DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Friday the 13th: From Crystal Lake to Manhattan (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

I'd agree with that completely. I think it was a good idea to have an ELM STREET direction, even though I'm a Jason fan and pretty much can't stand Krueger (though I think Elm Street 1 and 3 are very good).

 

[Ryan Wishton]

Matt.

Thats probably why you are not much of a Friday fan. You missed them as they came out in the 80's.

You say you have been a genre fan for 7 years? Well, that would mean you didnt really see them until the late mid 90's or so??? Is that right?

If thats correct, you were most likely subjected to the Scream generation first. The movies were already outdated by this point and the cliches were well known by then. If I had not seen the series until the mid 90's or so, I might have not liked them either.

Many talk about cliches. What they have to remember is back in the late 70's/early 80's, many of these things were not looked at as cliches. Even reviews now about Friday 1 talk about cliches.

Of course a horror film from 1980 is going to have cliches in 2004. It's 24 years later and about 1000 slashers later.

I mean in 1980, F13 was looked at as one of the most vile and sadistic movies ever made. Ebert tried to destroy Paramount for this series early on. Even telling people to not support Paramount films in general. He even gave out the home address of Betsy Palmer. Personally, I would have sued him (if possible) for that one as that was just wrong no matter which way you look at it. Giving out a Home address and telephone number to the public is stupid not to mention more dangerous than anything in the movie.

Even in 1984, the series was still looked at one of the most mean spirited series ever made.

I remember his laughable television review of Friday 4 in 1984 where he says a girl is beaten with sticks??? When exactly did this happen? Happened to see that in the early 90's from a friend who kept some promotional material from the series.

And if he hated Friday 1 enough to do what he did, why did he review Fridays 2-4?

By the mid 80's, everything started to change as horror drifted towards way more camp comedy. This is when the cliches became obvious and things were being played for laughs.

By the mid 90's (when Scream came out), it was all over. Everyone has been quoting the movie and talking about cliches a 1000 times ever since. Before the mid 90's no one really brought up cliches and referenced or really thought about it.

Nowadays, the movie (movies) seem very tame because we have been subjected to so much since then. So you have to put youself in the 80's frame of thought which is almost impossible to do if you werent really around then.

You had a series that was once shunned by being very sadistic, too mean spirited, and extremely violent.

Now, the series is shunned for making no sense and having laughable storylines. The series was just never able to cut a break.

Then again, it was probably better for a horror series to be shunned for being mean spirited than it is for being a parody.

 

[MattHR]

The end credits are indeed from film elements. The laserdisc also had the "re-done" video credits, so this is a welcomed change. I don't know why Paramount used the video credits in the first place. Maybe there was a typo or a credit that needed to be added/removed from the orginal crawl, so the video version was used. At least it's been restored to its proper film presentation.

I remember Paramount also used video credits for "Trading Places" on VHS/laserdisc on its initial release. This was to reflect the new credits for changes made for the music used in a few scenes. When the widescreen laserdisc was released, the original music and proper film credits were restored.

I thought this might be the case with F13:7, so I checked the music credits from the laserdisc against the new DVD. They are the same.

 

[Matt Thompson]

Well, Scream came out when I was 11-years-old. I saw the film and liked it. However, it didn't really have any bearing on what I thought of, say, Friday the 13th. I didn't watch the film saying, "Don't do that! Don't do that!" I was mostly just bored. Long camera shots that add up to nothing and a laughable ending just didn't help things much.

Halloween is as cliched as can be these days, and I still think it's a brilliant film. It's all about the execution. In 1978, John Carpenter had a master-form that Sean Cunningham tried to emulate and failed. Carpenter relied on suspense, and Cunningham wanted the red stuff. And to this day, I'll always take the suspense approach, which is really what separates the two series.

These days though, horror has gotten so utterly predictable. Character examines dark hallway. Suspenseful music. What's going to happen? Oh, it was just Bill! Laugh it off. Turn. OH NO, THERE'S THE KILLER! F13 suffers from following this formula more than most series, and that also contributes to my overall opinion.

 

[Matt Stone]

Subtlety and tone are the two words I'd use to differentiate between Halloween (the original) and the F13 series. Carpenter is able to use framing, camera movement, and sound better than anything else I can think of. Halloween is a true masterpiece, not only of the horror genre, but of film in general.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Thanks for checking the credits- the first laserdisc release of "Newsies" had the end credits redone too, but they put back the original ones for the DVD release so anything can happen. This really annoys me on the VHS of Part VII, and to have that on top of the 2-D version of Part 3 would make it a waste of time for me, but I'll still consider it at this point as there were 2-D prints made of Part 3 for drive-ins.
Speaking of Betsy Palmer, how come she didn't play Jason's mom in "Freddy Vs. Jason"? Having someone else play her made the movie a lot less authentic.

 

[Matt Thompson]

She simply wanted too much money. The offered her a part in Jason X as well (during the VR sequence), but when her demands were too high they changed the scene. For Freddy Vs. Jason, since Mrs. Voorhees has a definite impact on the plot, they simply chose to recast.

 

[Eric Emma]

Here are my thoughts no the whole horror franchise, the reason the sequals suck are both the studios fault and the fans fault. Before we get into that let's get into the problems of the friday the 13th itself, the problem with this series is every sequal is just a crappier remake of the original except with jason. NOES only has 2 good films and that's NOES 1 and NOES 3 because NOES 3 is a different story, that progresses the story and tells something different. Now it's the studio's fault because they rush out the product without tkaing any time or care to make something good. It's the fans fault since they like bitch about everything and won't accept change. F13 did not need a sequal at all and that the truth, but since they made a sequal you find jason, ok that's fine, what about the next one? We never explore the character very deeply.

 

[Matt Thompson]

The problem with sequels is repetition. Is Friday the 13th, Part 2 much different from Friday the 13th? Is Halloween 5 some major shift from Halloween 4? The only series to generally change things up with each film is Nightmare On Elm Street, and even then things were hurt by a villain who grew too popular for his own good.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

The girls are different and the kills are different. And for the fans who know precisely what to expect - that's enough.

I grew a bit disillusioned with the Halloween movies from Part 4 on. It seemed like each new director would try to take Michael in a specific direction - only to have the next sequel's director do something totally different. I'm not saying I necessarily need a completely logical narrative structure, but I kept waiting to find out what was up with the Cowboy Boots Guy from Part 4... :frowning:

At least the F13 movies have no delusions of narrative. Each sequel stands on its own, plot-wise. And I use the word "plot" lightly.

Sometime soon I'll revisit Halloweens 4, 5 and 6 and see if I can't enjoy them just a bit more.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Oddly enough, I'd rank the Friday the 13th series above the Halloween series (but below Nightmare) but in my opinion the first Halloween is a classic film that no other movie in any of the big three series can touch, with the possible exception of the original Nightmare. I liked Jason up until V when he didn't even show up for his own movie . I was always more of a Freddy fan. I was 8 when Friday the 13th came out though, and I definitely remember hearing about it. Didn't see it until years later though. Saw Nightmare 1 when it first came out in '84 when I was 12...scared the crap out of me and I've loved horror movies ever since. Unfortunately, none of the series have very many good movies in them...I'd say Nightmare 1, 3, 4, 7...Friday 1, 2, 4...Halloween...uh 1...and that's it. The Halloween series is so bad its frightening. Even 2 is terrible in my opinion, and I saw 6 once, but was completely confused by all the cult crap. Michael was created by a cult? What?

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Aw, poor little Halloween 2 never gets any love...but I think it's quite good!

I always liked the idea that Pt. 2 picks up immediately after Pt. 1 and that the late-night hospital setting was pretty darn creepy. Rosenthal doesn't even come close to copying the style and tension of Carpenter's movie, but I don't really think he was trying. Halloween 2 feels a whole lot like a F13 sequel, with its frequent gore and expanded body count. But one of those bodies belonged to the amazingly adorable Pamela Susan Shoop (topless before getting boiled jacuzzi-style), and that was just the icing on the cake.

I appreciated how Carpenter and Hill's screenplay tried to forward Michael's story, and I vaguely remember that the network TV version offered even more of this material.

So anyway, yeah: Halloween 2 is a winner in my book. It's a whole lot like Jaws 2 in that it works well enough on its own - but pales in comparison to its predecessor.

 

[Lyle_JP]

Do you mean the original Friday the 13th Part 3? Because that is simply not true. I still have a pair of 3D glasses from that film, and they were of the polarized type (like most 3-D movies at amusement parks).

-Lyle J.P.

 

[Steve Phillips]

The 3-D used for 99% of all 3-D movies (even in the fifties) was POLARIZED, CLEAR LENS GLASSES, not the inferior red/blue anaglyph. This of course, goes for FRIDAY PART 3.

If you have seen red/blue glasses with the FRIDAY logo on them, be advised these came with the promotional 3-D poster and/or the LP soundtrack with a 3-D cover, they were never used to watch the film itself.

While simple, anaglyph isn't really suitable for movies. Outside of a handful of adult movies, a major Hollywood film has only used red/blue a couple times (FREDDY'S DEAD and SPY KIDS 3-D: GAME OVER). The few other movies to have used this inferior 3-D format have all been low budget stuff, usually flat films with a short 3-D sequence.

All of the 51 3-D movies made in 1952-55, a handful in the 60's and 70s, over 20 more in the 80's, and a couple since then were all released in polarized format. Color, black and white, it doesn't matter, they were all polarized. In the early days, they used dual projectors and prints, more recently they used single strip systems, but these are still quite complicated and expensive for theatres to deal with.

It is true that a small number of the older 3-D movies (usually the few made in B/W) were converted to red/blue for re-issue to the 16mm rental market, Super 8 digests, even TV showings, but these versions look terrible, nothing like the original 3-D at all.

A red/blue conversion of FRIDAY would be awful, don't be sorry they didn't do this. It would be a color distorted, blurry mess with gimmick shots that wouldn't work well at home. The modified, flat print is a better option. Only the field sequential version comes close to replicating what audiences saw in theatres back in 1982.

Red/Blue anaglyph is OK for 3-D comic books and posters, but for movies, it is nothing but a mess.
The R2 DVD of AMITYVILLE 3-D is proof, the anaglyph conversion is abysmal, a blurry, distorted abomination that is an insult to the original, excellent polarized presentation.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

But it's possible to enjoy both types of films. You just have to get into whatever mindset fits that film. I love the better-made HALLOWEEN and I also love early "subtle" horror films with no blood at all from the 30s and 40s. But at the same time, I can enjoy a good stalk-slash-blood festival when I'm in that mood.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

That's exactly how I've always felt. Somewhere around the mid to late 80s, the "horror film" became a joke. I've always blamed Freddy "Don Rickles" Krueger for a lot of that style with his "one-liners".

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I don't know if I'm speaking for every F13 Series fan everywhere (though I'd bet I do to a large extent), but to those of us who were around to see Jason doing his thing in theatres during the 1980s, the whole point was that we didn't really "need" a character development for this madman, nor did we need a heavy plot. We went to the theatre on Opening Night every year to see Jason slaughter teens in as many varieties of new ways as possible - period. I'm a lifelong fan of more "intelligent" horror films, like THE INVISIBLE MAN, THE BLACK CAT (34) and DRACULA....

....however, the whole thing about the F13 series was that it was time to check the brain at the door, not expect subtleties or suspense or high art or characterizations --- just go in there and get off on the killings and cheer Jason on!

At least that's how it always was with me. It was an annual roller coaster ride with all cinematic expectations put on the side. We just cheered Jason on and applauded each time he "offed" another kid - whether it was a spear gun in a chick's eyeball or a meat cleaver in a nerd's face.

 

[Malcolm R]

Yep, probably Freddy's fault as "Nightmare 3" in 1987 grossed nearly $45M and "Nightmare 4" in 1988 nearly $50M. This tone apparently put the butts in seats, so studios moved in this direction.

 

[Eric Emma]

I should apologize, Jason for me is my guilty pleasure that I just treat just that way and give it no lee-way, I just tell it like it is. Because people couldn't let go, Jason is a mockery and his new movies are hardly scary just him hacking people up. There not scary because the characters are terrible, the problem with horror sequals is there sort of a little trap. If the main characters lives in the sequal, the audiences knows she'll never die and it isn't scary, if the character dies then there no room for character development and you have a crappy movie. I think Jason is pretty scary all by himself there doesn't need to be any character development but everyone else is in deseprate need. In terms of mindless fun yeah I suppose, but the minute we say that, we become hypocrites when we critize any bad movie. So in short I enjoy the Jason movies but I know there still really bad movies.

 

[Ryan Wishton]

The really funny thing is the whole genre moved to camp comedy even though Elm Street 3, Elm Street 4, & Child's Play (somewhat. The first still mantained somewhat of a serious tone) were the only three movies to do theatrically well with the tone even back at the time when it was hot.

Many early movies of the 80's made money. Thats why they were being released weekly. Many will say that the genre was really stuck in a corner during the time and really had nowhere to go, so thats why they went in that direction. That could be very well true.

The late 80's horror really didnt make money. Elm Street 3, 4, Child's Play. Yep. Thats about it. Friday 6 and 7 were behind them aways. Still made money, but nowhere near what the previous ones did non-inflated or inflated.

Friday 7 still made about $30 million "if you count inflation" which is not bad for a 7th movie in a series. So, you only had 5 movies in the last part of the 80's that did average to well. Thats it.

People were already sick of it by 1989. I mean you go from a great money making horror theatrical year (1988), to one of the worst money making horror years of history where just about eveything did bad (1989). The only movie of 89 to do well was Pet Semetary. This also happened to be the year that killed the genre for many years.

Halloween 4 & Pet Semetary both made money. But, they both mantained a pretty much serious tone, so I wont count them as Camp.

About Friday the 13th Part 8?

Why did Paramount only give a $3 million budget? Why didnt they finance the movie so it could have taken place in New York for the measly 10-15 million? All of the first 7 movies made well above their budgets (not to mention they all killed in rentals), so it's not like it would have been a bad risk. Part 8 would have also done theatrically better I think if it actually took place in New York so Paramount wouldnt have lost a dime anyways. Jason in Times Square, Central Park, running around town. It's the movie people expected. We didnt get anything even close.

I actually dont think Jason in New York was a horrible idea. But, they did absolutely nothing with it that they should have. It did have potential for some fun I think.

Wow, that teaser was one of the biggest ripoffs in the history of motion picture. We see more of Jason in New York in the 30 second teaser than in the movie. The teaser and title was nothing more than a con, plain and simple. Not to mention I thought the teaser was actually pretty good & much better than the movie ended up being.