FRIDAY THE 13TH (2009 Remake) - movie review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 фев 2019
- I review the 2009 remake of Friday the 13th, a movie that actually incorporates elements from the first four films in the franchise. But does it do it effectively?
Support this channel on Patreon: / bryanlomax
Follow Bryan on social media:
Facebook: lomaxmovieta...
Twitter: / bryanlomax
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/BryanLomax/
Download the Brits on Flicks podcast from iTunes. IT'S FREE!!! 
Развлечения
Jason didn’t build those underground lares, they were abandoned mine shafts. They mention it in the beginning.
So... even less reason for the haters to hate then! Am I right?
One of the few remakes I like better than the original. I think Friday the 13th is one of the few horror series where the original isn't the best one. My favourite is Final Chapter because it started the Tommy Jarvis storyline, had a good story, characters and kills and Ted White's Jason is the most evil and pissed off Jason's ever been IMO.
I truly don’t understand the hate this movie gets because it’s AWESOME! The best of the Big 3 remakes IMO!
Right there with ya!
I was going to say the chainsaw massacre remake, but then I saw big 3.
9:52 They were going to set the Friday and Nightmare remakes in the same universe because there's a deleted scene in Nightmare 2010 when Nancy says her mother wanted to send her to Camp Crystal Lake when she was a kid.
It is honestly probably the best film in the franchise. My favorite is 4 then 6 but this one would probably be third. Nostalgia may keep the other two ahead of this one as i watched them as a young kid even seeing 4 in the theaters when i was 11 i think. The 80s in america they let us see pretty much anything. i don't know how it was in England at the time.
Not really sure how it was over here to be honest. From my own experience the first 18 rated film I tried to get in to see was Scream. I was 16 at the time and they let me in.
Favourites are
1. Part VI: Jason Lives
2. Part 3
3. Part VII: The New Blood
4. 2009
I have always enjoyed this one.Yeah there was a lot of elements from the older movies which i felt fit into this one pretty well.The Trent character was the one you loved to hate and was played well.I feel though that the last shot of the movie was pretty weak and that the filmmakers hit a wall.I say it is a goodtime for what it is...
Absolutely! It's not Kubrick levels of filmmaking or anything but for a Friday movie it's damn entertaining.
great review. I enjoy this movie
I dig the hell out of this movie.
It’s actually my favorite of the franchise.
Don't understand why this got bad reviews. It's actually quite creepy, with good acting.
it's not a bad movie, but it kind of comes off as "Jason Vorhees Plays His Hits"... It's all been done before.
Great Review Bryan! I love The Friday The 13th Franchise! Not only in Horror but, in Movies in General, Friday The 13th is My All Time Favorite Movie Franchise and Jason Voorhees is My All Time Favorite Horror Icon! I love ALL of the films in this Franchise! I do not agree with your opinion on these films but, I respect your opinion! 😏👍
Final chapter, Jason lives, part 2 and the remake are my favorites. Totally agree with you on part one also. I get why people like it but it really is a bad almost b movie level film. Maybe it’s the charm of it being like that is why people dig it, I don’t know. Part 7 is awful but Jason’s makeup and look in that one is really unique and badass looking.
I really liked this overall. The opening 20 or so minutes are awesome and although the movie doesn't quite go on to match that, it's still a fun ride. I liked the change in Jason kidnapping Whitney. Plus Derek Mears was fantastic as Jason.
It's a favourite of mine in the franchise.
Absoutely love this one. After this came out, I have no more urge to watch the old ones anymore. Except the first one, of course, but that was a special one, because it was basically a prequel to the character of Jason. So first one and the remake are just fine for me. If they do more, then please more of the remake vibe.
Best movie of the franchise by far, Derek Mears is unbelievable
Hey Bryan. Never understood the hate this one got. Easily one of the best in the series. Definitely prefer the killer cut version with the more brutal kills. Derek Mears is arguably the best Jason
I remember watching it on DVD years and years ago and kind of thinking that it's an ok film, but not really a Friday the 13th film for me. The "deal breaker" scenes, that took me out of the film were those moments where Jason is shown to be a "bit too human". After I saw them I could not see Jason as nothing more than a serial killer, who has to survive in the woods and that really bummed me out. It was basically a tall "survival guy" killing teens premise, from then on and that just screwed with my watching experience in a bad way. But that is me, I didn't even like the scene in the original Halloween, where they discussed Michael and his meal of a dog. I just consider it to be irrelevant info. (in a horror film like that) The reason for me for this is because it can humanize the bad guy in way where you might start to understand the character based on those "common traits" (you latch on to the info given, because nothing more is available) and instead of being mystified and not sure why he does what he does, you might start thinking things like, was Michael or Jason just in the bathroom also and then decided to go and kill a teen in the next hour without washing his hands and turning off the bathroom light etc. it simply makes their motive to kill people seem unimportant and without any mystery or real threat beyond what a tall strong guy could pose to someone half their size. I guess this means that I still need that mystery and the supernatural element "to my Jason" and that's why I much preferred the Freddy vs. Jason's, Jason to the 2009 remake one. Kane Hodder though is my preferred Jason by far (compared to those two) and I actually just recently watched Jason X again and found myself enjoying the film (when I originally did not care for it at all). I think it was because I really paid attention to how imposing Jason was because of Hodder's performance and I could see something else than just the bad reviews and the bad first impression I had. Perhaps I should revisit the 2009 remake too and see how it fares now. Cheers.
You should definitely revisit it. No disrespect but I totally disagree with everything you just said. I just don't see it that way at all. And I think Mears is far and away a much more imposing Jason that Hodder. Hodder is slow. Mears is like a freight train. Scary as hell!
@@BryanLomax I do get the Mears as being fast and imposing angle, but the problem for me was that I stopped regarding him as a real Jason in the remake (because of all the human revelations) and that really destroyed the film for me (back then). But I really have to watch it again. Your review really sparked my interest to see whether I would react to it the same way now than all those years ago. Cheers.
@@BryanLomax I just had to comment again, because I rewatched the remake. It was much better than I remembered. Still I had some reservations about Jason being too human, (not because of the actor, but because they showed so much of his "normal" life and that was mainly because of the kidnapping twist, which I had totally forgotten about. It was that twist and its implications about Jason that I did not like on the first watch) but on the whole, the film became much better during the final 20-30 or so minutes. Things like Jason chasing the protagonists in the dark and the fight scenes simply worked (though the end seemed a bit rushed and almost like they did not know how to end it). So all in all I'd say their mistake (if I have to pick one) was to make Jason a kidnapper. It forced them to show too much of Jason as not Jason. They could've easily avoided this by making someone else the kidnapper. That would've made almost everything that was seen now possible, but without revealing anything (unscary) about Jason (or forced him to be in a certain place always) and the audience would have not known whether he is just a deformed human being or something else. Mears did a good job though and I did like his performance. I don't think he was Kane Hodder good and the reason for this was his lack of body language and subtlety before exploding in to action. With Hodder if you pay attention to him, you can read his body language. You can tell that he tenses up and becomes more dangerous with every little twist and jerk. Even in his stunts he seems to be like in a frozen state that makes him seem inhuman (but he is not a slow lumbering Jason). With Mears this dimension of acting was missing. What I noticed from him was that he was flailing his long legs (as a tall guy) (in some scenes) and I said to myself that's a tall guy not really knowing that his legs are not acting as tough as they should. It may not be something that people often notice, but had it been in a worse, (some low budget) Friday the 13th sequel, I don't think that Mears would be regarded so highly today. Perhaps it could be said that Mears was elevated by the film that he was in, because it was a competently made high budget remake, but Hodder elevated those lower budgeted sequels and had he not been in them, I think they really would've suffered for it. Cheers.
To be fair that's what Jason was like in 2, 3 and 4 which the remake combines elements of. He was more human and only became supernatural after he was resurrected in 6. The idea of Jason and Michael doing normal things like everyone else in between killing people is creepy to me because it shows that anyone sufficiently crazy or evil could do horrible things like that. Why would Michael eating dogs humanise him? The only people who'd "understand" him based on that are people who like eating dogs whole. Obviously from 6 onwards Jason was undead and didn't need to eat or drink but from 2-4 he was a living human and needed to do all that. In Part 2 they even talk about how he lived off wild animals and vegetation and there's his shack in the woods at the end of that where he had a toilet where he could take a piss and have a crap. The idea of them doing normal things in between their killing is creepy to me and it doesn't humanise or make their motives for killing unimportant IMO. The type of bad humanisation you're talking about was done in Rob Zombie's Halloween remake and its sequel where Michael was given the bad childhood and bullied at school cliche origin. That's the type of origin where the writer seems to be trying to justify the villain's actions rather than explain them.
@@Xehanort10 It was just that Jason had been so far removed from his beginnings by the time of the remake, that to make him basically a serial killer and a kidnapper made him just another big guy killer. It felt like that they were trying to make him more like a Leatherface type of character than a straight up Jason. And they really had a good opportunity to be more subtle with the character revelations while paving the way for the probable sequels and more revelations about Jason to come, but that was not to be. Instead they made a serial killer stand alone film that revealed all and made it perfectly clear that Jason was just a deformed serial killer kidnapper. It was this same "keep it real and say it" mindset that probably also bombed the Nightmare on Elm street remake ( it tried to be dark and menacing too). Their mistake was that they had to "keep it real" by openly saying that Freddie was a pedophile, instead of just keeping it about killing the kids and letting the audience guess whether Freddie was something more than that. I don't think the audience appreciated it especially when they realized that they had been cheering a pedophile all this time.
With the humanizing aspect of these characters I mean the unnecessary expo (like Freddie the pedophile) they throw around carelessly (they try to shock you but it backfires). Things like Michale eating a dog after having not eaten for a few hours (I know you did not mind it but let me explain what I mean) (he had just escaped the sanitarium) is not scary to me. It would rather make Michael seem like a guy who looks at his watch and says it is time for lunch or supper. (can't that routine be stopped when he is out after years and years of incarceration?) Contrast this with the info that Loomis said about him not being able to drive a car, but still he drove it. That was what we needed to know and it made Michael seem to operate on a level that is not human. It posed questions like, what else could he do? So after that exciting mysterious revelation, I really did not need to be reminder that just after a few hours he must've gotten hungry and had to eat. For example at this point of writing this I have not eaten anything all day and it is 20:54 (8:54 PM) and I am not in a hurry to eat anything. To think that Michael or Jason who are about to go on a rampage to kill everyone need to have a scene where they have to have their lunch at a proper time or else they don't have enough energy seems just redundant and silly to me, especially if they already have established some supernatural element to the character. Even if they have not done so, it is still better to keep people in the dark as to what the antagonist is able to do and build on that, because that builds up tension. (With the remake Jason they could've done so by not making him the kidnapper, and thus when they kill Jason and drown his body, they would not have shown to us, that Jason was just a man, so we would not know whether he really died or not. Now if they had made a sequel they would've been forced to resurrect Jason and make him a supernatural villain so it would've been bye bye to the "keeping it real serial killer man" right in the second part already. )
Rob Zombie really screwed up with his young Michael Myers story. That was a great example of how not to handle a character that then is shown to be supernaturally oriented later on. Tyler Mane was a good Myers though, but the good parts were all, when RZ followed Carpenter's film scene by scene. But in conclusion, people like what they like and sometimes they don't have a reason why they like some film or scene and that is alright. Not everything has to be about a perfectly told and written story, sometimes the cheesier scenes and outright mistakes "humanize" films in a good way and that is fine too. For example I did not hate the Friday the 13th remake on the second watch and could enjoy it what it was. I just noticed that it was like many other "keeping it real" horror movies at that time and some things could've been handled better, especially if they were aiming to keep the new franchise going and some things that (like in the Elm Street remake and the Texas Chainsaw remake) really were not the best choices for the film in question. Cheers.
Its a good remake, you can even call it a sequel.
Yeah, in much the same way Halloween 2018 is a direct sequel to the original film this kinda does the same thing with Friday in a way.
Remakes aren't really my favorites. Friday The 13th is one of those franchises that for me died after Friday The 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan. None of the New Line films ever comes close to the first 4 films. This includes the 2009 remake. Obviously, Micheal Bay just doesn't get it. People want something new in the Horror genere. Not a retread of all too familiar territory. Problem is, all the great Horror stories have mostly been told.