Surveillance Review (2008)

Surveillance

Surveillance is the second film from Jennifer Lynch. Daughter of David Lynch, her career was thought to be short-lived after her debut feature Boxing Helena was received extremely negatively by both from both movie-goers and critics alike. Now, fifteen years later she tries again to break into the business her father is constantly revolutionizing, and she does so with mixed results.If her career speaks for Jennifer Lynch thoroughly, she is never going to be as talented as her father is. This is something that needs to be stated, and known.

If you go in thinking that Jennifer Lynch is going to be there for us when David passes on, I’m afraid you’re going to be wrong. Boxing Helena was obviously a film with a number of flaws, all of them nearly unforgivable. Surveillance however brings her work up a notch, and almost lets you forget about her previous film, but that however is not something very hard to do.



For all it’s worth, Surveillance certainly doesn’t have as unique of a story as Boxing Helena, but that doesn’t really matter when the other film just ended up terrible. Surveillance is about two F.B.I. agents investigating a series of murders, and a missing woman. While at the town where these vicious acts have taken place, they interrogate three people: a cocaine addicted woman, a corrupt police officer, and a little girl whose family was killed by the murderer. All three of the stories are told slightly differently through the eyes of these people, and ultimately interlock.


The film wants to, and sometimes tries, to be about the different reactions of different people when they know they are being watched by authority or peers. While it desperately wants to be deep and tell us a little something about the human psyche, and ends up falling short, and reverting to a murder-mystery tale that has a trick that we’ve seen before (different people, different stories, overall story develops through different additions ), and even has some slasher film influences, with the killers wearing creepy masks, and lots of blood making it’s way onto the screen.

The story is interesting enough, but it has been done before. A lot before. This idea of telling the story over and over again through different perspectives has almost begun to be normal, and the classic murder-mystery style of having one person solve it the lesser used. The mental aspect they wanted to add doesn’t work, and the twist ending easy to see coming. There is nothing specifically good with the story, but nothing specifically bad about it either.



The two main parts in the film are played by Julia Ormond and Bill Pullman, playing the F.B.I agents, and they do decently, again something that I could go either way on, there was nothing that made their roles jump out, or hold back, but I do have to admit, Bill Pullman is always kind of creepy, so it did somewhat add to the performance. Ryan Simpkins places the young girl Stephanie, and does a fantastic job for her age and part, she is easily one of the best child actors I’ve seen in awhile, and can’t wait to see more from her, in fact she is the first child to win a Best Actress award at the New York City Horror Film Festival. The film also has some other not to shabby performances from Kent Harper and Pell James.

Jennifer Lynch’s direction in this film is actually rather nice. She keeps the film raw and unshakeable. Never do we see anyone in the background, keeping us with a feeling of desperation a solitude, as if we couldn’t escape. A good deal of the film is set in the middle of the desert, which only enhances that effect. The office building in which the police work is desolate and empty, which though unexplained is still creepy as well. The film rapidly switches through color tonality, which gives us different feelings based on which character we’re watching and that helps the film quite a bit.

Jennifer Lynch has certainly beaten her previous offering with Surveillance, but like I said, it just doesn’t matter because almost anything could be her previous offering. She showed that she does have some skill behind the camera and can create a certain amount of emotion, but were she lacks is in directing people. The plot is ordinary, overused, and has been outdone, but is never boring, if she does another film, I will go ahead and give it a shot, but won’t necessarily look forward to it. Surveillance is a film that won’t kill you to see, but you shouldn’t kill to see it. It rests right in the middle, and is worth a rental if you were looking for it.

I Give Surveillance A:
3/5

Orphan Review (2009)

The most recent in the sub-genre of creepy children horror came to us in the form of Orphan. The film was realesed last year and was pretty successful, though it did run into a little trouble with some associations. I enjoyed the film quite a bit though. I thought it was good that we got an R rated slasher, that wasn't R for just sex, but actually had some really gruesome moments, and disgusting scenes. One of the best comes during the beggining of the film which had my girlfriend seriously freaking out. The little girl who played Ester did an amazing job, even nailing a faux Russian accent. The only problem was the ending, which was a little to far fetched for me. The film had a cool style, good acting, and some good gory scenes, and I enjoyed it much more than most recent horror flicks.

I Give Orphan A:

4/5

Saw Review (2004)

What started out as a short film, and then and indie film dying for a limited realese has now become the major franchise you see before you. Though many people furiously detest Saw, and with good reason. I actually rather enjoy the series, the first one especially. Saw isn't the smartest film ever, but most horror films aren't.But, it's decently gory, fairly scary, and kept me entertained up until it's amazing finale. While it does have it's flaws, mostly in the acting category, I've still watched it multiple times, and still get shivers at the end. While some people grew up on Halloween and Friday The 13th, the most recent generation has the Saw franchise, and that's good enough for them.

I Give Saw A:
4/5

Them (Ils) Review (2006)

Them, known in it's native France as Ils, is a horror film that was made in 2006, circled the festival circuit, made a killing in France, and was prominently reviewed, but never got a state-side realese. Now, its three years later in 2009, and the film is finally getting the attention it deserves. Them shys away from the torture-porn type horror we have come to know, and instead goes back to a Hitchcockian type of horror, blending suspense and slashing. Them is also based on a true story, and this isn't one of those movies that claims to be based on a true story and isn't, and it isn't a shakey-cam film either, it is simply true, which makes the final product that much more disturbing.

The plot of Them, or Ils, is quite simple really. It is about a young couple named Clementine, who is a school teacher, and Jared, a struggling writer. They live in a large farm-house on the country side of Bucharest, Romania. The day is coming to an end, and they start hearing strange noises outside. They think nothing of it. The noises the turn into flashing lights, and even louder sounds. The sounds are then inside the house. Like I said, simple. It's also been done before, a lot before, but this one is definatly better than most of them.

Part of what makes this such a great film is the chemistry between the two lead actors, Olivia Bonamy and Michael Cohen do a great job playing husband and wife. In fact, the acting here is solid by nearly everyone involved, even the characters during the open sequences were very strong, and they were only onscreen for about 5 minutes. That being said, there isn't that many characters here, just the couple, the two in the opening sequence, and three other side characters, but, they all performed marvelously.

Another part that I really liked about the film is that it was great from a techinal standpoint as well. The lighting, pacing, camera-work, and direction by David Moreau, and Xavier Palud, were all done magnificintly. Also, the sets that were used are very nice as well. The mansion has a proper gothic atmosphere and adds a very creepy element to the film. And like I said, the camera-work was very good, and some aerial viewpoints had this movie crawling with tension.

Speaking of tension, this film has a lot of it. Each scene is filled to the brim with it in fact, it will make you sit back a little bit and think, "Wow, look at what scary movies used to be like." However, even though each scene is filled to the brim, there are not that many scenes in this movie. It's only about an hour and fifteen minutes long. But that isn't bad, because this movie doesn't need to be, and I feel the movie had a great ending, and made things very, very chilling, and maybe even...eye-opening, for lack of a better term, to those who don't really know about some certain aspects of Europe.

As much as I praise the film (which it deserves) I did have a few promblems with it. First of all, bits of the dialouge between the two couples seemed a little cheesy, because it is French, I watched with English subtitles, maybe there was a bad dub, but things like "Leave me. Go! You are our only hope." were kind of strange for a movie that was pretty realistic. Also, some moments seemed implausible, or even some near impossible, but this is something that occurs with all horror movies.

These, however, were my only complaints with the film, and they are pretty mimimal.Overall, Ils, Them, whatever you want to call it, is an excellent horror film, hell, it's an excellent film all together. Great acting, story, and direction make it a winner already. But add in great thrills, suspense, genuine chill, and just a good old time make it even better. But, with some cheesy lines, and some strange decisions on some characters parts, drop this film from perfection.

I Give Them Four Zombi's out of Five.

Santa's Slay Review (2005)

Back in 2005, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, was fresh out of the gates of his transition from wrestler to film star. This was also the year that he decided to leave long time producer and friend Vince McMan in favor of Disney. Before finding now second-rate movie star John Cena, McMan and Co. were cycling through some wrestlers they thought had some form of potential. Thus, Santa's Slay was born, one of the few roles designed to break Bill Goldberg into the bussiness of film.

Firstly, I would like to point out the sad irony that the film already bestows upon itself before it gets started. Now, I'm not racisit at all, but I thought it was genuinly hilarious that Bill Goldberg, a Jewish ex-wrestler was playing and evil Santa Clause. I just thought that I should point that out.

The story of Santa's Slay, though not wholly original, is still better than expected, just wasn't pulled off very nicely. 1000 years ago (from 2005) the devil had his first and only son. Santa. (Get it Santa, Satan.) One day, while Santa is on one of the few frozen over areas of hell, and Angel descends from the skies and is willing to make a bet. If the Angel wins, than Santa must be nice to all the children for 1000, making a holiday of his mortal enemy's birthday. And if Santa wins, the Angel must give up his wings and serve in Hell for all of eternity. And sure enough exactly 1000 years later Santa is back, and ready for some mayhem. Three people set out to stop this killer clown, A crazy old inventor, the only person who truly knows of this secret, the inventors son Nicholas, and Nicholas' girlfriend.

Now its obvious that this movie isn't really made for story. Not many movies, horror or non-horror are these days, but horror is one of the cheapest genre of films to make, and usually make a ton of cash. This pile of doke went straight to DVD, realizing that its pointless story wasn't worth the $7.50. The story was fun, and fit the film well enough, I mean its a slasher about Santa, you should know what you are getting into. This is one a few films that tried to mimic the success of the Silent Night, Deadly Night films series after their 80's time frame. And it honestly shouldn't even be held in the same category as that film.

The acting in this film was terrible by all, not one single saving grace hit the screen at any moment. Santa was over-acted (possibly intentionally so) by Bill Goldberg, and the rest of the cast is made up of unknowns, and never-should-be knowns. Robert Culson does an alright job as the crazy old inventor, and it sadened me to see Emilie de Ravin of Lost doing a movie such as this. Also, the film has some great cameos (Roll over to see) Including but not limited to...James Cann and Fran Drescher

The film does have a decent amount of kills, violence and gore. I enjoyed the use of common household holiday items to enforce a small bit of fear. Some of the kills were very grusome, creative, and looked good. Bill Goldberg is simply big, strong, and powerful enough to play such a violent and vile charecter, but just because he can doesn't mean he should.

Santa's Slay was written and directed by David Steiman, he hasn't done much since this tragedy. I honestly thought, with it's decent story, that Santa's Slay might live up to the films that inspired it from the 80's but it simply did not, and I should have known that. Bill Goldberg was not meant to be an actor, and thats why he no longer does, the cast was terrible, as was the dialouge and script. The direction had a little bit of a head on its shoulders, but showed little potential. Creative holiday kills and thrills is all that saves this falling into one star sorrows.

2/5

Scream 3 Review (2000)

In the year 2000, nearly four years since Scream 2, and five since the original, Scream 3, the conclusion to the trilogy was finally realesed into theatres. It once again brought back the hip ensemble cast fans had begun to know and love. At its time, Scream 3 had the largest number of opening theatres in history, only to be beaten a few years later by Harry Potter. While most critcs praised the film as being the best of the bunch, many fans were dissapointed, as was I. But now that fans are dissapointed, we have to put the blame somewhere, I happen to put it on the writer.

If you've read my pervious Scream reviews you would know that I absoloutly love Kevin Williamson as a screenwriter, he was the genius father of the first two films, and frankly, they were the shit, and now for Scream 3, (for reasons I don't know) a new writer was brought onto the board. Her name, was Ehren Kruger. I did not like the writing in this Scream as much as I did in the previous two. The first two Screams were witty, and clever, knowing of the source material, and the charecters were intruging and fun to listen to. In the last installment, the writing fails us, and we are no longer a clever satire, but that which we were making fun of. Thanks Scream 3, now we are all hypocrites.

The story of Scream 3, is set a few years after the events of Scream 2, the production of the movie Stab 3 -which is based on Scream 2- has begun, and mysteriously the cast and crew begin to get killed. Of course, to give the actors and actresses of Stab 3 inspiration, the real life Dewey and Gail are there. And soon enough, Sidney, who is now living in the middle of nowhere, gets pulled into the nightmare.

The acting in Scream 3 was good for the most part. Just like in the previous two films, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, and Neve Campbell all do a really good job playing their respective rolls. The only problem is, with so many characters having died in Scream and Scream 2, we are left with our three main charecters, and a whole bunch of new ones we don't get to know well enough to care about. Where as I was impressed with the two original films for being able to keep the plot running smoothly with so many rememberable characters, Scream 3 just fails, and makes the story even more confusing than it is.

This film falls victim to one of the complaints that I had about the previous films, which is the lack of originality in the killings, and the lack of blood in those said killings. We are once again left with stab wounds with little trickles of blood pouring out of them.

As much as I am shitting on the film, i must admit that I did have a fair time watching it, and enjoyed it while it lasted. Where as I've watched the first Scream three times, the second Scream two times, I feel absoloutly no desire to watch the third one again. Plans have been made by Dimension for a Scream 4, starring the surviving cast, directed by Craven, and written by the original writer Kevin Williamson, and i am very excited to see it happen, and definatly will see it, if these plans come to fruition. Overall, Scream 3 is worth seeing if you liked the first two films, but definatly not as good as the greats that came before it. Scream 3 gets just that. A Three.
3/5

Scream 2 Review (1997)

After the major success of the first Scream movie, the studio obviously wanted to cash in on that. What kinda movie studio are you if you don't cash in on your horror film franchises? So, in 1997, a year after the first, Scream 2 was realesed into cinemas. It kept the same surviving cast of the first, and added mo re, young, hot TV stars to be filler. These include Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jada Pinkett, Jerry O'Conell, and Omar Epps. While the film wasn't as financially successful as the first, (only by like 2 million dollars) they decided to continue the franchise and make it into a trilogy. Wes Craven returned to direct once again, and the script was written by the undeniable genious Kevin Williamson.

The story of Scream 2 is essentially the story of the first film. This time, Sidney Presscot, fresh off her recent brush with mass-destruction, is away to college. Here she has new friends, new habits, and hopefully a new life. But, a new movie titled "Stab" has just been realesed about the original Woodsboro killings. And someone has taking a liking to this film. Too big of a liking, and members of her campus start dying off one by one. And even worse, Gale Weathers comes to investigate the latest deaths, that seem to be following Sidney, however, Deputy Dewey comes, and along with Jamie Kennedy, provides the bulk of the comic relifef

Now, the plot is essentially the same. And that is defiantly not a bad thing, because I really enjoyed the first

Scream movie, and it was fun to poke at the self-refrencial style that it had. Scream 2 continues that with a passion and does not dissapoint. With the realese of "Stab" the film even makes refrences to its predesscor, which is great. Kevin William and Wes Craven turn out to be a force that shouldn't be reckoned with. I hope them both the best, and am excited to see Scream 4, which will bring all the actors, and essential crew back together for another round of scares. The first film was, like a lot of 90's horror flicks, less about the murders, and more about who was commiting them. Scream 2 doesn't change that formula, and makes an interesting twist ending, that connects morbidly back to the first.

Once again, the acting was top-notch by everyone involved. I really enjoyed how the writing did in fact make the college students, made the charecters grow, rather than have the exact same views and personality they did when they were in highschool. Neve Campbell does another excellent job as Sidney, Courtney Cox is always a treat to watch, and David Arquette and Jamie Kennedy do right by their charecters

There are two things that I enjoyed more in Scream 2 than in the original film. One being that there is a lot less jibber-jabber. The first film was excellent because it had an interesting story, portrayed by interesting charecters, and the second does the same, but with a lot more action, and thrills, and not so much talk over and about everything that is happeneing around these people. The second is that the blood-letting is a bit higher in this one. If you read my review of the first one, you'll know that I was somewhat dissapoionted by the lack of kill originality and bloodflow. This one increases the bloodflow, while it didn't quite fix the problem of the kills. They are still just stabs.

Overall, Scream 2 plays out a lot like Scream 1. But because of the things that I mentioned in the above paragraph, I belive that Scream 2 is the superior film. I really like the new blood, the interesting story, and good characecter development. So mark down Scream 2 as one of the few sequels that is better than the origial. And though Scream 2 is better than Scream 1, it still doesn't quite make it into the five star category. Scream 2 gets 4 zombi heads, out of 5.

Scream Review (1996)

Holy shit! Thank God that this film came out when it did. For those of you who don't know, during the mid 80's to about the mid 90's, the bussiness of horror movies was in a big slump. The horror film economy was like our economy right now. The films were still getting made, but no one was buying them, and no one was seeing them. Then in 1995, Kevin Williamson, (a genius) wrote the screenplay for Scream. When it was realesed a year later, Scream took audiences by storm, with an ensemble cast that included: Drew Barrymore, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and Jamie Kennedy, and what promised to be a very original script. And it was. Flocking to theatres, Scream revitalized the genre, and introduced the world to Kevin Williamson, and told all them youngsters about Wes Craven.

Simply stated Scream probably has the most original story, and that being said, you've seen this story a hundred times, masked kill stalking teens, there's your story. But what makes it different is the characters, not the story. The characters are self aware that they are in a horror movie, and that's what makes Scream such a... no, just...no. After two fellow students are killed, the city orders all school to be canceled, and issue a curfew of nine-o-clock. But of course, with a killer on the loose, who wants to go home at nine?! So they have a party complete with booze, drugs and movies. Jamie Kennedy works at a video store, and is a horror professional like the all of us, so him, along with his friends no how a horror movie (and therefore their own enviorment) work, and what to do, and how to survive. Filled with enough in refrences that you'll have trouble keeping up, Scream is good for both a newbie, and the addict.

Scream is what launched the success of Kevin Williamson, who went on to write the screenplays for the next two films to come after this, along with the first I Know What You Did Last Summer, Cursed, and The Faculty, none of these were as successful, or good (opinion). Scream also launched the infamous Ghostface, and re-enstated Wes Craven as the suspense master that he truly is. Before Scream, the last big thing Craven had done of Nightmare On Elm Street, was New Nightmare.

Speaking of suspense, Scream has a ton of it. And I loved every minute of it. The first time I saw this film, the tension was so fucking great, it was killing me. Craven does a great job of making a really good film, as he shown numerous times before, as in everything he has ever possibly made. But directing is only one part of what makes a great film. Another great part goes to Williamson, but I've already talked about that enough. Now usually as a horror film, one either takes the gore route, or hit the tension with an iron fist. Scream does an excellent job at keeping both very prominent, and having a great sense of balance and timing between the two.


The blood here isn't extreme. It did have nice gore, and a good gore factor, but its not somthing that will make you sick to your stomach. The worst kill (as in bloodiest kill) actually is the first one that you ever see. You know that one where the guy gets his guts wripped out and are hanging from his stomach to his ankles. The rest of the film includes, beatings, stabbings, hangings and brutal beatings, but it truly wasn't extreme, trust me, I can handle a lot or gore, and I don't really mind it. But I also don't care if there is gore. Anyway, I'm rambling. But the blood within Scream, was used well, looked good. It was kind of like the musical episode of an old ninetys sitcom, every sitcom has one, but it really just doesn't need to be there. But you watch it anyway. And this isn't referring to the movie as a whole, but to the blood.

All of the acting in this movie was awesome. Every single actor and actress in this film seemed to be perfectly cast, and knew what they were doing. Neve was perfect as the lead, Courntey Cox was taken perfectly from her then comedy standard. While the film clearly advertised Drew Barrymoore as a main character. They were funny, serious, scary, and they seemed to get the source material, which was great.

Overall, as it's probably easy to tell, I really, really, really liked Scream, it was scary, fun, well acted, funny and amazingly put together from a techinal standpoint, the lighting, and production looked and felt very nice and real. The only problem was the lack of blood, which is okay, and the fact that the film was nearly two hours long. But again, I really, really, really liked it. So yeah. Scream gets Four zombi's out of Five.

.

Friday The 13th Part II Review (1981)

Aha! Mrs. Voorhees is back again...wait, thats not right...um.... Jason is back once again! Wait no. Jason is...starting? I guess so. In the second installment of the Friday series, another group of unsuspecting teenagers are slaughtered by a vicious killer. However in Part II, five years after the events of the original, a group of young camp counselors set out on endeavour for training, but not at Camp Crystal Lake, one across the lake, but still in the same forest. Jason apparently was more that an imagination, as he saw his mothers decapitation from the last film, and has grown up and is ready to exact his revenge. On more horny teenagers. However, Jason is a little different than you expect him to be. How you ask. Guess what, no hockey mask. Thats a trait that didn't get picked up until the third movie. First the killer wasn't Jason, and now no hockey mask. This series is just full of surprises, just like this sequel, they are mostly good.

We open just three months after the events of Part I, with Adrienne King breifly reprising her role of Alice from the first film. She lasts about fifthteen minutes before meeting her own shocking demise. Driving down the road in an old beat up truck, we find the next two of Jason's victims trying to find there way to a camp not far from the infamous camp blood. Not very many people decided t0 come back for this sequel, Adrienne King and Walt Gorny as Ralph, as well as Betsy Palmer. The new campers are not much different from the last, infact, I swear one of them looked exactly like Kevin Bacon. The new lead is a young blond named Ginny, not Jenny, but Ginny, played by Amy Steel. She was one of my least favorite characters in the movie, and I found her acting to be very annoying. Needless to say I enjoyed Anrienne King as our "Final Girl" a lot more. The rest of the acting in this movie is what you've come to expect from a horror film. Where in any other genre it would be trash, but for a horror film, its passable.

Made after the major, and unexpected success of the first film, Friday The 13th Part II, was made the following year, while still having a meager production, this one was slightly higher, with about one-million dollars on their hands rather than five-hundred-thousand. Originally the story was suppose to end with the third, each Friday The 13th they would put out a new, unrelated film, and turn the movies into some sort of anthology story, much like the Creepshow franchise. However, after each film just kept on raking in the dough, Paramount decided that Jason was enough, and the anthology would just have to wait. Besides, when you try to do a series without the many villian, and turn it into an anthology story, things don't go so well, Just look at Halloween III. Yeah, thats what I thought.

While 1981 was a popular year for the then young franchise, having the films first sequel come and all, and a bigger budget to do it with, you'd think that the special effects would knock the ones from the first one out of the park. No. They didn't. Infact they were about the same. While this films death sequences were a lot more creative, they weren't quite as bloody. The worlds only true Gore-Hound, Tom Savini, decided to skip out on doing the effects for Part II, to work on a film called The Burning. The Burning was one of the Friday The 13th clones that came out directly after the first, granted its also one of the better copy-cat films, its obviously not as popular as the Friday films. It didn't have any sequels. At all. Of course with a series like Friday where you have at films that all come out within the same decade, its kind of hard to compete. While I did kind of bitch about the films lack of blood, this is patially due to the MPAA cutting out 48 seconds of footage, which included much more blood letting during the famous double impalment scene, and since they have not realesed an uncut version of this film, there was no way for me to have seen it.

This film lacks the natural tension and creepiness that the original had, and that I loved so much. This film is much more straightforward, with no fancy twist ending, no special mystery killer, it is your average stalk and slash summercamp film. I also think the original had an advantage of having Betsy Palmer, who did a great job with her role of playing a mentally unstable woman, who is doing bad things but for good reasons, so in some ways, you feel sympathetic for her. I honestly thought that it was a tough role, for a very complex character, that unfourtanetly didn't get enough screentime for explanation. However, what this films lacks in tension and atmosphere, it makes up for with unique kills, and a fair about of gore. While you have classic stabs, and slashers, you also get temple crushes, machete heads, and the personal favorite, the all time favorite double impalment scene.

he plot for this film isn't mindblowingly complex, but you probably didn't expect it to be, so its really not that big of a deal. But I do give new Friday writer Ron Kurz some respect of during the plot device of Jason, into an actual story, and tying up some loose ends with the films continuity, and making things move along briskly. But not too brisky considering the film is only eighty-seven minutes long, and it allows for some story to develope, but have the kills frequently enough to not bore the audience. I also give the writer credit for having the balls to have Jason kill a dog, and then make a joke about. I thought the joke was genuinly funny and well placed.

Overall, this movie is definatly a worthy sequel, and better than most that follow it. The kills are better, bloody, and more fun this time over, Jason is finally brought into the picture to keep things fresh this time around. The plot was more or less the same, but kept itself in perspective enough to make it feel real. But it lacked the creepy atmoshphere the original carried perfectly, and while the acting wasn't much better last time around, and least last time, the main character was at least decent. Plus, I do indeed miss the cult classic quote, "killer mommy, kill her, nowhere to run, kill her mommy" Friday The 13th Part II gets Four zombi heads out of Five.

Friday The 13th Review (1980)

Friday The 13th. The cream of the crop. The essential slasher film. Everything rolled into one big bundle. My precursor of words have all been said about the precursor film. It was, and still possibly is the greatest slasher film of all time. It has defined decades of teenage moviegoers, as to what they come to expect from the horror film. And, films in general. It was the mother and father of too many sequels to count, which all made most of the Jason fans jaded over the past few years. BUT, earlier this year a remake of the original Friday The 13th was created. It met mixed reviews from fans and moviegoers alike. But even the quintessential Friday fans agreed, it was much better than the last few offerings. But the original! Its the original top notch film that set the bar for all horror movies to follow it. Not really. Infact many people claim that this film was just riding off of the success of a great horror film that came a year earlier. The original Halloween. Also to note the producers of this film have come clean saying the my previous statement was true. However, each seires began to make a name for themselves when they turned out to be the subject of way to many sequels, prequels, and remakes. But no matter how much you love, hate, or love to hate Jason, (and his mother) you have to agree that this film was part in the re-creation, or one of films most popular genres.

Friday The 13th opens twenty years before the films main story. The classic plot device of horny teenagers create the stage for the drowining of a young boy while at summer camp. An angry (and unknown camp counselor) confronts these two young lovers with more than they expected. A large butcher knife. Thats right all you young horror fans, Jason wasn't the killer. He was dead. (Sorry if this was to spoil anything for you but brute honesty hurts.) And if two dead teenagers wasn't enough to fill your appateit, the killer does what killers do best. Creates a very long night at camp blood. (If you get that refrence you are in a league of great people.) Pick-up about twenty years later. We first see a young girl hitch-hiking her way to Camp Crystal Lake for a summer job. The camp has been closed down, rightfully so, because of the tragic events that happened eariler, including drowning, murder, fire, and toxic water. She stops at a restraunt to get directions, when someone decides to giver her a lift. Upon leaving, they come across a man named Ralph who warns that "Camp Blood" carries a death curse. It turns out, he's right. So a new group of horny teenagers begins to try to re-open the camp during the summer. But, someone is lurking in the woods, stalking the youngsters. Getting ready to avenge a young boys death. Getting ready to kill them all off. One. By. One.

This is a classic horror film and you have to admit it. This film redefined the genre. As a brainchild of the 1980's, this film has all the trademarks of an 80's slasherfest. Teenagers. Revenge. Eerie lighting. A storm. And lots and lots of POV shots. While this was one of the first films for a then young Kevin Bacon, it marked the start of a downward slope for Betsy Palmer, who was a seasoned stage actress. Many critcs and fans panned her role in this film, and she later stated that she only did it for the money. Claiming that she needed a new car, and they offered to pay her one-thousand dollars a day. She said the first time she read the script she thought "it was a piece of shit!" However, despite some actors not liking their likenesss attached to the film it is. Others in the film include, Adrienne King, Harry Crosby, Laurie Bartham, Mark Nelson, Jennine Taylor, and Robbi Morgan. Now lets be honest this film was not about acting. And it shows.

While most of the cast does a good job with a lack-luster script, others seem to fall flat. Kevin Bacon, Betsy Palmer, and Adrienne King, all did an alright job with what they had. The others though were your run-of-the-mill teenagers. Not good. Not bad. Just somewhere in-between. They are nearly always dull, or over-acting, but what can I say, a low budget film, a low budget cast, except of course Betsy Palmer. Lucky.

Special effects master Tom Savini is the grandaddy of these special effects, and it shows his keen ability to make the horrifying, gratifying. With a body count of ten, all dying in their own special and grusome way, it leaves lots of space for unique kills. Decapitaion. Arrow to the throat. Stab wounds, its all here, and Tom Savini makes it happen. While that may seem like a lot, and it probably was back in the day, lots of the shots don't last very long, or cut away before you can see much. They recently realesed and unrated cut of these films, which I have yet to see. I re-watched it for this review on an old VHS tape. But, even with these new extended additions, the film is only ten seconds longer. I know, lame right.

While nothing is truly original in this world, and this is a horror film, the script and plot wasn't that great. This may seem like a nit-pik, a horror movie is suppose to be about blood right? But I like originality in my script. Sorry if you think they're suppose to be simple, I wish I could live that way, but alas, I cannot. The greatest part of this movie is the ending. And even though I love this part of the film, it wasn't in the script, and the idea was thought of by Tom Savini. Its shocking, scary, gross and unexpected. My favorite part of the movie infact, and the scariest. But however many complaints I come up with for this film, I always find something new to enjoy about it.

Overall, this film is great fun to watch. No matter how many times you've seen it, or if you just saw it when you were a teenager, its definatly time to give this one another view. Its a classic in every sense of the word. One of the key American films of the century, and in the highest ranks of the horror classics, Friday The 13th is nothing short of astonishing. Blood, guts, violence, and even some funny moments, this film will make you feel young again. It desrves a spot on the shelf of all horror fans, and on the shelf of all those who grew up in the 80's. Friday The 13th gets Four zombi heads, out of Five.