"Friday the 13th Part 5" - Maria's Take

No. Just no.

Jason Vorhees is the man (zombie? monster? entity?) that made me love slasher movies. He is a legend and a kick-ass bad guy. He's been drowned, lit on fire, shot, hanged, punched, kicked, etc. and yet, he lives.

Oh wait, no he doesn't.

Part 4 of the series is called "The Final Chapter," and yet we have a Part 5? Well, Jason has a way of surviving, so that's doable...I'm so pumped to see how he is resurrected and zombified! Hold on a second, that hockey mask doesn't look like the iconic one that good ol' Jason wears! Something is amiss.

To steal the slogan from "Suspira's" trailer: "The only thing lamer than the last 15 minutes of this movie are the first 77..." In case you haven't already deduced, Jason Vorhees is not in this film. Don't worry, it's not really a spoiler. IMDB summarizes: "While Jason lies unconscious, a local man decides to use Jason's old M.O. and wreaks havoc at a halfway house for troubled teens."

I think the original plan was actually pretty decent. Tommy Jarvis, played brilliantly in the fourth film by Corey Feldman, is now suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, and is released into a halfway house. Unfortunately, John Shepherd, this film's Tommy Jarvis has neither the acting chops of a young Corey Feldman, nor the likability. Instead, he is whiny, annoying, and forgettable. Jarvis keeps having flashes of Jason, in mirrors, in hallways, etc. So when the kids at the halfway house wind up brutally murdered, Jarvis of course believes Jason has risen from the dead and is seeking his very specific style of revenge. Had this been the case, the movie would have been watchable. Unfortunately, the killer is a copycat. I won't spoil the end, but the only think more stupid than the identity of the killer is the motive.

So much of this movie is not only forgettable, but the little moments that do stick out are unforgivable. There are no aspects of the "Friday the 13th" franchise left (aside from Jarvis' character and the fore-mentioned copycat hockey mask). There is no Crystal Lake, there are no stock characters, rather, as with "Halloween 3," the franchise was attempting something different, and failed miserably.

However, having said all that, this film has a few funny moments, but the kills are dumb and the storyline is painful.

The 6th film of the series is like an apology for this load of crap. It gets back to the roots of the franchise. Go watch that one, or the fourth one, or ANY other film in the series...just don't waste your time on this garbage.

Coming Soon - "Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning"

This is without a doubt the most disappointing film on our schedule for October. Maybe of all time.

Movie Exec #1: I've got it! We'll make another Friday the 13th, but instead of actually including Jason, we'll just have some guy be the killer. Then, lead the audience to believe it was Jason the whole time! What a twist! The fans will love it!

Movie Exec #2: Inspired choice! People love the films because of the skillful plotting, the great characterization, and the artful direction! They won't care if the killer is actually Jason or not!

"Freddy's Dead" - Maria's Take

It's Freddy, bitch.

The best thing about any later "Nightmare" film is Freddy Krueger's developed personality. Robert Englund plays Freddy with such attitude, that every word out of his mouth is either remarkably offensive or just plain hilarious.

Partly to accurately describe this film and mostly because we just adore it, Zach and I indulged in "Freddy vs. Jason." By watching that film, "Freddy's Dead" becomes easier to critique. Like I stated, Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger is just so fun to watch, calling any of his appearances "bad" seems almost a slasher movie sacrilege. However, when compared to the masterpiece that is "Freddy vs. Jason," it is easier to nitpick.

The makeup is terrible. Freddy looks like he stuck various shades of Play-Doh to his face. The storyline is confusing, the characters are annoying, and the kills are lame (and lacking). The character of Freddy is given a rushed backstory that only raises more questions, and I found myself offering up mental suggestions of what SHOULD have happened with Freddy's ultimate "death." (Keep in kind, this is #6 in a series of 8).

It always bugs me when the writers get lazy with the setup. Freddy Krueger's ability to kill people in their dreams is absolutely genius and insanely terrifying. Unfortunately, unlike in many of the other films, the dream kills in this film aren't fantastic enough. Breckin Meyer dies in a video game...it's just stupid...well, not as stupid as his hair.

Certainly there are some great one liners, and there are some legitimately creepy parts, but overall, many of the ideas get overused, and Freddy is severely underused. Where in other films, there was this sense of impending doom every time a new scene began because it was hard to tell if the character was in the safety of the real world or being lulled to their death in a dream, in this film, there is a basic setup that always alerts the audience when a specific character is dreaming. It's frustrating.

There are many slasher movies far worse than this, but I'd label this one as "mediocre."

The next movie in the franchise is "New Nightmare" which is a very cool, meta film. Other than the incomparable "Freddy vs. Jason," the 7th film is my favorite in the franchise. I'd definitely encourage anyone who has yet to see it to take a couple of hours and indulge.

"Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare" - Zach's Take

Let's get this clear right at the start: they really should have stopped at A Nightmare on Elm Street. Though it's not a perfect film, a lot of the ideas (and most of the execution) in Wes Craven's original flick are really interesting and fresh, even to this day. That's especially true after seeing the hideous remake (man, that's becoming a theme on this blog) which actually made me appreciate the original all the more.

However, since they didn't stop, we were graced with five direct sequels, two ancillary sequels, and the aforementioned cinematic war crime of the remake. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was originally claimed to be Freddy's swan song (as the name suggests) but who knows how sincere New Line's Bob Shaye was at that proclamation, considering Wes Craven's New Nightmare followed only three years later. But taken as the "true" finale to Krueger's legacy, Freddy's Dead disappoints.

Let's start with what we all go to slasher films to see: the body count. What's the tally for Freddy's Dead? Surely, as the final entry to the series, the producers wanted to really go out with a bang. Give Freddy reason to believe he would succeed forever by having him slash his way through swaths of victims.

Final body count: four.

Yep. Four. That includes Freddy.

Now, the Nightmare films were never about body counts. Instead, they focused on unique and clever means to kill their victims: sucked into a bed, ligaments pulled out and used as puppet strings, even bursting through someone's chest. So maybe instead of focusing on quantity for this film, they decided to go with quality, right? Sound reasoning. You should be a movie producer! But that's exactly what the filmmakers didn't do. They are by far the lamest and most boring deaths in the entire franchise. Breckin Meyer (yeah, that guy) falls down the stairs into a pit. Another guy falls on the ground. A deaf kid's head explodes from sound waves. Yeah, I know that last one is pretty cool, but that should have been one out of many.

That aside, the plotting of the film is at once economical (read: it cuts out the usual bullshit, pardon the parlance) and utterly idiotic. The two main characters never even initially learn who Freddy is, they go from being completely unaware of his existence to tracking down his child. There's no moment of disbelief or skepticism. Which is a problem from a storytelling perspective, but from the viewpoint of a seasoned horror film fan, I appreciate not having to see characters learn who Freddy is for a sixth time.

The real problem with the film is that it kind of flirts with some neat ideas, but it is so utterly shallow that your interest is never piqued. Conceptually, the town of Springwood going completely insane from every single child being murdered by Freddy is really cool and would make a great backdrop for the story. Unfortunately, that idea is never really explored and is only used as a plot device to awkwardly convey information to the main characters.

I know I'm tearing this film apart (deservedly so) but I do have to mention how much I adore Robert Englund in the role. Even though the Nightmare sequels only served to make Freddy less and less scary, he's still a fun character to watch. Englund is an extremely gifted physical comedian, and he is consistently funny in this movie. He makes the whole experience bearable. Unfortunately, the movie as a whole is such a sad, clumsy affair.

Ultimately, Freddy's Dead is for fans only. It also does extreme disservice to the fan's loyalty, feeling like a rushed hack job completely undeserving of the character. Luckily, we were given a truly fun and perfect send off to the character in 2003's Freddy vs. Jason. If you're looking for some good, slasher-y fun, definitely watch that instead.

Coming Soon - "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare"

Again, we're discounting the truly terrible remake in favor of worst of the original franchise.

"Ooh, scary! Freddy's dressed up like the Wicked Witch! Gah!!! He's playing Nintendo! This might be too spooky for me."

"Halloween 3: Season of the Witch" - Zach's Take

Here at CFP, we're taking a look at the worst entries in the major horror franchises in celebration of Halloween.

To start things off, Maria and I decided to check out what is actually only arguably the worst of the Halloween franchise. I say "arguably" because this one actually isn't all that bad, but also, because we're not counting the truly reprehensible Rob Zombie remakes. They're so terrible, they don't even count. And yes, I'm aware of how awful the latter Halloween films are, but at least they have Michael Meyers in them. Even if they do mistakenly attempt to shed light on his "origins." Shudder.

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch has a bad reputation amongst horror fans, mainly due to the fact that it doesn't feature Michael Meyers. The producers opted (unsuccessfully) to steer the Halloween franchise into something resembling an anthology, where each new entry would tell a different story and be completely separate from the previous films. A noble goal, to be sure. But definitely not executed all that well.

You see, Halloween 3 isn't terrible. I mean, it has a preposterous plot, a script that moves at a snail's pace, and a severe lack of suspense and scares. But there's no Michael Meyers, dammit!

The story concerns an alcoholic doctor (played mantastically by the manly Tom Atkins) who discovers a conspiracy revolving around a successful Halloween mask company (Silver Shamrock) with the intent to turn kids' faces into snakes and locusts. It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even when it is painfully spelled out for us by the main baddie Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy). See, he's a CEO who practices wicthcraft, and by stealing a rock from Stonehenge and channeling its power with silicon chips that fire lasers he's going to get rid of Halloween forever.

Uh huh.

Really, the plot is stupid, but the movie does boast some awesome make-up effects and an excellent score by John Carpenter. Those computer chips that fire lasers I mentioned above? Yeah, some obnoxious woman gets her face blown apart by one and snakes and bugs crawl out of the entry wound. It's pretty cool. There's also a beheading that a robot dude does with his bare hands.

The problem is that there just isn't enough of the cool stuff to balance out the slow pacing. In a movie that so unabashedly revels in its own preposterous tendencies, you'd think the producers would have seen fit to thrown in some more stuff for the gorehounds.

The one thing that I will always take away from Halloween 3 (besides Tom Atkins' bare butt, ohhh yeah!) is the annoyingly addictive Silver Shamrock theme song. It's simple, but I'll be damned if it isn't catchy.

Eight more days till Halloween, Halloween, Halloween!

Eight more days till Halloween, Sil-ver Shamrock!

"Halloween 3: Season of the Witch"

I feel like this movie has an unfair reputation. I didn't love it, but I certainly had an an enjoyable time singing along to the silly "Silver Shamrock" jingle. I can understand why so many people detest this movie. You see "Halloween" on a movie title, you expect Michael Myers. That's fair, but what isn't fair is how quick people are to jump to the conclusion that this movie is nothing more than garbage.

The premise is actually pretty cool. Innocent kids are obliviously buying "Silver Shamrock" Halloween masks--which are, in fact, pretty damn cool. After a guy mysteriously dies in his hospital, Dr. Tom Adkins goes on a quest to uncover what the reasoning was behind the homicide, and why the dead man had a Silver Shamrock Halloween mask clasped in his hand. Tom Adkins and the dead guy's daughter travel to a small Northern California town to find out the dark secrets of "Silver Shamrock."

You might have noticed I name "Silver Shamrock" several times. The company has the catchiest damn jingle ever to exist on the face of the planet. Zach connected it to the "Willy Wonka, Willy Wonka, the Amazing Chocolatier" song from the 2005 version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Fatory." To be fair, it does have a similar rhythm, but the Silver Shamrock song is more fun. You might think that I am going off on an irrelevant tangent, but actually the song plays a major role in the film.

The acting is standard for a mediocre horror movie, and Tom Adkins has a truly impressive mustache. I think what might be the biggest criticism of this movie is just that it was never scary. We watched "Candyman" the other night and that movie has some legitimate scares. This film felt like a movie they would riff on MST3K. But, to be fair, I liked it. I thought it was fun. So many of the movies we review turn out to be boring. This movie, however, is just another 80s horror movie. I think it would have received a better reception from the general public had the producers not stamped "Halloween" into its title, invoking preconceived expectations from its audience.

I like the original theory behind the "Halloween" series. The idea of various Halloween-themed stories is a neat idea. But, of all the franchises, this has always been my least favorite. I love Freddy and Jason, Michael Myers has always been third on my list. Had the producers done something more in the vein of an anthology movie, like "Creepshow," "The Twilight Zone Movie," and more recently "Trick or Treat," I think I would have been more receptive to Michael Myers. So is this film really the worst of the franchise?

No.

The award for worst "Halloween" film goes to those god-awful Rob Zombie remakes. However, is this the worst of the original franchise?

Maybe.

I have an appreciation for the first "Halloween" film, I like that it is slightly smarter than the sex and gore fest that riddles the Freddy and Jason movies. I love "Halloween" for what it pioneered. However, having said that, I can't sit down and watch "Halloween" the way I can "Friday the 13th" or "Nightmare on Elm Street."

Halloween III isn't bad, it just isn't what the audience wanted. The story is ridiculous, but every horror movie story is ridiculous.

Overall, I think this movie was fun, and I will probably watch it again. After all:



How is that not the most amazing song ever?