Weekly Movie Review: Friday The 13th (2009)

[MockBot]

Automatically generated comment thread for Weekly Movie Review: Friday The 13th (2009) (http://www.i-mockery.com/weeklies/weekly.php?type=movies&id=92).

[Tadao]

Are you saying that they tried to humanize Jason?

[Doctor_Who]

I hated this one. It's even worse than Jason Takes Manhattan.

[RevengeVirus]

Best line?

"Where the fuck are you, GUN?!"

[Mockery]

I hated this one. It's even worse than Jason Takes Manhattan.
Huh? I loved Jason Takes Manhattan (http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/jason-nyc). It was so ridiculous and comical it made for a really amusing flick. Wish I could say the same for this latest flick.

http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/jason-nyc/26.gif (http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/jason-nyc)
How can you not love moments like that?

[Marsten]

What I always wanted to know, was why Jason seemed to be growing a secret stash of weed in his forest. And hunted down the kids who came anywhere near it. So his motives were less about his mother, and more about protecting his stash?

[robo_rob]

I enjoyed the movie on the basis that it was in the same vein as the older films. Much more so than the New Line Jason movies. Aside from that, the bow and arrow scene didn't bother me so much as his mother had killed a guy that way in the original film. Same with the running, jason ran a little in the earlier movies and this was a remake of the first three. So I just scratched that off. My biggest gripe was, however, Jason's evil lair. While sure he had that shack in part 2, the whole tunnels and stuff just threw me off. While it wasn't a classic by any means, it was still in the classic Friday the 13th vein. Which gave it points for me.

[Relaxing Dragon]

I actually really enjoyed this one (or at least, mostly enjoyed it), mainly because I'm more OK with the faults so many bring up. I think a new, more-human look at Jason is a good thing. We've had a dozen or so movies about him already, most of them (the good ones, at least) with him as some supernatural zombie. Showing him back when he was a sort of crazed woodsmen defending his territory, getting pissed when people invade his area, and retaining some skills from when he was a kid (he's been a pretty good shot in the other movies as well, though usually he's just throing things), that's all good stuff in my opinion.

I do admit the kills could've been more creative (and in several instances, more painful. Honestly, the Prick seemed to get off light), but at least the ones that are there are solid and grisly. Axe shoved through someone's back may not be the most memorable method dispatch around, but it's still an axe shoved through someone's back. Got some guts to it.

One thing that really bothered me, though, was something I should probably spoiler (in length):

Jason taking a prisoner = what? Doesn't make much sense at all, that's just not his style. I suppose it's possible that Jason could've mistaken her for his mother, since he's done that several times before. Of course, in every one of those times, the encounter was over in a few seconds, not this six weeks business. Then maybe it's because she had that locket and that always slows him down, but in the movie it makes it seem like he's seeing it on her for the first time. There just wasn't any good reason for her to be down there at all (from Jason's perspective I mean).

The way I see it, it would've worked if she was killed from the get go and the corpse stored down there. Then, when the brother and that one girl (it's a Friday the 13th movie, so forgive me for not knowing their names) were going through the cabin, one of them could've fallen through the trap door (instead of being lured down with screaming). They wander about, find the corpse, brother has a tearful reunion, they run to escape Jason (who has a near miss with his machete instead of getting the girl through the chest), and the rest of the movie plays out the same way it did (just with the girl in place of the sister). Just would've made more sense for everyone involved in my opinion.

Apart from that thing (annoying as it was, that's at least a whole point off the overall movie), I liked it. I rank it somewhere towards the upper-middle of the series overall, and can't wait for the next one (really hope they bring Derek Mears back, he was an excellent Jason. He can stand proud next to C.J. Graham and Kane Hodder in my book)

[saturnknight]

It seemed that in parts of the movie.... Jason had unusial speed... one second he was on a cabin roof, when only seconds before he was kiling someone outside of an old shed.... As for the Bell thing... saw the same thing in "See No Evil" starring Kain as the killer. Jason seems more like a hunter and stalker killer, not a guy who wants to be left alone.... although the ending was a tribute if you ask me.

[saturnknight]

If you know the Horror movie rules if survival, you'd be able to pick out who'll live and who'll die rather early in the movies.... Same with this movie. Jason Takes Manhatton was bad, but I did enjoy it,as odd as it sounds it made more sense than Friday the 13th 7 where he's fighting a girl with telekenetic powers

oh, someone made this vid, the editing was nicely done http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjW5Zsf06j4

and when can we see a review on the Freddy Vs Jason Vs Ash comics? I'll send them somehow if I could

[Nick]

It can't be worst than Jason Goes to Hell or Jason X.

[testtube]

The guy who directed this might be the shittiest slasher flick director of all time, some creepy molestache wearing Aussie who likes to expose his chest hair in interviews. The last scene when Jason is supposed to be getting sucked into a wood chipper, I KNEW nothing was going to happen, I knew it was going to stop short. If anyone else made the movie Jason would have come alive and shoved the male lead head first through it. This movie had great cinematography, making it seem even more less like a Friday movie. Another typical horror remake: not enough balls for quality gore scenes and apparently written by/for retards. I dunno, I still can't get behind any of these remakes.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

ROG: I'm with you that the kills weren't that memorable compared to the kills of yesteryear but this is also the "first" in a new series. The reason why they had such ridiculous awesome kills later on was they had to push boundries. Later on if the remakes continue they'll wind up brutal and gory I'm sure.

[Mockery]

Yep, that's what I'm hoping for, and like I said, Mears did a fine job as Jason and I hope they'll stick with him for future installments of the Friday the 13th series.

[saturnknight]

I can't wait to see what they'll do next.... I wonder if thry'll attempt another 3D after the last mishap they had with Jason in 3d. Eyeball on a strong, and random acts of guys juggling. although the spear headed at the camera was cool in it

[DougClayton4231]

I can't wait for the next one, as this one was fantastic. I enjoyed most of the characters, as I thought the hokey stereotypes were amusing to see in 2009. Best slasher movie of the year other than My Bloody Valentine. I wish that it was longer though, the extended cut is still less than 2 hours :/

[Primortal]

Yet another lame remake. Nuff said.

[Riot.EXE]

I actually enjoyed the reboot when I saw it...but the kill for Mr. "your breasts are stupendous" made the least amount of sense to me...it was like Jason had an unknown tag team partner for it or something...

[Willem138]

I also noticed there were more boobs than in any of the other films. So it felt like watching a porno at times.

[Kilgore Cod]

I enjoyed the film when I watched it. I don't have high standards when it comes to Jason flicks. The kills were on the lame side and the whole bit about Jason's underground lair complete with bells really betrayed a cardinal rule about horror movies (DON'T SHOW THE MONSTER TOO MUCH!!!!). I half expected Jason to drop onto a sofa and watch a football game.

[draugrviking]

I disagree, I liked the movie. I will agree with Rog on 2 things about the movie. 1) I didn't like Jason's little alarm system. 2) I felt most of the kills were just ok. The chick getting hung to the antlers was clearly un original, and when Jason killed the asain guy who gave him the hockey stick, Jason should've used the hockey stick to kill him. I do disagree with what Rog said about Jason killing the guy on the boat with a bow and arrow. I personally found it to be an ok kill, but that kill was like that one kill in part 3 where Jason used a spear gun to kill the chick on a dock. In all good slasher films the killer doesn't heavily rely on one weapon one method. Freddy Krueger seldomly used his glove, Jason would'nt always use his machete, and in My Bloody Valentine Harry Warden (in both movies) mostly used his pick axe to do the killings but he would use his axe in several different ways to do the killings. So the same principle applies to the killing on the boat, it goes to show that no matter where you are in Crystal Lake you are not safe from Jason.
Overall I enjoyed it, I thought it was much better than Jason goes to Hell and better than part 5. I'd give the movie more of a 4/5. It lacked on having as good of the kills as part 2 and 6, but It also delivered on some of the stuff the series did best the nudity and the humor.

[HowardC]

I'm still trying to figure out why they do remakes of horror movies with a million sequels. Wouldn't it just make more sense to do yet another sequel? I mean horror movies aren't exactly known for their continuity anyway and this way we can skip the boring origin film and get right to the good stuff. And if you say that it can't be done or that it doesn't allow for enough creative freedom I'll promptly direct you to the two "chucky" films. They have virtually nothing to do with the first three childs play films, contain totally re-designed creatures and a new plot and yet they are still merely sequels. This allowed for a lot of freedom and yet kept the original plot and mythos intact, allowing it to be drawn upon in the future.

Sadly, I hear they are now going to throw Childs Play under the remake train. I suppose it could be worse, they could be re-making highly character driven films like nightmare on elm street in which the actor portraying the villian literally IS the villian and cannot be played by anyone else. ..... Oh wait.... :-(

[Tadao]

The place is a camp for kids right? They have things like archery haystacks. I bet Jason practiced his archery during the off seasons.

[Rufus the Perturbed]

First off, I have to say that I agree with ROG about Jason Takes Manhattan. That movie was fucking great, it was just more of a comedy than a horror, sort of like a keyed-down version of Club Dread. Second, I walked out on this movie, and I've only done that once before (The Crow: City of Angels was the first). I wanted to see new, more inventive kills, and I got nothing except lots and lots of boobs. If I want lots of boobs, I'll watch a damn porno. Oh, and by the way, JASON SHOULDN'T TAKE PRISONERS! EVER! That was when I left. Just on a side note though (and I'm not trying to bash saturnknight here), I though the Freddy vs Jason vs Ash comic was HORRIBLE, but maybe that's just me.

[Mental Pooperscooper]

Usually I like to look at remakes as stand alone movies and judge accordingly (which by the way, isn't deluding enough to excuse the travesty that Rob Zombie dared to call Halloween), but Friday the 13th VI was the first horror movie I ever saw, and the series has been my favorite ever since, so I didn't cut this one the usual slack. Having said that, I actually enjoyed this one enough to support a sequel, mostly because it had an excellent Jason and managed to stay more true to the original psyche than any (recent) remake I know of. Truth be told, I wasn't really bothered by the lair or the prisoner, and he ran a bit early on so that was forgivable, all I had a problem with was the alert system. Granted while he's still alive it'd make sense to take further measure to preserve said state, but this is Jason, since when does he worry about this?
Oh, almost forgot, it should be noted that the first film wasn't messed with, it was really only noted at the beginning to give som background, THAT should be a company standard in remakes

[Alcibiades]

I keep waiting for them to flip one of the Horror movie champions. By which I mean, do like they did with Godzilla. There's tons of movies where Godzilla (In all his Tokyo Destroying Glory) is the good guy fighting off some evil force.

They should make some absurd movie where the military like, captures Jason and dispatches him into the middle east to take down some facist dictator.

[Debug]

I can't believe that some people think that jason is more meanacing when he's running.

[Dommin]

Jason Running=No. Nonononono.

Jason in this movie is just Leatherface, -mask, +hockey mask, -chainsaw, -watchablity. This is the only Friday movie I've ever seen that I got bored watching.

[IXCE]

The first 20 minutes were great.....the rest of the film was easily forgettable.

[Debug]

I know this might be a bit irrelevent, but they're making a remake of Nightmare on elm street with Jackie Earle Haley (The guy who played Rorschach in the watchmen movie) playing the role of Freddy Kreuger

[Mockery]

He was awesome as Rorschach, but I honestly don't think anybody else should play Freddy. Unlike the silent killers such as Jason Voorhees & Michael Myers, Freddy has real personality and you can't just have anybody play him. I hope Earle does a good job, but I don't envy anybody who has the task of filling Robert Englund's shoes. As much as I love Elm Street, that's a series I think they should let die once Englund is done with it. I hope they prove me wrong with the remake, but I'm certainly not counting on it.

Anyway, in regards to Jason holding a prisoner in the new movie, yeah that was pretty absurd. Here's the real question it brought up for me: if that necklace she was wearing confused him and really made him think she was his mother, there's no way in hell he would keep her chained up. He'd either let her go because he thought she was mom or he'd chop her to bits because he realized she was an impostor. Jason is definitely not the kind of guy who keeps somebody chained up because he wants some company.

[Relaxing Dragon]

I really didn't get that either, seemed like a lame way to keep the sister alive (which was itself a cop out, just kill her already. It's not like the characters aren't interchangeable anyway, no one would notice). And I think running Jason works (for a pre-Zombie form, at least), gives him a cool crazed woodsman feel. Which is pretty much what he is when he's still human.

Also, word from the makers is that they'll try to have more creative kills in the next sequel: http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/19844/1/JASON-VOORHEES-MAY-GO-IN-THE-SNOW-BUT-HE-WON039T-GO-TO-SPACE/Page1.html (near the bottom).

[Julio]

Then again, I have never seen any of the films of this horror saga.

[Gato]

I agree. Jason just isn't the type to have an alarm system or take prisoners. Making him more human is a bad idea. Jason is supposed to be inhuman. And while it's true he was once, the human part of him is rather dead. If anything, Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger are known for their inventive, gory, and sometimes hilarious kills. Killing a chick by jamming a party horn in her eye, or turning a chick into a roach and squishing her in a roach motel? Priceless.

[EzraSmith]

Silent Night, Deadly Night 5 was much better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Night,_Deadly_Night_5:_The_Toy_Maker