web
counter
 

friday13thshitremake.jpg

Didn’t We Just Leave This Party?


Friday the 13th / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | February 13, 2009 | Comments (37)


The conventional wisdom goes that horror films tend to reflect the eras in which they’re released, whether it’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre reflecting the worries of the Vietnam era or the abundance of slasher sequels in the 1980s mirroring that decade’s excesses. It’s just a theory, but an interesting one to apply to Friday the 13th, a bizarre hybrid of remake, continuation, and reimagining of the 10-film horror franchise that became so mired in self-parody that the only way to revive it was to attempt a fresh start. It’s no accident at all that the new film was directed by Marcus Nispel, a former music video director who also helmed 2003’s amped-up and dumbed-down reinvention of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Nispel excels at making horrible new movies based on genre classics, and the new Friday the 13th starts to make (slightly) more sense when you realize it’s not even trying to be a sequel; it’s just an idea, a flat and hackneyed concept that ropes in the disparate elements of the source material. Nispel doesn’t know what to do with them but hold them up and childishly exclaim, “Look what I found!” The film is a reflection of nothing more than the fact that the filmmaker has a cursory knowledge of the existence of the original films and is content with making a movie as pointless, uninvolving, and downright stupid as a copy of a copy of a copy would have to be.

The film’s lengthy prologue opens at Camp Crystal Lake in 1980, meaning right off the bat the film is asking the viewer both to remember and incorporate the original story as its basis while forgetting it ever happened so that the new story makes sense. Through a blurry, jaggedly edited credit sequence, screenwriters Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (who share a story credit with Mark Wheaton) dispense with the basic plot of the original film, which is that a woman named Mrs. Voorhees (Nana Visitor) tracks and murders the counselors at Camp Crystal Lake who accidentally let her son Jason drown. She’s down to the final girl (of course) when the girl grabs a machete, beheads the woman, and runs off. But Jason, who is not dead but does suffer from some kind of facial deformity that’s never explained, is hiding in the woods watching, and he rescues his mother’s locket and the blade as her disembodied voice somehow order him to “kill for mother.” Cut to the present, when a group of young campers — a nice couple, a horny couple, and a geeky sidekick — whose names no one needs to pretend to know are hiking through the woods near Camp Crystal Lake. The sidekick and the horny guy are intent on finding a rumored field of marijuana nearby, so the group makes camp and prepares to scout the area the next day. It’s unclear whether Nispel took to heart the fact he was making a Friday the 13th film so much that he decided to give the non-murder scenes all the expositional weight and dead emotion of a freshman-level one-act play, but that’s exactly what happens. The dialogue isn’t even real enough to be considered serviceable, especially the sidekick’s weirdly detailed monologue about the wonders of GPS locators. (In another violation of the Chekhov’s Gun rule, the GPS locators are never factored into the plot again in a meaningful way.) It’s only a matter of time before the kids split up and Jason, now a hulking psychopath with a sheet wrapped around his damaged face, starts picking off the campers in a boring, knock-over-the-dominoes method that tries to be a painfully self-aware throwback to the originals — the whispered “ki ki ki, ah ah ah” soundtrack —as well as a typically gruesome update courtesy of Nispel, whose Jason isn’t above setting beartraps for people or trapping one girl in her sleeping bag and hoisting her over the campfire, roasting her alive. Jason’s maternal mandate to kill any and all interlopers apparently came with tacit instructions to have fun with it and not just go cutting people up willy-nilly with his trusty machete.

Friday the 13th also continues the tradition of mixing in healthy amounts of gratuitous sex, whether it’s a couple screwing shortly before being killed or a girl waterskiiing topless, also shortly before being killed. Nispel doesn’t shy away from the unnerving parallel between sexual fervor and horror as practiced in slasher films, which is to say he doesn’t seem to mind blood-smeared breasts and severed corpses nearly as much as you’d want. There’s also a perverse duality in a film genre in which women are nothing more than objects to be screwed while a masked man prowls the woods penetrating them, and their men, with a long metal blade. If Nispel were just a little more talented, or maybe just more self-aware, he’d be able to comment on that, or at least have fun with it. But instead it’s just another horror flick that fetishizes the wounded body.

Six weeks after Jason’s run-in with the campers, Clay (Jared Padalecki) is going to homes and business in the Crystal Lake area to see if anyone knows the whereabouts of his sister, who was a member of the unfortunate camping party. He butts heads at a gas station with a group of impossibly stereotypical “college students,” led by the jerky Trent (Travis Van Winkle), whose girlfriend, Jenna (Danielle Panabaker), warms to Clay’s plight and wants to help him. Nispel’s cast is amazingly wooden, turning in performances that are either so high-concept in their awfulness that no one will ever understand their true nuance or just the usual level of bad acting from pretty people who have at one point appeared on the CW. The “college students” are all on their way to Trent’s folks’ cabin on the lake, where Clay comes knocking again to see if anyone there knows about his missing sister.

That’s about as detailed as the plot allows itself to get. From there on, the characters kill time drinking and having sex in the woods before inevitably crossing Jason, who dispatches them with everything from a hunting bow — Jason must target practice all winter just desperately hoping kids show up — to ice picks to really whatever’s lying around. There’s absolutely zero shock value, or bitter fun, or trace of suspense in anything. The script is too awful to keep the characters from being anything besides cheap place-holders, and Nispel’s heavy-handed use of the weird industrial-breakdown grit he seems to love so much makes the film look like an even duller retread of his take on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The sound design is right in line with modern, slick horror films, which is to say it’s incomprehensibly stupid. For instance, when Clay sweeps his flashlight beam across the camera’s frame, there’s an unthinking whoosh accompanying it, as if Nispel is afraid to let any kind of genuine atmosphere creep into the film or to build suspense from an honestly terrifying premise, that of being stalked by a merciless killer. The one tense moment in the film comes toward the end and lasts maybe seven seconds, when the remaining not-yet-victims peer through the cabin’s windows in an attempt to spot Jason, who’s kind of wily and good at hiding. Nispel dials back the pointless thudding of the soundtrack, and the complete quiet is more unnerving than any smash cut Nispel could hope to create.

That inability to connect on even a gut level is one of the many reasons the film is a failure, but it’s not the biggest. Overall, Nispel just doesn’t know what to make of his movie: As both a continuation and refutation of the originals, it’s just plain head-scratching. It’s not smart enough to be a revival, and it’s not clever enough to satirize its source material. It’s not suspenseful enough to work as a thriller, and it’s not well-written enough to allow for character development, however small. It’s not a sequel, and it doesn’t stand on its own. The entire thing is a muddy, ungainly mess that cashes in on whatever camp value remains in the oldest of the original films and turns them into nothing more than a springboard for another bland horror movie about a nameless brute with poor socialization skills. The film is a masterful exercise in futility, in the sheer pointlessness of trying to bring back a franchise that rightly played out years ago. As one of the characters says of the ruined Camp Crystal Lake, “It’s like it was dragged here from another century.” Nispel should have left it there.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Confessions of a Shopaholic Review | The Weekend Hijack 02/14/09









Comments

And a nice White Plastic Face connection too, sir!

Posted by: Jay at February 13, 2009 7:00 PM

At the very least, I know now what Chekhov's gun rule is.

Posted by: Monica at February 13, 2009 7:09 PM

Awww, man, I hate it when I see Star Trek Actors I like get crappy roles in crappy films.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at February 13, 2009 7:21 PM

It's February... The middle of February... The people in front of me, upper-middle class white america family of four, (all blonde), were off seeing Paul Blart.

PEOPLE ARE STILL SEEING PAUL BLART!!!

97 minutes of Jason attacking and murdering the living crap out of a dream mix of teen television drama rejects is the cathartic release needed right around now.

( and Checkov has no place in dissection and disscusion of the subtle nuisances of a Friday the 13th flick, but for the record... Wood chipper first act... Wood chipper third act...)

Posted by: Brian at February 13, 2009 7:38 PM

It's February... The middle of February... The people in front of me, upper-middle class white america family of four, (all blonde), were off seeing Paul Blart.

PEOPLE ARE STILL SEEING PAUL BLART!!!

97 minutes of Jason attacking and murdering the living crap out of a dream mix of teen television drama rejects is the cathartic release needed right around now.

( and Checkov has no place in dissection and disscusion of the subtle nuisances of a Friday the 13th flick, but for the record... Wood chipper first act... Wood chipper third act...)

Posted by: Brian at February 13, 2009 7:38 PM

I know it's bad. I know.

But it's Jason. So that's never stopped me before.

I'm still going to see this ASAP.

Posted by: spideychris at February 13, 2009 8:12 PM

A woodchipper? Maybe we could put Paul Blart in there...

Posted by: Xtreme at February 13, 2009 8:49 PM

So just to be clear:
1. Immoral, half naked teens/20-somethings meet their merry end.
2. Graphic, over the top slasher sequences with a variety of weaponry.
3. Poor acting/script/direction.

People don't go see these films despite these things, but BECAUSE of them. I don't know why you seem so surprised.

Methinks you were determined to write a bad review, no matter what you saw.

Posted by: superasente at February 13, 2009 9:34 PM

kind of wily and good at hiding.

I want that engraved on my tombstone. Although there are many possible manners of death that might make it a lie.

Posted by: Wednesday at February 13, 2009 9:41 PM

This may be the first time I've ever read a review on Pajiba before actually seeing the movie...

Dude, what the fuck do you want? Were you expecting a fucking reinvention of the genre? It's Friday the 13th, and you're seeing it on Friday the 13th. Yeah, you spent $10. Less than a night at the local watering hole (if you're worth a damn). I can only hope you had the common sense to bring some Vodka with you. Come on man, yeah, it kind sucked. It sucked hard. But it tasted better than sitting at home watching Dollhouse, knowing it's going to fall, hard. Didn't it?

Posted by: Cory at February 14, 2009 1:49 AM

This movie is filled with titties, weed, gratuitous violence, Dean Forester, and Dick Casablancas. What the eff is there NOT to like?

I personally loved it. It made me jump in my seat, made my more effete friend audibly squeal, and provided a perfect antidote to the typical V-Day scmaltz.

And weirdly enough, it made me want to go camping.

Posted by: The Pink Hulk at February 14, 2009 2:26 AM

Grammar nazi here -

Nispel, who's Jason - (that should be whose Jason)
waterskiiing
severed corpses - (doesn't really make sense)
He buts head - (butts)
Jason must target practice

Great review otherwise!

Posted by: N. Wood at February 14, 2009 5:08 AM

Great review, Dan.

A note on the sound-engineering: I'm noticing that as well more and more, especially in trailers. Often, sounds are placed in where they don't belong because...well because people assume we're idiots and won't be able to know this happen without comic-booky whoosh sounds and the like. Another strange, self aware artifice like this is lens flares in animated movies. The idea of purposefully adding a lens flare to make something feel more cinematic than realistic (or perhaps in the cinema, we now THINK of a lens flare as realistic) is strange to me.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at February 14, 2009 5:31 AM

Ah, hell. Major Kira's in this?

Posted by: Smurf at February 14, 2009 6:32 AM

Should we have expected very little from this? Sure.

Should we have perhaps expected a little more than we got? Definitely.

Look at New Nightmare. Heather Langenkamp is not the best actress in the world, but it was a reboot/reinvention/reimagining that worked. Not that we slasher fans are generally terribly picky, but lookit...We as a group, at least the more discerning of us, will always compare any slasher flick we see to Carpenter's Halloween. I've gone into why it's the quintessential slasher movie too often already, but I will say that it captures everything that a movie like this should be and strives past it, and achieves greatness on its own terms. Which is why the bullshit Rob Zombie remake, to my mind, was even more of a travesty than Reboot TCM, because I think that Halloween was the pinnacle of the process that started with the original TCM.

Where was I? Oh yeah, New Nightmare...

New Nightmare worked because it made the story, the only characters from the films that you really cared about, accessible again. The plot was as unbelievable as anything else out there, but it was inventive, and it was scary, and most of all, it was aware of itself. Craven did an excellent job of not only accepting the limitations of the source material, but adapting it into something that works, and was at times even scarier than it's predecessors.

Now, admittedly, the source material for the 13th franchise is inherently weaker, because aside from the vengeful mother in the first installment and the Tommy Jarvis/unholy, unkillable evil storyline midway through, you've really got nothing more than a big guy tromping through the woods, as DC puts it, "penetrating" people with his machete. But is it too much to ask that we get more than what is presented? As much as I HATED it, and dear sweet baby Jesus did I hate it, Zombie did more with Halloween, and at the very least it was clear that the film, to him, was an homage.

So I ask again, should we have perhaps expected just a little more than we got?

Posted by: Smokin at February 14, 2009 6:39 AM

Another video "director" helming a movie, that's 99% of the problem right there. These folks are the worst sort of douchebags. Remember that Kevin Bacon flick where he loses his way after graduating from film school? Remember the fat fuck played by Dan Schneider?

Yeah, that's what ALL those guys are like.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 14, 2009 6:57 AM

Oh shit! I thought Nana Visitor had died in a horrible transporter accident back in '01.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 14, 2009 7:00 AM

I'm not sure how things are in your neck of the woods in lawyer land, but in middle class America we are scared shitless. I'm salaried non-management at a manufacturer and there is no one I know not panicking about the economy and their jobs. My point is this, when faced with unemployment, foreclosure, and more esoteric concerns like how to afford college for your kids when you are taking salary cuts and suspended overtime, the perils of teenagers in the woods escaping from un-dead madmen seem positively quaint in comparison.

People need an escape right now and I fully expect Friday the 13th to open HUGE. That and Friday the 13th has FAR more nostalgia built in to it than any other slasher franchise. We were brought up on this stuff, and as bad as they are (and they ARE bad movies) there is something comforting about them. No one going to see these movies thinks they are classics, they are a series of tit shots strung together with graphic violence and bad dialogue. Just like always. This review reminds me why reviewers stopped even critiquing these flicks in the 80's. You don't get the joke, so why bother with it. Move on.

Posted by: TylerDFC at February 14, 2009 10:57 AM

For those of you deciding to defend this movie by saying "yeah it sucks, but it always sucked, that is part of the charm", I have a question: what is the point of remaking it then?

I mean, if the appeal of the original was its crappiness, and people (namely critics) can't say anything convincingly bad about it, why bother wasting the money to make a new one? Why not just do an Exorcist and rerelease the original? Or better yet, why doesn't the audience just watch the original? It is considerably cheaper to watch movies at home than at the theater, and it has been said, these are some hard times.

And trying to say that kids today won't get the original is stupid. If the only real difference in this film and the other Jason movies are the names in the credits, then what is there to "get"? Once you've seen one, you've seen them all.

I think that is what the review was saying: even for a dumb slasher flick, this movie has no point for existing. It was an unnecessary and cynical money grab during times when this kind of idiocy should be pared down.

The way you guys make it sound, a person would think that if the movie DID turn out worthwhile, or God forbid somehow an Oscar-worthy film, you would hate it.

Posted by: Vermillion at February 14, 2009 11:49 AM

"...what is the point of remaking it then..?


Damned good point.

Also, every time *YOU* pay money to see this trash you are guaranteeing that some coke sniffing exec will green light another one.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 14, 2009 12:24 PM

Spot on. My Bloody Valentine was so much better, which just goes to prove my belief that Dean is the better Winchester brother.

Posted by: CiCi at February 14, 2009 1:02 PM

First: Rowles is the lawyer. Dan is the writer.
Second: It was an honest review of a very bad movie and, as such, is to be appreciated. No need to kill the messenger.

Posted by: Spender at February 14, 2009 1:44 PM

Hot Carleson, you just got a lot hotter. I'm all for cheesy, sleasy horror but the director should actually know that he's producing five year old cheddar.

An intelligent review on a dumbass remake.

Posted by: admin at February 14, 2009 3:18 PM

"...in middle class America we are scared shitless..."

"People need an escape right now..."

"...there is something comforting about them..."

Seriously? The defense for enjoying senseless depictions of torture and murder is the bad economy and fear of job loss?

May I suggest taking those seven or eight dollars, which potentially losing the ability to generate has sparked this mind-numbing fear, and doing something affirming with it? Buy a book? Watch a good escapist movie? Donate it and some time to a homeless shelter or food bank to see how people who really do have it bad off have to live? (Hint: It doesn't involve the multiplex, except maybe the dumpsters) Stick it in the frickin' mattress in case that job really does get lost or that salary cut?

See whatever movie you want, but in the name of all that someone somewhere might hold holy, stop trying to pass seeing those movies -- especially one as cynically and greedily birthed as this one -- as anything other than sating bloodlust by proxy.

Posted by: Brett at February 14, 2009 5:08 PM

Now that's what i call a reasonable review.
A guy called Bill Gibron, who apparently writing for filmcritic.com, proclaims (in all earnesty i'm afraid):
"While the original Friday the 13th was goofy fun, it was certainly no classic. This remake is."
and gave it a whopping 4 out of 5 stars. I had to read his review twice to make sure he's not actually joking (alas filmcritic.com isn't Pajiba).
His reputation as a reviewer is further diminished by his remark that "Luckily, Marcus Nispel, the director behind the excellent 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre redux was on hand to helm the new adventures of Camp Crystal Lake's resident legend -- and the results are excellent indeed."
I put the emphasis on "2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre" because in his review it was actually a link to filmcritic.coms review for the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre -- rated 1 out of 5.
No wonder i fled from there to Pajiba come a long time ago.

Posted by: Arthur Dent at February 14, 2009 5:33 PM

I don't so much care that you hated it as that you sounded so postmodern and arbitrary about it. I mean, you use bear traps as an argument against seeing this film. Bear traps are always in the pro column. And then you criticize it for not being self-aware and at the same time you criticize it for making nods to the original. Make up your mind, hippy.

Posted by: Ed at February 14, 2009 8:13 PM

I liked it. It was worth that cash.

Except for the eleventy-one teenagers in the damn thing who kept saying shit like 'I didn't see that coming!' when it was shit from the original. I weep for the future.

Posted by: TWoP Fan at February 14, 2009 9:32 PM

Do you know why Jason killed everyone in the remake? Because the fools wouldn't leave his weed alone! Leave his weed alone and you can live to fuck another day!

Posted by: daney at February 14, 2009 11:19 PM

we saw it. we like the slasher movies. it was valentine's, so it made sense to see it. we knew exactly how it would suck, and it did.

here's what blew me away: people brought their kids! a few rows in front of us, someone had a baby with them. which is ok i guess, since a baby wouldn't remember seeing this mess. but that family with a couple of elementary school aged kids just shocked me.

i'm not a prude. i saw rated R movies as a kid, sometimes with my parents. they took me to the shining, the exorcist, etc..and i loved them. but this movie was just tits and blood and banging. no interesting storyline or creepy bad guy.

i think out of all the rated R horror movies i saw as a kid, "dressed to kill" was the only one that messed me up. i saw it recently and it still upsets me!

ah well. i think there was plenty of comic relief, like the topless water skiing girl. that hilarious in its own special and stupid way.

Posted by: glittergirl at February 15, 2009 9:35 AM

Saw it. Not as bad as we feared it'd be, so enough to be happy about there. We posted our review here:

http://swritersleague.blogspot.com/2009/02/friday-13th-not-dull-not-sharp.html

Posted by: Zombie at February 15, 2009 10:07 AM

40 million + ... ah dumba-Americanas

Posted by: Pownowrama at February 15, 2009 6:04 PM

In an era where The Grudge actually gets people to go to the theater, Friday the 13th is actually pretty satisfying. There are so many horrible movies that try to pass themselves off as horror that I'm almost embarrassed to be a fan.

Posted by: BW at February 15, 2009 10:10 PM

Almost everything you said about this remake could have been said about the original. Which really does beg the question asked in the comments above: why the heck was it remade, anyway? Stupid. It was probably better with Kevin Bacon and his dumb knee socks and all the girls who never wore bras and their frizzy hair.

Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen at February 15, 2009 11:35 PM

I'm glad Jason picked up the ability to fly, or teleport, or some shit, because that man could move. It really added to the dense, chewy texture of the nuanced plot.

Like a good zinfandel paired with veal and foie gras. Mmmm. Tasty indeed.

Posted by: noah at February 15, 2009 11:54 PM

What were you expecting? An epic film? This is a slasher flick. Let me guess you are the one guy who reviews the acting and dialog in a porno too? Oh btw, I know its not your paycheck, spent on creating this movie, like you could make a movie, ha! But don't give away scenes in your review that is just tacky and rude. Maybe i wanted to see the movie, now I know what to expect, thanks a$$! You didn't even care to place a disclaimer for folks who may not want to know what happens until the see it for themselves. So selfish.

Posted by: joe at February 17, 2009 5:31 PM

Wow, I disagree with your review so much that I can only say one thing: You, sir, are an idiot. I swear I don't even say that kind of stuff often, but you coerced it out of me. Any of the points you made could apply to any of the previous films in the series, some of your criticisms contradict each other, and you sound like a serious snob. Oh and thanks for the spoiler warning, jackass!

Posted by: Jim at February 17, 2009 9:34 PM

The main problem I had with the movie was that it looses a lot of the charm the originals had in an effort to make things believable.

Jason is. That is all that is necessary. You don't need to explain how he gets around so fast, or how he got so good at sports... he just needs to appear out of nowhere and kill like the good ol' days.

Let's face it, the movie is enjoyable on some levels... especially if you understand that it's a slasher flick and that's your cup of tea. Much like Lucas's special editions though, it takes all the fun out of the happy accidents the original movies provided by wrapping them in a pretty package and putting a bow on it.

I'm kind of shocked that I'd rather watch Jason X. Who'd have thought that a bad "... in space" sequel would have more soul to it than the remake.

Fans should definitely go see it tho... because it gives you a whole new appreciation for just how much the original movies got right when it comes to pacing, story, and creepiness.

Posted by: Akiman at March 13, 2009 3:02 PM