Canetoad
The Prodigal Toad
HMaM member of the Month, July 2006
Cry Havoc! And let slip the cats of war.
Posts: 2,868
|
Post by Canetoad on Aug 5, 2006 1:51:37 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with guilty pleasures. Isn't that why we're all here?
|
|
|
Post by GL on Aug 5, 2006 10:01:15 GMT -5
Of course there's nothing wrong. Half of my favorite's list is made up of guilty pleasure films.
|
|
|
Post by speeddemon on Aug 18, 2006 7:24:08 GMT -5
i wouldn't say this installment was brilliant , but it was fun to watch. not being a fan of the series i didn't even know there was a copycat killer, but it was so obvious who it was .
lights out, beer and friday 13th again .... a 3 from me .
|
|
|
Post by GL on Aug 18, 2006 11:12:13 GMT -5
I had a hard time figureing out the killer the first time through, so I wouldn't call it an easy one to guess. And once again, I'll have to try your method of watching the film.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Butcher M.D. on Dec 18, 2007 12:58:38 GMT -5
Had a hard time really enjoying this one.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 7, 2008 14:19:53 GMT -5
This is one of my favorite movies in the series. I won't say it's great. Certainly, most of the acting isn't very good. And almost all the blood was edited out.
But this is the first Friday the 13th movie where the budget begins to make the movie look good and feel very professional. I also think it's filmed and edited very well. I just think the ideas weren't very good.
I gave it a 3. Production values are high. And I think the movie is, if not suspenseful, at least it looks and feels cool. I just always have a ball with this movie. Especially the scenes in the barn and at the hospital. Great running and hiding fun - with rain, chainsaws, blood, blades, glass, and a hot guy with a knife. I think the ending plays well.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 8, 2008 11:08:31 GMT -5
Odd, I think the low-budget here is noticeable. There's no variety in the sets, taking place in a few locations with no real change of location or atmosphere spread out, like in the others. The kills are also quite bland and boring and in definite need of being rescured from MPAA-Hell. That said, the high body-count, interesting variation on the killer's identity, and most importantly, the return of the giallo aesthetics that made Part 1 so memorable make a grand impression.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 8, 2008 12:43:52 GMT -5
Odd, I think the low-budget here is noticeable. There's no variety in the sets, taking place in a few locations with no real change of location I'm very ignorant when it comes to how to tell when a set is a set or not. It looked (except for the shot where "Jason" breaks through the door) like a real building / house, and most of the other places looked like real locations. I guess when I talked about the budget, I'm judging it in terms of cinematography and the quality of the film they shot the movie with. The blacks on this film have always naturally looked better than any of the 4 films before it. The sound quality also sounds better, which makes me think they had more to spend on making the sound design better. The production values. For some reason, it seemed to make the director's visual / surreal intentions come through better than most of the other films. That said, the high body-count, interesting variation on the killer's identity, and most importantly, the return of the giallo aesthetics that made Part 1 so memorable make a grand impression. If it weren't for us trying to guess the killer's identity, Tommy would never have been a suspect. And I dig the ending, so I'm a big fan of that element as well. For what it produced, because I enjoyed it. But no one can say they want to see more Roy in another movie, so, it's not a complete win-win for the movie. But in terms of pacing and all that, the mystery killer was a good touch. I agree the kills were weak. But within them, there was still some style to the death scenes. For instance, I very much enjoyed that very cool cleaver through the window shot. And the rawhide (or whatever that material was) strap death scene was very cool. And that shot (though it was kind of ripping off the first movie) of what was "in the top bunk" was very scary (the lightning-flash reveal). And I enjoyed the music Manfredini did to most of the suspenseful scenes.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 9, 2008 11:26:53 GMT -5
Odd, I think the low-budget here is noticeable. There's no variety in the sets, taking place in a few locations with no real change of location I'm very ignorant when it comes to how to tell when a set is a set or not. It looked (except for the shot where "Jason" breaks through the door) like a real building / house, and most of the other places looked like real locations. I guess when I talked about the budget, I'm judging it in terms of cinematography and the quality of the film they shot the movie with. The blacks on this film have always naturally looked better than any of the 4 films before it. The sound quality also sounds better, which makes me think they had more to spend on making the sound design better. The production values. For some reason, it seemed to make the director's visual / surreal intentions come through better than most of the other films. That said, the high body-count, interesting variation on the killer's identity, and most importantly, the return of the giallo aesthetics that made Part 1 so memorable make a grand impression. If it weren't for us trying to guess the killer's identity, Tommy would never have been a suspect. And I dig the ending, so I'm a big fan of that element as well. For what it produced, because I enjoyed it. But no one can say they want to see more Roy in another movie, so, it's not a complete win-win for the movie. But in terms of pacing and all that, the mystery killer was a good touch. I agree the kills were weak. But within them, there was still some style to the death scenes. For instance, I very much enjoyed that very cool cleaver through the window shot. And the rawhide (or whatever that material was) strap death scene was very cool. And that shot (though it was kind of ripping off the first movie) of what was "in the top bunk" was very scary (the lightning-flash reveal). And I enjoyed the music Manfredini did to most of the suspenseful scenes. I don't know sets, but I can get cheapness of sets and locations, and while the outdoor scenes look good, they do have a tendency to shrink down in impressiveness when confined to the indoors. They're quite set-ish, though it did take me a while to realize so it is pretty well hidden, and would account for some not getting it. It took a viewing of a couple of those low-budget ones in a row to finally get an eye attuned to it. The fact is, Tommy is really weakly written as a red herring if he is supposed to be set-up as the killer. For one, the killer is well over a foot taller than he is, there's plenty of times where Tommy is forced to run away from something that would've had Jason kill them had it been otherwise. It's quite obvious that he isn't it from the beginning, though the evidence that comes up against him doesn't seem that far fetched it would be him. I'll add the flare-in-the-mouth to the best kills in the film, but the fact that most of them are resorted to impalings or stabbings is what really gets this one.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 11, 2008 8:03:53 GMT -5
I don't know sets, but I can get cheapness of sets and locations Maybe it was the 1980's or the music was so good or to me, the actors seemed to take it just seriously enough... But, cheap or not, I still loved the look and feel of the movie. So, it would never bother me one way or the other. while the outdoor scenes look good, they do have a tendency to shrink down in impressiveness when confined to the indoors. They're quite set-ish, though it did take me a while to realize so it is pretty well hidden, and would account for some not getting it. It took a viewing of a couple of those low-budget ones in a row to finally get an eye attuned to it. The outdoor scenes are never 'shrunk down' by the indoor scenes. I think you mean the movie gets less impressive when the people go inside. And I already started raving about the hospital scene, so I think you know before I say it how I feel about that particular indoor scene. None of the shots of the indoors last long enough for me to get the slightest bit distracted by cheapness. Maybe that's why I assumed the budget was still high. Tommy is really weakly written as a red herring if he is supposed to be set-up as the killer. For one, the killer is well over a foot taller than he is, there's plenty of times where Tommy is forced to run away from something that would've had Jason kill them had it been otherwise. It's quite obvious that he isn't it from the beginning, though the evidence that comes up against him doesn't seem that far fetched it would be him. I just look at this as - he could become the killer at any time. He has the "killer instinct" inside of him. He's been desensitized from the events of The Final Chapter, years of drugs and institutions, and now he has to contend with the various retards and rejects in this "honor system" half-way house. He could go either way. I mean, I know no one really buys the writing in this movie as anything other than half-assed psychology or emotional trauma. But visually, we get just enough to buy that he's becoming unglued. Which is one of the reasons I think the ending works so well. As for him not being tall enough to be "the killer" we see in this movie... if you're paying attention to how tall everyone is... you missed a lot going on. I'll add the flare-in-the-mouth to the best kills in the film, but the fact that most of them are resorted to impalings or stabbings is what really gets this one. We just needed more blood. And some squishy stuff wouldn't have hurt either.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 11, 2008 11:21:27 GMT -5
Half-assed the logic may be, we have to take what the film offers up, and by that standard, Tommy comes off rather weak in the red herring department.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 18, 2008 0:25:33 GMT -5
I agree.
I'm actually saying that I enjoy his trauma and his crazed outbursts. He was a very intense actor and I believed him. I respect people who can play deeply disturbed as well as he could.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 18, 2008 11:10:00 GMT -5
Had you said that to begin, I would've agreed as well, since those are fun but don't make for an effective red herring in mysteries.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Feb 18, 2008 15:15:38 GMT -5
I usually never pay attention to red herrings. I don't know why so many people always try to guess who the killer is in these kinds of movies. I never do. I did a few times. And I'm almost always wrong.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 19, 2008 11:04:23 GMT -5
I've found it's pretty easy to spot a red herring. All of a suddden, a bunch of evidence is presented that makes one person look like they're responsible for what's going on. Usually it can be easily explained away by answering a simple question, but that's the fun.
I've given up on the Italian ones, those do such a good job at giving red herrings that it's nearly impossible to guess those.
|
|