Reboot

The ‘Friday the 13th’ Reboot – Jason is Vicious, But the Movie is Bland

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

WRITER’S NOTE: This review was written back in 2009 when this reboot was released.

What better way to spend Singles Awareness Day (a.k.a. Valentine’s Day) than with an old friend who butchers camp counselors because they didn’t keep him from drowning, or supposedly so? I somehow doubt you can call this latest slasher adventure of Jason Voorhees a remake. Each sequel to the original “Friday the 13th” was basically a reworking of the first sequel which introduced Jason as the main killer of the franchise. Watching each successive sequel has been like witnessing a perverted sports event. How is Jason going to kill off those promiscuous teenagers? What weapons will he use? Will the ladies be as cute as they were in the previous movie? Will the guys be every bit as gullible as before? I think this is what makes people keep coming back to this never-ending franchise. We are curious to see how Jason will dispatch his latest batch of victims before he gets laid waste to by the final girl. John Carpenter said evil never dies, and Jason Voorhees is proof of this.

This “Friday the 13th” comes to us from Platinum Dunes, Michael Bay’s film company which made such unnecessary remakes of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” “The Hitcher” and “The Amityville Horror.” A lot of people complain about Bay the director, but I am more worried about Bay the producer. Still, the idea of bringing back Jason was too intriguing even for me to pass up.

In this particular “Friday,” Jason more threatening here than he has been in ages. For the last few movies, he has become a figure of such unbridled camp that he comes across as more of a joke. Here, he is as vicious as ever. This Jason does not just walk at lightning speed like he did in “Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan.” Here, he thrusts his weapons and impales his victims with sheer velocity. His mommy issues have never been more deeply rooted than they have been since the franchise first began.

The movie starts off more or less condensing the original, as it was Jason’s mother who was the brutal killer in that one. We see Jason’s mother, played by Nana Visitor from “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” (never piss off a Bajoran), get decapitated by the one camp counselor, female of course, who she couldn’t kill. We all know how seriously pissed she was at the counselors who let her son Jason drown, and now Jason will carry on her vengeance. The prologue is much longer than I ever could have expected, and in it we meet a bunch of kids who are seriously interested in obtaining a huge quantity of marijuana. Jason, however, is there with a bag over his head, the iconic hockey mask gets introduced later, killing off potential profiteers. It made wonder if Jason was actually a drug dealer as he apparently lives near such a big farm of green.

These kids meet a gruesome end (is there any other kind?), and the movie then moves ahead a couple of months to introduce us to a new set of victims. These ones though are not there to be camp counselors, but instead to stay in a house by the lake to have a “relaxing” weekend. The house belongs to the father of a snobby little spoiled brat named Trent (Travis Van Winkle), and his name wreaks of snobbery whether he likes it or not. Along with him is his girlfriend Jenna (Danielle Panabaker) who has no business being with a guy like him, an Asian smarty named Chewie (Aaron Yoo) who has yet to get laid, and a couple others who, whether they get laid or not, will most likely not live through the weekend. You also have the sole black man, Lawrence (Arlen Escarpeta), who loves to mess with white people and their prejudices they are blind to. Arlen has one of the best lines of dialogue, and you will know it when you hear it.

What makes this particular “Friday the 13th” different from the others? Not much. It has the requisite killings and naked breasts. Sean S. Cunningham, the director of the original, is along for the ride as a producer, and he is intent on giving the audience what they expect from a movie like this. What makes this franchise reboot different is it is a lot bleaker and more unrelenting than the other sequels.

Marcus Nispel directed this installment, and he also directed the Platinum Dunes remake of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” He gives it a washed out look, and it gives the proceedings a more realistic feel as well as a foreboding one. The tension is thick in the air, and even though the scares are pretty much where you would expect them to be. The killings are effectively brutal, but Nispel doesn’t dwell so much on the blood and gore as much as you might expect.

As for the characters, they really didn’t stick in mind for long after I left the theater. That’s the problem with movies like these. Not that I expect them to be in depth character studies, but it is clear these characters are presented as being ones who are quickly disposable. There are those who you want to live through the night, and there are others whose demise constantly root for, especially Trent. In the end, they are all fair sport for Jason who kills everything in his path. Having an Asian and a black character also shows how this masked killer knows no racial boundaries when it comes to slashing trespassers. After all these years, Jason Voorhees remains an equal opportunity murderer.

Jason is played in this incarnation by Derek Mears, an actor who played the Chameleon character in that awful sequel, “The Hills Have Eyes 2.” I liked how he gave Jason a fury we have not seen from in over a decade. Not that I want to take away from Kane Hodder, but Mears gives Jason a viciousness which makes him feel more dangerous than ever before.

Regardless of these positives, there is nothing particularly special to this “Friday the 13th.” Despite a higher standard of production values the other sequels never got, it still feels like an ordinary run of the mill slasher movie to where the one word I can best describe it as being is bland. It’s the kind of movie which doesn’t stay in the brain too long after you have seen it. While Jason may be more threatening than ever, it is not enough to make this movie seem altogether satisfying.

Also, I am really getting sick of this plot device in which cell phones do not work. I find it hard to believe there are places on this planet which do not have cell phone signals. Granted, the Hollywood Hills never seem to have them, but still, while this scenario worked fine in “The Hills Have Eyes” remake, this singular excuse to isolate these dumb characters continues to get weaker and weaker.

For what it’s worth, this is the first “Friday the 13th” movie I have ever seen in a theater. I always kept hearing about these movies as a kid, and I was fascinated with them even while Siskel & Ebert kept tearing them apart as “cynical filmmaking.” It took me a while to get around to actually watching them, and even then, I had the volume turned down. I also kept hearing from my friends how people reacted during them. One told me how, when he saw “Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood,” everyone started a chant when it looked like the most unlikable character, a horribly spoiled girl with no manners whatsoever, was about to get killed off. This led the audience members to start chanting:

“Kill the bitch, kill the bitch, kill the bitch, kill the bitch, KILL THE BITCH! KILL THE BITCH!! KILL THE BITCH!!! KILL THE BITCH!!!!!!”

That would have been fun to witness, and the fact that this “Friday the 13th” movie did not have it took away from the experience. While I admire how they made Jason more lethal, part of me missed the tongue in cheek qualities of this franchise. You know, the moments which reminded you it was just a movie, and how some critics take them way too seriously. Looking back, I feel like I missed out on something.

Jason should really engage in a group therapy session with Norman Bates because they have more in common than they realize. Of course, Jason doesn’t talk, but maybe Norman could get him to or perhaps teach him sign language. Hey, anything is possible, right?

* * out of * * * *

‘The Exorcist: Believer’ is Not a Worthy Sequel

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

William Friedkin’s “The Exorcist” was such a singular cinematic experience, let alone a singular horror film like few others, that making a sequel to it had to seem like a truly insane prospect. “The Exorcist II: The Heretic” proved to be as hideous piece of celluloid as the original was a brilliant one, “The Exorcist III” was undone by needless studio interference which made it look pitiful for no good reason, and the attempts to make a prequel got so messed up to where two versions of it were made, both of which proved to be quite flawed. Looking at this franchise, one which is quite accidental, it seems like one driven by profit more than anything else. Granted, sequels are generally made because the original was a big box office hit, but not all of them exist simply because of financial benefits for everyone involved.

Now we have “The Exorcist: Believer” which comes to us from David Gordon Green and his fellow filmmakers who gave us the recent “Halloween” trilogy which proved to be worthy sequels to a celebrated classic. And yes, I do include “Halloween Ends” which many despised. Like those films, this “Exorcist” installment serves as a direct sequel to Friedkin’s original, it completely ignores the other sequels to create its own cinematic path. What results is a motion picture which is not terrible, and I went into it refusing to expect it to be any equal to the original, but it still proves to be inconsequential and unnecessary as Friedkin’s film continues to be extremely difficult to make a sequel to.

We are introduced to professional photographer Victor Fielding (Leslie Odom Jr.) who is raising his daughter, Angela (Lidya Jewett), as a single parent following the tragic death of his wife. One day, Angela asks her dad if she can go over to her friend Katherine’s (Olivia O’Neill) to study. That’s okay, Victor says, but she needs to be prompt about returning home for dinner. When Angela fails to do so, and she and Katherine go missing, the whole town goes looking for them. Eventually, they are found alive 30 miles away from their home addresses, but both are convinced they were only gone for a few hours.

As you can expect, both Angela and Katherine turn out to be possessed, and Victor turns to others to help the girls before any more lasting damage can be inflicted. Among them are Ann (Ann Dowd), a nurse at a local hospital and a fallen Catholic, and Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), an actress turned exorcism researcher who has since become renowned for her studies and her best-selling book on the subject. From there, we know we are in store for an exorcism, albeit one which cannot possibly be as intense as the one Friedkin gave audiences half a century ago.

Now you cannot go into “The Exorcist: Believer” expecting something along the lines of Friedkin’s original film as that is asking to be severely disappointed in the process. None of the sequels or prequels could touch it as the 1973 film is a cinematic experience not easily duplicated. But even with reserved expectations, “The Exorcist: Believer” just doesn’t work. It has some strong performances from Odom Jr. and Dowd, and there are some clever jump scares, but there is not enough to justify this as a significant follow-up to a celebrated classic.

The big news with this one is that Ellen Burstyn returns as Chris MacNeil for the first time since the first “Exorcist” film. But while Jamie Lee Curtis’ character of Laurie Strode was a major component of the recent “Halloween” trilogy, Chris MacNeil’s presence in “The Exorcist: Believer” feels like an afterthought, and while Burstyn is great as always, the character does not feel especially necessary to this installment. While it may give this film some legitimacy, Burstyn is barely in this film and does not get a lot to do.

When it comes to the climactic exorcism which the film’s title and its trailers have promised us, it is no surprise to find it utterly lacking in tension. Sure, there is some suspense as the adult characters are forced to make a choice no one wants to make, but it all feels lacking in the long run. As much as I wanted to view this film on its own instead of in comparison to the classic original, I could not help but be reminded of how intense and unnerving Friedkin’s film was. I wanted this exorcism to have the extreme intensity of what came before, and I knew that was not going to be the case which made this direct sequel all the more frustrating.

David Gordon Green is a terrific filmmaker. In addition to his “Halloween” trilogy, he has also directed films in various genres. He has given us “George Washington,” “Pineapple Express,” “All the Real Girls,” and “Joe” which features not only one of Nicolas Cage’s best performances, but also one of his most subtle, and that is saying a lot. I cannot help but wonder what made him, Scott Teems, Danny McBride, Jason Blum and all of Blumhouse were hoping to accomplish here. Were they hoping to make something which could stand alongside the original proudly, or at least be considered its equal?

For a moment, I thought Green might have some luck as the opening scenes in Haiti do have a documentary feel to them like the original did. But after a bit, it just felt like I was watching a movie. This is the biggest problem with “The Exorcist: Believer;” you watch it more than you experience it. You can see how the screws go in, and it does not help that the CGI effects utilized here are not all that great. Then again, I have long since been spoiled by the visual wonders of “Avatar: The Way of Water,” so nothing else can possibly compare.

Making a sequel or any kind of follow-up to “The Exorcist” is no different than anyone trying to make one to “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” Both those horror classics gave audiences a cinematic experience like few others, and they still remain enthralling and greatly unnerving so many years later. And yet, there are those who have turned these movies into franchises which may succeed financially, but never critically. They will forever be shadowed by a predecessor which can only make the best efforts look ever so pale in comparison, and yet people keep trying futilely to give us something worth watching. The fact that no one has succeeded in doing so should not come as a surprise.

Nevertheless, another “Exorcist” movie is set to be released in 2025, and the best way to look at this situation is to say Green and company have nowhere to go from here but up. Perhaps if they played around with the formula, they could audiences something more original which will stand on its own. Until then, I wonder if the ghost of William Friedkin will haunt Green just like he promised.

* * out of * * * *