Friday The 13th Part 4: The Final Chapter

This is supposed to be the final chapter of the Jason Voorhees series. The movie starts with a recap of parts 1 to 3, which honestly feels a bit jumbled at this point. Jason’s mom, Pamela, now dies in 1979, not when the first movie was released 1980, making parts 2 and 3 set around 1984. The timeline is already messy, and this movie actually picks up right where the actions of the third movie ended, instead of the next day. There's a side plot where a man named Rob Dier, whose sister was killed in an earlier movie, is out for revenge on Jason. This could’ve been a stronger story if it was the main focus since it would have added more drama, especially if the outcome had stayed the same. Meanwhile, a group of friends head to Crystal Lake for a getaway and, predictably, end up as Jason’s latest victims. We also meet young Tommy Jarvis, his mother, and sister, who team up with Rob to try to help the teenagers across the road survive. FTT4 is directed by Joseph Zito (Missing in Action), whose style is more workmanlike; he doesn’t linger on any aspect of the film, instead moving quickly through the story and delivering nudity and action-oriented kills. Jason loves windows as a death mechanism in this installment and I do not mean the computer operating system. The real stars are Tom Savini’s special effects for Jason and Jimmy's hilarious "Dead Fuck" dance (played by Crispin Glover). And while this was meant to be the last movie… they actually made a fifth, called "A New Beginning." 

Friday The 13th Part 3 (1982)

As I mentioned earlier, things pick up in FTT3D. The movie starts the day after the events of FTT2 (still set in 1985!) and begins with a quick recap of that ending before diving into a new storyline. Actress Amy Steel, who played Ginny Field, didn’t return, which led to a shift in the original story. Initially, Ginny was supposed to face the trauma of Jason's attack and set out to stop him once and for all, wrapping up the series as a trilogy. Instead, FTT3D follows the same general pattern as the first two films, but it takes its time before "Jason" finally shows up to attack and take down most of the cast. Director Steve Miner, returning from FTT2, seems more comfortable blending drama, gore, and a touch of camp in this one. The 3D effects are decent; after a few “coming at you” moments, the 3D effect just becomes part of the film’s atmosphere, which actually works pretty well. This is also the movie where Jason first appears wearing his iconic hockey mask—about an hour in. I wonder if the film has ever been converted to modern digital 3D. I’ve only seen it with the old-school red-and-blue paper glasses during its original run and at home. I was 10 years old when I saw it, paired with The Smurfs and the Magic Flute (1976)! I can’t remember if it was at the Lowes Paradise, RKO, Valentine or the Prospect theater, but it was definitely one I watched in the Bronx.

Friday The 13th Part 2 (1981)

There are two time jumps where the ending of FTT1 is made pointless- two months after the events of FTT1 happen and then the events of this story which actually begin 5 years after that (!) so the film happens in 1985? Anyway, this film doesn’t get much credit for trying to tell a story. It introduces a bunch of new characters, but then a early version of Jason kills most of them. There’s a bit more to the plot, but the producer/director, Steve Miner, who’s directing for the first time here, plays it a bit safe by copying a lot of the same beats from FTT1. Overall, it’s not terrible and a pinch better than FTT1. The highlights, like in FTT1, are Harry Manfredini’s music (which sounds less like Psycho this time around) and the goofy FTT titles that try to jump off the screen but end up looking kinda silly. Some of the characters reappear in FTT3D, I elected to watch it in 2D ☹️.

Friday the 13th (1980)

Here is one of the heavyweights of horror, Jason Voorhees. For now, I’m only covering the original Friday the 13th (FTT1) up to FTT8: Jason Takes Manhattan, which marks the original run of sequels before the franchise changed hands from Paramount Pictures selling the rights to New Line Cinema. This is also the first time I've seen FTT1 since it aired unedited on the old WNEW-TV, Channel 5 Movie Club (now WNYW Fox 5 here in New York) when it was still a local independent channel. This was the first film the "Club" aired, and people complained. As a thank you to those who tried to give the channel and show bad press, they aired Part 2 unedited and then followed up with Parts 1 and 2 back-to-back a few weeks later. The effects for FTT1 were done by some guy named Tom Savini. Never heard of him, so I guess this was his only film credit. Same with this other guy named after a breakfast side dish, Kevin Bacon. He was never to be seen again. :) Anyway, you know what you're getting here- debauchery. Sex, violence, and a backstory that changes faster than a soiled pair of underwear. Is it good? No, it's not. I'm not saying it's terrible; FTT1 is kinda dull, but it does try to be an actual film with a story, decent acting, and structure. But then it spends the middle of the film cycling through dialogue, sex, murder, and more dialogue, all stalling for a pretty decent wrap-up. Like yesterday's Blade 2, it all gets jettisoned in the first 10 minutes of FTT2. Regardless, you know why you're watching this and what you’re getting into. The series picks up after FTT3D.

Blade 2 (2002)

After the success of the first Blade movie, this is actually my favorite of the trilogy. It begins with Luke Goss portraying a de-evolved, "reaper-infected" vampire, and he eliminates about 80% of what Blade would be facing if this were someone else's version of the same story. The film is directed by Guillermo del Toro and is actually one of my favorites. Wesley Snipes is fine as Blade, but behind the scenes, he wasn't so great. Making a film is difficult enough (currently learning this first hand), and with so many other aspects of production needing attention, having the main star act like a child shouldn't be one of the challenges. Anyway, what I enjoyed most was the world-building, the style in which the film is shot and edited, and the martial arts-style action, which, although not the best, is still an improvement over the first movie—as are the special effects. I prefer superhero movies that feel more like comic books rather than just standard action films with lots of noise and a slapped-on ending. This one tries to create lore, a vampire hierarchy, a rich history, and enough characters with presence to make the story engaging and fun. What’s the reward for the viewer in part 3? Nothing, as almost all of this is discarded in the next film, Trinity (2004). The standouts in Blade II are Leonor Varela as the royal vampire Nyssa, Luke Goss as Jared Nomak and of course, Ron Perlman as the wisecracking Reinhardt. Norman Reedus also appears as Scud, a lesser counterpart to Abraham Whistler (played by Kris Kristofferson). One negative that has always bothered me- Whistler is missing for a large portion of the film, and wished he had more to do in the story's outcome.

Kuso (2017)

I showed up late again to the party. Come at me harder bro with the celluloid nastiness!  Lol. Four chaotic vignettes, each obsessed with bodily fluids, mutations and/or arthropods, form a puzzling story. I'm not sure if the movie is trying to gatekeep certain viewers from understanding its message or if it even has a clear message at all. In fact, I don’t know what the message is- or if the creators know either? My interpretation is this: no matter what you believe in, terrible things will happen regardless if it is called upon or not. Life, death, murder, and brief moments of hope will always be there. No one will come to save us once we’ve completely destroyed what exists here. There may be no higher power that will step in to help. And even if such a being did come, we would misunderstand it, crush it, and let it die. Things will keep repeating, and we do not learn. We’ll keep believing in things we can't control. But is there really such a thing as control? Time and nature are real because we can feel them passing. But we can ease our burdens with TV, music, art, and imagination or distract ourselves from the pain in other, maybe worse ways? Personally, I do not prescribe to all these notions but in earnest we have all had moments of doubt, where these things have crept into our minds. Am I way off base or is it in the realm of what this project was about? Somebody help me!

Glitter (2001)

This was REALLY, REALLY, REALLY BAD! If I could find a way to uniformly symbolize a negative number of stars, I’d win the Nobel Peace Prize. Infinitesimal? I added this to my watch list as a joke, but wanted to stop watching at the start. The casting of the young Billie is wrong, and the woman playing her mom looks nothing like her. To make it worse, the mom is named Lillie, so you have Lillie and Billie. Jesus... For reasons, Billie ends up in foster care, where she makes friends. They connect with a record producer for an artist who can’t sing and lip-syncs / dubs others voices. The character Sylk (Padma Lakshmi) is so miscast I thought it was a joke- like someone would step out and say, "We’re kidding, here’s the real movie!" Anyway, Billie (now played by Mariah Carey) meets nightclub producer/DJ "Dice (Max Beesley)," and he’s impressed by her voice, so they start working on material. Did I mention the music in this film is awful too? There are competing characters, all nonsensical, all trying to use or hurt Billie. Despite this, she becomes successful, though of course, at a price. The film builds up to a tragic ending, like a pig wearing a hat. It feels like a film that was ruined by either the star’s ego or movie company suits, who know nothing about filmmaking and then also tries to shove in bad music ("because it's a musical!") in instead of focusing on story, drama, tension, or acting. Carey is a terrible lead, though I think she could do well in smaller roles. I remember hearing buzz before its release that she did a great job- yeah, okay. This movie is an anomaly of bad decisions, bad faith, bad everything. It killed director Vondie Curtis-Hall’s career. He directed one more film after this, Waist Deep (2006), which is a ok "bad" film, before returning to acting and directing TV episodes. Curtis-Hall did make one good movie, 1997’s Gridlock’d with Tupac Shakur and Tim Roth. The only person who came out of this unscathed was Terence Howard, though he didn’t need any help tainting his own career.

The Cabin In The Woods (2012)

The title is a nod to the setting of the Evil Dead films. (I am a ED 2 fan all the way!) I can see why some people might dislike this film because it doesn’t follow the typical formula it starts out with, but I actually liked the twist in the second half. Once you catch on, it becomes clear that this is satire, wrapped in a bloody mask, dirty jumpsuit and a rusty shovel. It's a shame there hasn’t been a proper sequel to expand or continue the storyline. If one ever gets made, I'll be first in line to give them my money. The plot is simple: five "teen" archetypes take a break from college to spend a weekend at a cabin. At first, they ignore all the warning signs that something’s wrong, but they eventually realize they’re in serious danger, with consequences that reach far beyond the cabin and the planet. I saw this movie during its opening weekend, on a Friday around 7:30 PM, with only seven other people in the theater. Walking out, I had a feeling it wasn’t going to perform well because it’s a bit different and doesn’t follow all the usual horror tropes. Sometimes the reward of being unique and a little different is punishment. The film did make a small profit.

Smile 2 (2024)

My suggestion is to watch the first Smile before viewing part 2 for clarity. This sequel spins a slightly different take on the lore from the first one. It's an unusual mix of dark (some body) horror, gory moments, and bits of unintentional comedy. I wasn’t a huge fan of the first one, but just like that, this one is decent and worth watching. It's not the groundbreaking movie I was hoping for, though. By the way, is it just me, or do I suddenly have a craving for VOSS bottled water? Parker Finn returns to write and direct, improving in the process and Naomi Scott is a champ and does a lot of the heavy lifting here as a frazzled popstar dealing with hysteria.

Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)

This is a vampire dramedy that reflects on history, the past, procrastination, rebuilding, and the struggle against an uncertain future. Adam (Tom Hiddleston) and Eve (Tilda Swinton) are a married couple who also happen to be vampires. Eve is much older, and Adam seems disillusioned with his current existence. After years apart, a depressed Adam, living in Detroit, asks Eve, who is in Tangier, to join him. Eve enjoys observing life and believes that destruction and rebuilding are natural cycles, while Adam yearns for the past, even though his memories of it are distorted. Yet they both agree that humanity is going through a rough patch. But are traditional values truly reassuring once one realizes the assumptions they are built on? And is anything really made to last? While I'm not usually a fan of Jim Jarmusch, this is one of his best- a smart, thoughtful, well-acted film with a lot to say about what we consider living and what constitutes life in general. With Anton Yelchin, Mia Wasikowska, Jeffrey Wright and John Hurt in small but important roles.

The Haunting (1963)

I had seen the remake first, The Haunting (1999), back in 2000 and did not like it. This, the original, was a disappointment too. I found the remake boring, and the original, despite some solid acting (and pleasant in-camera and overlay effects), was more silly than frightening. Julie Harris as Eleanor Lance and Richard Johnson as Dr. John Markway are good here, but their actions don't lead to anything profound. There are no scares that make the film memorable; it's just blah. The 4K restoration I watched looks and sounds great, and for horror fans, it's semi-worth watching if one has the time, mostly for Julie Harris, who is the poster child for guilt in this film. The remake, starring an all-star cast, stalls after a strong start and becomes bogged down with silly special effects, noise and a boring resolution. However, some parts are nice to look at. In comparison, I would watch the remakes of House on Haunted Hill (1999) or 13 Ghosts (2001) from the same time period. They have a fun visual energy that both Hauntings lack.