Friday the 13th (2009)

I don't know if this film, imaginatively titled Friday the 13th, is meant to be a "reboot" of the franchise or what, but I can tell you this. It's the worst Friday the 13th film that I've seen. I'm gonna dispense with my no spoilers rule for once. This movie deserves to be spoiled, anything to stop people from watching it.

I was looking forward to it. I like Jared Padalecki and having seen his Supernatural other half, Jensen Ackles, in the vastly superior My Bloody Valentine recently, I had reasonable hopes for Jared's horror outing. I wouldn't call them high hopes though, I mean it was still a slasher flick after all.

Anyway, as usual I hadn't really read any reviews before heading to the film. I had skimmed one though - it said it was crap but since most reviewers say all slasher films are crap, this did not unduly disturb me. The one thing that did catch my eye was the mention of a wood chipper. Sounded promising. Nary did I suspect that this little detail would be the film's folly.

It started off with some particularly annoying kids looking for weed in the forest. They were quickly dispensed with, but not without the poor unsuspecting audience being subjected to a horrible pair of boobs. Nasty. I did not need to see that.

Soonly we meet the real cast of the film. A group of similarly annoying kids except that they're richer and have access to a beautiful lakeside house. Actually that's not fair, two of them were barely annoying at all, they may as well have not been there. On the other hand, the rich jock, Trent, whose father owns the house was annoying enough for the three of them so we'll call it even. This group meets our hero, Clay (Padalecki), who is searching for his sister, who went missing with the first group. As Clay is an attractive man and Trent is an immature paranoid sterotype of a character, friction erupts. Nothing interesting happens for a while but it culminates in Trent's girlfriend going off with Clay to help him search for his sister.

In the meantime Jason's abound. He's not really moving quick enough though because there's a lot of people still alive. Over the next while he pops up here and there killing people, nothing spectacular. Night falls. I forget exactly what happens but at one point they're all trapped in the house. Eventually Trent is killed, but not before he has a chance to cheat on his girlfriend for no apparent reason apart from the fact that she was out for the day. Actually there's a decent scene in the shed. That was a good killing... since I don't remember any of the others I have to assume they weren't particularly notable.

So in the end it's Jason, Clay, Trent's girlfriend and Clay's sister. What? She's still alive months later? Jason's slipping. Anyway it's showdown time. Where's that wood chipper? Oh, there it is! Clay and Jason fight and they get ever closer to the wood chipper... in a film that has only managed to keep its body count up due to the earlier scene with first group, this wood chipper could be a bright splattery highlight.... closer... closer... oh he's got Jason on the back foot... he's going in! Oh wait. No, he's not. Unbelievable.

What a complete waste of my time. Also it annoyed me that Jason just didn't seem as terrifying as he has in other films. That was always the thing about Jason, he was this great hulking unstoppable figure. With this... mercy... for Clay's sister, it just didn't work. Not only was this an awful, boring, tensionless film. It was an insult to Jason and to the whole Friday the 13th series. And it wasn't even 3D, all slasher films should be done in 3D by now.

We'd all be better off if we just imagined this film never happened. Jason X and particularly Freddy vs. Jason were right laughs, Friday the 13th part 13 better not disappoint.

Despite all that, I'm gonna give it a few points. I mean there was a story, there were characters, the lake looked good... It wasn't the worst film I've ever seen. I mean it wasn't Jeepers Creepers.

3/10

Scar 3D (2008)

Actually I think Scar was released in 2007 but this was the 3D version that was re-released into cinemas in 2008. Though... I have no idea if the original "flat" version of Scar was ever released in cinemas here... I hope not. As far as I can make out, Scar is not a good film. Scar 3D certainly wasn't.

As I'm sure I've mentioned a few times in the blog, I like my horror films. I don't scare particularly easily and I've no problem watching buckets of fake blood so it's all good. The problem with liking horror films is that you end up feeling like you have to try them all out... So many people don't like horror films that you kind of feel like you have to stick up for the genre sometimes. It was this particular feeling that led me to Scar 3D recently. That and the fact that it had 3D in the title. I've only seen one 3D feature film before (The Nightmare Before Christmas) and it looked great so I was interested to see what 3D could do for a horror film.

I should mention that I had been under the impression that Scar was made for 3D, I hadn't realised that that it was just normal film that was turned into 3D.

The story is fairly standard fare. A women, who had been held prisoner in her teens by a serial killer but managed to escape, returns to her home town many years later. Next thing you know, young good-looking people who happen to be friends with her good-looking niece start turning up dead. There's really not much point in talking about the plot. It's unbelievably predictable. In fact if anyone wants to guess then write and comment and I'll let you know if you're right.

The blood and violence is nothing over the top - I mean it's not particularly pleasant but it's nothing more or less than you'd expect from your average horror/slasher film. Normally you'd expect a thriller element to a film like this... there isn't really anything thrilling about it. And actually... the good-looking people aren't that good-looking. So on the whole this is really a nothing film. There's just nothing going on with it.

So what about the 3D? I hear you ask. Well... to be honest it wasn't great. While watching the film I thought it was just me. I have a lazy eye and I did find in The Nightmare Before Christmas 3D that when things were particularly far away or close up then they looked a bit double. However I asked my two mates with normal vision afterwards and they said the same thing, there was a good bit of doubling in the picture and for some reason some parts of the picture looked reflective or something. It was really very strange. It did work a bit though in that it was 3D however the best 3D effects were in the title sequence... and that should hardly be the highlight of a night in the cinema.

I learned two things that night at Scar 3D...

1) Don't be tempted by any old horror film.
2) 3D does not make a crap film interesting.

3/10