Current Events > I've started the Friday the 13th remake.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The out-of-context opening scene would make no sense to anyone who hasn't seen the first two movies in the original series. Also, everything looks too glossy, too clean. The gritty realistic look was part of the presentation. It made it seem like this could happen to anyone. Watching this, I feel like I don't have to worry since I'm not a cast member on a CW show.

We're off to a good start.

It's gonna have to work really, really hard if it wants to be anywhere near as bad as the Nightmare on Elm Street remake though.

I found it quite all right. Not bad. Good even, for a Jason movie.

---

Why would you watch that garbage? It sucked so bad,didn't make past the first 3 minutes.

It isn't better than even Jason X and Jason X is terrible

---

"You're fucking lucky there, stretch. Came that close to hitting the start button on the whoop-ass machine, boy."

---

It was a lot better / less bad than I thought it would be.

Overall, the kills felt pretty tame. It's almost like they made a PG-13 remake, then went back in post-production and added a bunch of nudity and swearing. There are many two kills that warrant an R-rating.

It feels very in-keeping with the original series. Like, I could easily see this film as a sequel taking place after Part III or Part VI. It's also peppered with mythology nods -- chief among them Jason's transition from covering his face with a bag to adopting his trademark hockey mask.

Even so, there's something about it that doesn't quite work and I can't quite put my finger on what. It's a Friday the 13th movie updated for the 2000s. The characters act like Friday the 13th characters. The scenarios are par the course. I want to say that it feels phoned in, but that wouldn't be accurate either. Whoever made this clearly enjoyed those movies.

It's still better than Part V of the original series.

FortuneCookie posted...

It was a lot better / less bad than I thought it would be.

Overall, the kills felt pretty tame. It's almost like they made a PG-13 remake, then went back in post-production and added a bunch of nudity and swearing. There are many two kills that warrant an R-rating.

It feels very in-keeping with the original series. Like, I could easily see this film as a sequel taking place after Part III or Part VI. It's also peppered with mythology nods -- chief among them Jason's transition from covering his face with a bag to adopting his trademark hockey mask.

Even so, there's something about it that doesn't quite work and I can't quite put my finger on what. It's a Friday the 13th movie updated for the 2000s. The characters act like Friday the 13th characters. The scenarios are par the course. I want to say that it feels phoned in, but that wouldn't be accurate either. Whoever made this clearly enjoyed those movies.

It's still better than Part V of the original series.

LOL, no it's not.

---

Its actually a solid entry in the series if you take off your nostalgia glasses. It offers almost everything youd expect and want from a Friday movie other than it not being in the 80s lol

You cant tell me Jason Goes To Hell or Jason X are better, shit even parts 7 & 8 are ehhh.

Its not great but its fine and not even the worst in the series

---

its really bad. not as bad as the halloween or elm street remakes but still terrible

---

ultimate reaver posted...

its really bad. not as bad as the halloween or elm street remakes but still terrible

Do you think Zombies Halloween is worse than Halloween Resurrection?


---

Producers kept breathing down Rob Zombie's neck in the first movie, so he only agreed to do the sequel if he got creative control. He then used that creative control to troll the hell out of them.

FortuneCookie posted...

Producers kept breathing down Rob Zombie's neck in the first movie, so he only agreed to do the sequel if he got creative control. He then used that creative control to troll the hell out of them.

Idk if it was a troll he just did his own thing. Admittedly its out there but I think its an interesting sequel to his first take and how it really focuses on the mental health of the survivors like Laurie and Annie.

H20 and Halloween 2018 had elements of Lauries trauma too but Zombies take is pretty realistic and grim.


---

SSJPurple posted...

Do you think Zombies Halloween is worse than Halloween Resurrection?

I think resurrection is funnier to watch at least, both are really bad. Almost all of the Halloween sequels except the most recent are very bad movies

---

I think 2, 4 and H20 are pretty good. Also 2018 Halloween. I like the timeline of Halloween 1978 -> Halloween 2018

---

The only good part was that chick riding.

---

All I remember from that is tits and fucking

---

Its a solid movie. Easily the best out of the other horror remakes of that era.

---

That's the one where Jason has perfect nipple placement?
---

as far as remakes go, F13 was pretty great. NOES was the real dumpster fire.

---

lilORANG posted...

That's the one where Jason has perfect nipple placement?

That line is literally all I can think about when I think of the remake
---

Myzery posted...

as far as remakes go, F13 was pretty great. NOES was the real dumpster fire.

Without exaggeration, one of the worst creative decisions I've ever seen in a movie...

Freddy came back from the grave to remind his victims that, despite them repressing their memories of the events, yes, he *did* molest them as children.