Bottom of the Barrel
Added 3/17/2010
Whenever I watch the increasingly endless line-up of botched remakes of beloved horror classics, I try not to knock the poor cast. The young actors in this abomination all try hard and give it their all. All of them do excellent work in their limited characters. But a god-awful script and direction bring the whole thing down.
You watch and mentally compare it to its predecessor and you become even more disgusted. For the 80 million budget (including heavy promotion) the movie makers could have made a brand new horror franchise and given the fans something to remember. Instead, most will remember this junk for all the wrong reasons.
A group of young people go to a cabin on Crystal Lake where they're aware that horrible things happened there in the past. Yet, from the first frame to the final one, the story makes plain that these kids are not about to worry about a possible psycho on the loose. They're all too busy having SEX to worry about anything. If a boy looks at a girl, he wiggles his brows and talk about much he wants to f_____. If a girl looks at a guy, she tries to be a Playboy centerfold by licking her lips and half-closing her eyes and if this doesn't work, she flashes her boobs.
In one bizarre scene, the killer has invaded the house but a couple upstairs in a bedroom are too busy screaming as they have graphic sex to hear somebody warning them to be alert.
In another scene, another boob says he's going down to the boathouse altough everyone knows the killer is lurkng out there. While the idiot sings and hums to himself and he plays around in the boathouse he suddenly discovers--who else--the klller? In another moan-inducing scene, the killer has made it clear he's close-by the cabin. One of the girls suddenly decides to go upstairs and look around. She sees a window half-open. Then she searches for the killer by looking in the closet and then the bathtub. Of course, while looking, she carries no weapon of any kind. Not even a hair brush. And so when the killer finally kills her, you want to applaud.
Michael Bay was naturally one of the producers on this putrid mess. You'll find his name on every remake of a horror classic that's played at your multiplex. Whenever I see him name, I know before the credits flash, that I'm in one for one miserable movie experience.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Pretty good for someone new to the series
Added 3/3/2010
I'm going to preface this review with the note that I never saw the original Friday the 13th in its entirety. I did try a few years ago, but couldn't get through it.
That said, I was pleasantly surprised. It kept me entertained. The dialogue is amusing and you'll find plenty of gore and boobs. Speaking of boobs, Julianna Guill (Bree in the movie) is simply amazing naked. That won't get me to like a movie by itself, but it sure doesn't hurt my overall opinion.
If you have some time to kill and are in the mood for something you don't have to take too seriously, I'd recommend giving this a watch. It probably helped that I had very low expectations, but I also don't think it fully deserves the horrible rating it has on Rotten. There were several funny sequences and the suspense was reasonably well done.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Friday The 13th reboot
Added 2/13/2010
so this movie gave me the chills just like the original one did with mrs voorhees and its dark and scary. i bought this dvd and its awesome, plus with this extended cut the deaths are more scary and longer than the theater version, so if you like the original friday the 13th buy this one because in a way they roll the fisrt 4 films into one with this one, you see mrs voorhees and jason wears his potatoe sack and of course the iconic hockey mask.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Best Movie Ever
Added 2/13/2010
This is a must see. Great action,horror,and stabbing but I don't get it first of all they show what happened in the original so why make all those other movies. My opinion is Friday the 13th part 1 and the remake are the complete story. In the original it was Jason's Mom and in the remake It's Jason. Only watch these two because the rest don't make any sense.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Underrated
Added 2/10/2010
Alright, I'll admit it, it's usually called a remake. If you don't like remakes don't watch it, it's as simple as that.
Now onto my opinion.
I'll get rid of the negative right away. Only the Blu-Ray included both Theatrical and Extended cuts. DVD's on this movie aren't very good, put that's probably because it got such a bad rating.
Many times, this is refereed to as a "remake" and Jason is on the cover, and that will mean one of two things to the uneducated: A. This movie is dumbed down for a wider audience and does not stay true or B. Jason was in the original. However, watching the movie, it basically chronicles 13th's 1-3 and bits of 4, Jason's mom reeks havoc and gets killed by a mechete, Jason comes back in a Potato sack, losses his Potato sack, we see him unmasked and he comes for his mask. The rest is typical Slasher flick. I love it, it really is one of the bright shines of light in the darkness that is Horror films today. My favorite part is when the guy gets hit by an ax to the back, but he falls on his stomach, so he's still alive. Then Jason picks him up, and gives him a Power Bomb! He was like The Undertaker, (LAST RIDE! LAST RIDE!) And the ax goes through the guy's lungs! WOOOO!
All in all, I can't wait to see Part 2, which will probably chronical 4-6 and parts of 7. Then Part 3 will go insane, it will be super long with New York, Hell, Space and Freddy Kruger. I also can't wait to see the reboot of A Nightmare on Elm Street.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Not as bad as you've heard
Added 2/22/2010
This film is not nearly as bad as is reviewed here (and other forums). Let me begin by stating that the transfer / Blu Ray is 100% clear and certainly leaves nothing to be desired in the AV department.
Steve Jablonsky's score/music was subtle, yet far more effective than Manfredini's.
(Forgive me Harry).
The production design does suck. The sets aren't nearly as foreboding as they could/should have been. Virginia Field's work (and the location) on the first two films, and Robb Wilson King's on the third, were much better. This film lacked the feel it deserved.
Shannon and Swift should have excised the first 23+ minutes of this film and replaced it with more of an origin story. The time line set herein was perfect. Yet the damned thing played out during the three minutes with the credits ON IT. I was inflammed with the first act in this film. It sucked. Should have taken more from Miller/Kurz's script on the first two films. Nana Visitor and Stephanie Rhodes should have been given WAY more screen time.
Pandalecki was numbing. Yet, Righetti was great. I also thought Van Winkle was a great choice for the "a-hole" role. Willa Ford was the worst of the pick: her character was irritating not by script, but by play out.
It is my opinion that the real "reboot" should have started after the first 23 or so minutes. I enjoyed the final part of the film. Derek Mears is a great choice to play "Jason Voorhees" too. I'm glad to see "Jason" on the big screen and I look forward to the second "reboot" film.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Can't argue with the movie, it followed the old Friday the 13th very well and added some more good stuff to it that it didn't destroy the movie/story.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Another Remake That Falls Flat
Added 11/17/2009
The first few original "Friday The 13th" films (before they started milking the cash cow with endless crappy sequels) were some of the scariest fare to ever come out of the horror genre. Building off the success of the original slasher film, "Halloween", this franchise created a character (in Jason Voorhees) that actually has an interesting backstory, making him even more terrifying. Those first five or so installments had everything a great horror movie needs: a decent plotline, a little skin, and some "jump out of your seat" moments. Plus, and this is not to be underestimated, they had that "early 80s movie" feel to them, as the camera work was very simple and the film quality wasn't pristine, only adding to the scare factor.
Sadly, though, this remake (directed by Marcus Nispel) fails to hit any of the hallmarks that the originals made famous. Perhaps the failure of Rob Zombie's "Halloween" remakes should have been a clue, but I guess viewers (once again) had to learn the hard way that some films just don't need to be remade. Basically, there are two ways to undertake these sorts of projects: Either a "re-make", which this tries to be, or a "re-boot" (like the latest Star Trek), which this film probably should have been but couldn't because of the iconic Jason character.
Besides matching the originals in the nudity department (and whether that is a positive feature is debatable!), this new version fails in every other regard. The story is completely ripped off from the original few flicks, there really are no great "jump moments" that can hold a candle to those done in the past, and the cinematography is actually too "clean and tidy"...there's no grittiness to it at all. Not helping matters is the fact that besides Jared Padalecki and Danielle Panabaker, who turn in fine acting performances, the rest of the cast is uninspiring in all their respective roles...nothing more than fodder to be eventually slashed by Jason.
Perhaps the biggest downfall of the entire film experience, though, is the fact that the Jason character is such an icon in the horror genre that there really is no way to either make him better or even match the original. Once again, it's kind of like the Halloween remake...people don't dress up to trick or treat like Zombie's Michael Myers. Instead, they are wearing the old William Shatner mold from the originals. The same concept can be applied to Jason...he terrified us with the tied bag over the head (and then the hockey mask) at first, so why would the exact same thing two decades later be any better?
Thus, about the only good thing I see coming from this film is the possibility that it may "inspire" a new audience to discover the great originals. However, it will more than likely drive potential fans away due to all its shortcomings.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
