the window. I mean Jason wasn't really in the original, it was his mother (its over 20 years old, spoilers don't count anymore.), I don't think the hockey mask even showed up till the third movie. Just watching your review kinda made me annoyed at the reboot and I'm not some old fan of the series, I've actually only seen the first movie and I only saw it for the first time last weekend.

I'll admit that I saw parts 1-5 after I saw the reboot, but I thought it worked better than many said. It's not a great film, but neither are the rest of the Jason films. They're all pretty junky at the core.

I haven't seen this one, but it doesn't sound that bad to me. I think people are just biased against reboots. I think this is a classic case of They changed it now it sucks

Worgen:
I think the annoyance with it is that it seems to have thrown the original movie out the window. I mean Jason wasn't really in the original, it was his mother (its over 20 years old, spoilers don't count anymore.), I don't think the hockey mask even showed up till the third movie. Just watching your review kinda made me annoyed at the reboot and I'm not some old fan of the series, I've actually only seen the first movie and I only saw it for the first time last weekend.

It didn't really throw out the original movie though. There's some acknowledgement of it in the opening scene in fact. But the reality is that when most people think Friday the 13th they think Jason, not Jason's mom. It was the right decision if you ask me to use her death which did happen in the first movie as somewhat of the launching off point to get into Jason growing up a killer. It makes more sense and it's a lot more interesting. As for the mask, he didn't start with it in the reboot either, so they absolutely did have the nod to that from the originals. But it would be a little ridiculous to have a reboot where he's wearing a cloth bag with one eye hole all movie long and never get the hockey mask. Just like Jason is the killer most associated with Friday the 13th, the hockey mask is his most iconic feature, and there are probably people who would see the reboot and not even realize that he wasn't in the original or that the mask didn't show up until number three and would end up totally confused.

Honestly, I agree with Jim's assessment of this movie. It isn't amazing, but it does what it sets out to do competently and still pays respect to the original movies as much as possible. And compared to the originals it really is just far better than they were. Some people probably either forget, or choose to forget, but those originals are awful by any objective measure. The only reason they're still somewhat watchable is as an example of horror movies at the time they were made and because they kind of cross the line into so bad they're good territory as a lot of slasher films do.

I hope you tackle Aeon Flux film at some point. The fact they managed to get 1 coherent story out of the source material is pretty good in itself

DVS BSTrD:
Running? Seriously? Don't these slasher killers make a habit of appearing suddenly and then disappearing when the protagonist looks back at them? How did people think they moved so quickly?

Actually the act of dissapearing and reappearing (to me anyway) is a lot more scarier than something that can run. Why? You can hear something running and chasing you. If there's something that can instantaneously move from one spot to the next without being able to see or hear it, you're pretty much screwed. I know this from experience because for some reason whenever im walking through my house and i say hi to a family member they freak the hell out because they didn't hear me moving throughout the house and thought they were alone. i don't do it on purpose mind you it just happens.

another example is the endermen from minecraft and anyone who's played it knows what im talkin about, especially at 1:00

I only heard about people's dislike for this movie when I started frquenting the online scene. Me and my friends actually liked this movie, even if it seems a bit restrained compared to some other installments. I'll never understand what people expected from a Friday the 13th movie in the first place.

I don't know why people hate this movie it's not that bad it's actually quiet good it dose what slash films are meant to do.

canadamus_prime:
They changed it now it sucks

There goes my evening, I wanted to get work done :[

Toasty Virus:

canadamus_prime:
They changed it now it sucks

There goes my evening, I wanted to get work done :[

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Exactly as planned. :D

Michael bay? Ooooh, I watched the entire review thinking it was the Rob Zombie Halloween movie. "Oh well," said Fred.

If there is any movie that gets too much unwarranted bashing, it's Battlefield Earth.

Jimothy Sterling:
Friday the 13th (Reboot)

: Yes, Michael Bay was involved. Yes, it's a reboot. 2009's Friday the 13th is still one of the good ones!

Watch Video

How about doing pandorum at some point? i loved that film, then again maybe you didnt, maybe you thought it sucked big floppy donkey cock. In which case don't do it.

Here's the thing about "evolving the character" of Jason. Jason isn't a character. He's pure catharsis. He is a force of nature. You don't ask what the shark from JAWS was feeling when he ate the swimmers, he just ate them. Cause that what sharks do. And you don't need to ask why Jason does what he does either. He just is. Period.

At least that is how it used to be before the reboot. And I think that is why so many fans didn't like the rebooted Friday. Personally, I'll watch anything with Jason Voorhees in it and it will get a solid review from me regardless. I love all the Fridays. From the first to Jason X. And whether they continue with the more realistic survivalist Jason or whether they go back to nonsense Zombie Jason, I'll still show up. If he get's a time traveling Machete and ends up in ancient Egypt fighting mummies with Abbot and Costello... I'll still show up and root for big J.

Not sure if you are looking for suggestions, but I always thought the 2004 Punisher was a good, clever, and watchable film, but it has a metacritic score of 33.

Haven't seen anything beyond the original and Jason vs Freddy, but it sounds like this one got a lot of undeserved shit.
Keep at it, Jim!

ZZoMBiE13:
Here's the thing about "evolving the character" of Jason. Jason isn't a character. He's pure catharsis. He is a force of nature. You don't ask what the shark from JAWS was feeling when he ate the swimmers, he just ate them. Cause that what sharks do. And you don't need to ask why Jason does what he does either. He just is. Period.

Let's be fair here, Jason has SOME character to him, but just enough to make the audience realise his origin and reason for being the monstrous force he is. We know that he won't kill kids, and we know he goes after people at Crystal Lake because they (almost?) let him drown. But yes, overall Jason is one-note until he becomes a zombie but he plays that note well. Still better than the overdoing it version of Michael Meyers, rather than learning of his sessions with Loomis that he is nothing but pure, calculating, unrelenting evil.

Though I do think the survivalist thing was iffy. I mean, it makes some sense but at the same time Jason was originally supposed to be deformed and mentally ill/retarded, wasn't he? It's kinda hard to believe some of that, especially if he didn't have someone to show him how to do it.

Wow, Jim actually does like some really shitty movies, doesn't he?

Can we please get a video series that keeps to the actual premise - defending underrated movies, rather than one that just says that shitty movies are good because Jim likes them?

My girlfriend and I own all of the movies in this series, and this one gets the second-most playtime in our house, after Part 6: Jason Lives. While that one is really funny, this one is mostly serious, and builds up the tension nicely before giving us the kills. Everything they changed is well-done, and they kept enough of the essential elements (even the humor, despite what I just said!) that it really feels like the culmination of efforts to put together a really good Jason movie.

However, the "Nightmare on Elm Street" reboot, done by the same production company, was not so good. I thought the idea of Freddy being actually innocent was brilliant, but then they said "nope, he's even worse than we thought!" What if they'd run with that idea -- that Freddy was an innocent man who was killed by a mob in once of the worst ways imaginable, and was taking revenge on them? It would have been a stark statement about mob violence, and the way that suburban life leads to a distrust of outsiders. But no, it tripped, fell, and just led to massive disappointment.

i have just now caught on to the appeal of horror films. why do so many revolve around murdering teenagers? because it's a fantasy all adults have. because teenagers are awful.

bravo, horror film genre. bravo.

How can nudity be unsatisfying? Does not computer.

Edit:

Aardvaarkman:

Can we please get a video series that keeps to the actual premise - defending underrated movies, rather than one that just says that shitty movies are good because Jim likes them?

Defending underrated movies isn't the premise of this series.

After seeing the original and then this, this is by far the better film. There wasn't even the iconic machete or hockey mask in the original, just lots of boring people getting murder every hour or so, or at least it felt like hours because it bored me to tears. Me and my sisters even started to make fun of the stalker "music" (che-che hah-hah) to amuse ourselves.

The only part worth watching of the original is the last couple of minutes, perhaps one of the greatest climaxes to horror film I can remember, doesn't stop it from needing an editor to clean up the rest. The reboot isn't great by any strech of the imagination, but the original isn't what I'd call 'sacred'.

Well, I never saw the Reboot, but I've seen all the Jason films. Ever. Sometimes all at once (who else misses those College days?)

But if he's human, this falls into the same category of slasher movies that I can't stand: The invincible due to plot Human Killer.

Take Scream. Why does everyone run? GRAB something. All he has is a freaking knife. Yes, it can kill you, but he has to reach you. If you let him out of sight, you give him the element of surprise. If you managed to get him on the floor and he isn't getting up, use that time to throw something heavy at him to injure him or shove something into his damn leg so he can't run after you.

Humans are frail. That's why these victims fall one by one. But if the Slasher is human as well, you're on what we like to call Equal Footing.

I've never been a fan of this kinds of movies, especially Freddy's since I was pretty easily nauseated from the gore parts. But after watching that last axe throw, I must see this movie.

I definitely need to check this out. I've always avoided it due to bad mouthing from fans of the series, but it sounds like a strong film in its own right.

What about the haloween reboots. I'd like to know your opinion on those.

People don't like their Escapist fantasy messed with. It can be hard for many to understand why Horror is escapist fantasy, it is, and it really has nothing to do with people wanting to be killers, or the dark side of human violence, or anything else, as there isn't generally that much direct association with the villain.

Let me be honest, the real world is boring. People strive to get away from it. Horror movies generally feature the premise of a bunch of generally ordinary people who get caught up in extraordinary events. Chased by unkillable murder machines, surviving against zombie hordes, exploring creepy abandoned locations, it's all very differant from what most of us do, and tends wind up being unexpectedly exciting. While most of us would never want to be in a horror movie as such things tend to go down (which would lead to our inevitable, horrible, screaming death) the idea of cool stuff happening and being in the middle of it is exciting and adventurous, and captures the imagination. Genere fans typically go to great lengths mentally contriving their zombie survival plan, or thinking about what they would try and do if they say confronted the mythology of Friday The 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, or on a video game front what it would be like if they found themselves in Silent Hill. One of the reasons why you see such stereotypical characters as well is to make the situation somewhat believable (more so than many kinds of fantasy) since everyone probably knows people at least similar to the ones in the movie.

The problem with reboots like "Friday The 13th" is that what the studios are doing is playing around with mental constucts and mythologies that have been around for a couple generations of movie goers. These things are popular based on their expanding mythology and for being what they were. You decide to reboot it and change everything around and that slots off the fans who invested a lot of imagination in it to begin with. Those doing reboots, not just of this, but of other properties, totally seem to miss the point that if they are going to change things substantially, there is no point in using a well known franchise name, because anyone whom that franchise has meaning to is just going to get cheezed off when you make alterations to it.

On a lot of levels I can agree that for it's genere "Friday The 13th" was not horrible. The problem was that there was no reason to make it "Friday The 13th" had they taken the time to create their own killer, and try and build up their own mythology, rather than mess around with an existing one, they might have found something with these (relatively good) production values going over a bit better. Ironically it's the lack of creativity and willingness to take risks that is creating these kind of relative bombs. Had they taken the big name director and reasonably large budget for a horror movie and channeled it into a new franchise, it probably would have gone over better. In this case the big franchise name and what was supposed to go with it, actually hurt them IMO.

I've noticed a general tendency in "Movie Defense Force" to look at movies that were dragged down by their own self-imposed baggage more than anything. I suppose on a lot of levels things like this, Aliens 3, and the like are not terrible when you try and look past the ways they turned their respective liscences into their own downfall. Typically ignoring continuity that the fan base they were tapping really liked as a whole, and was arguably superior to their own product from a creative perspective. Something like "Aliens 3" got panned by "Aliens" fans because the then more relevent and known "Dark Horse" continuity was simply vastly better and effectively de-canonized and ruined by the movie, and with "Friday The 13th" there was never any real point to rebooting it for the people to whom that
franchise name was going to matter.

I'll also say that Jim's defense of some of the things that were "out of character" in this movie and which he defended by referancing other things Jason did in previous movies, is a bit out of place. See the idea of Jason using a Harpoon wasn't really fitting of the character, and didn't go over very well at the time. That's why you didn't see him running around harpooning people or using ranged weapons after you saw that kill, and you kind of had to dig to a relatively early installment to find a place where he did it, and they didn't mess with it again because it didn't work. By having Jason come out as "Mr. Psycho Survivalist" and shoot people with bows and such your going in a direction that any decent writer or director should know had been tried and failed.

What's more, despite his relatively humble beginnings, and the "twist" of the first movie, this was always a series intended to have supernatural undertones and seem like paranormal/unreal stuff was going on even when it wasn't (and it got really over the top to begin with). I think it was explained by some of the creators when he started to become popular that Jason himself isn't really either a man, or even an undead entity, at the end of the day he's more or
less the manifestation of a curse placed on the camp and surrounding area.

At any rate, perhaps the most important thing to consider is that by making Jason so relatively "normal" it also hurt the mystique. People who go to see Friday The 13th after this many installments want to see the usual trappings, but also expect things to be insane. If they just wanted to see what is more or less literally just some guy in a hockey mask as opposed to something supernatural, they could go see plenty of other perfectly normal slashers. The reboot turned Jason from a really campy form of nightmare fuel, into just another psycho rural dude. When you look at it from that perspective and remove everything that made him special down the road, was he even a paticularly good/entertaining psycho rural dude now that we've had however many "Wrong Turn" movies, not to mention Rob Zombie's fairly popular "House Of 1000 Corpses" and "Devil's Rejects"?.

Actually, the real motivation for the remakes and reboots is often because of a 'use it or lose' it clause somewhere in the licensing or IP usage agreements, in which if the studio does not make films using it, they may lose the property to its original rights holder.

As long as they don't reboot A Nightmare on Elm Street as a series of movies. I love the franchise as a horror-comedy & unfunny pedo-Krueger sucked out all the laughs.

As a kid, I could never really differentiate Jason Voorhees from Michael Myers, & apparently neither could the director & script writer for "Jason Goes to Hell."

People complain about reboots for the soul purpose of complaining.
I'd much prefer a reboot than another horrid sequel at that point in time where were we in the Voorhees time line.
Jason had already been attacked by a telekenetic girl, explored Manhattan....and went to fucking space.

People complaining about going back to the roots of the series is ridiculous in retrospect.

All slashers run, a lot, the idea is that you don't see it, watch "The Rise of Leslie Vernon" to see how important cardio is while preparing a massacre.

Worgen:
I think the annoyance with it is that it seems to have thrown the original movie out the window. I mean Jason wasn't really in the original, it was his mother (its over 20 years old, spoilers don't count anymore.), I don't think the hockey mask even showed up till the third movie. Just watching your review kinda made me annoyed at the reboot and I'm not some old fan of the series, I've actually only seen the first movie and I only saw it for the first time last weekend.

I'd be more disappointed about that reveal being spoiled for me if I knew there was any likelihood that I was going to watch the original Friday the 13th but I think it is a mistake to assume that something's age makes reveals details about it any less of a spoiler.

Appearing out of nowhere is what makes slasher vilains so great. Even if there's no supernatural explanation for it, it's still scary. Non-supers would have to plan exactly where their victim would be and get to it before them.

I didn't mind the idea of him kidnapping someone, but having the the brother (I think) come looking for her just felt a bit boring and overused.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here