Monster of the Day #88

BeckoningChasm

It’s his day, after all.

The Rev.

I was trying to figure out what monster would be connected with the number 88…I had forgotten the date.

Hey, I’m tired, man, leave me alone.

Anyway, I don’t have a particular affection for this one. He’s silent, humorless, nearly emotionless…not a lot to get attached to. He does have his moments; mostly in part 2, where Warrington Gillette did some really fine body acting. There was the paint ball scene from VI, and his reaction to the roots grabbing him in VII; those were pretty funny. His burning rampage in FvJ was pretty great. But mostly he just walks around and murders people and that’s about it. No charm like a lot of the prior monsters have had.

Still, he’s definitely an icon, there’s no denying him that.

Gamera

Is this the executioner that Phillip IV used to destroy the noble Templar Knights then?

All joking aside good call Ken, though I had to look at the calender since I’d forgotten the special date.

Ken Begg

The Rev pretty much sums up my feelings, although it sounds like he’s actually watched some of the movies; I’ve only seen FvJ. Not a lot of iconic monsters since the ’70s, sad to say.

Plissken79

Surprised if all your horror film expertise that you have not seen any but Freddy vs. Jason, Ken, although I know you hate nihilistic horror films and the Friday the 13th series certainly qualifies.

Parts 1 and 2 have their moments, but the rest are pretty bad, Part 5 (which does not even really involve Jason) is definitely the sleaziest and the worst

fish eye no miko

Aw, I’m the only Jason fan here, then? Darnit.
I mean, yes, I realize he’s pretty much a shambling, voiceless… thing with virtually no personality or motivation, but… I still like him. [shrug] Of course, I’m a little nuts. I also have some ideas for movies they could make with him that would be a little more interesting.

Not my favorite look for him, though (It’s from Freddy vs. Jason, though I’m guessing you just got the picture from his Wiki entry?). One of my fave looks for him was part VII (“The New Blood”, a.k.a. “Jason vs Carrie”). There’s a scene where he comes up out of the lake (which he’s been in for quite some time at this point), and you get a look at his back. A large section of his shirt has been torn away, and you see his bare back, which is just skeleton…

The Rev said: “His burning rampage in FvJ was pretty great.”

I really, really love that scene.

The Rev.

Ken: At some point in my life, I’ve seen all of them in their entirety, except for Jason X and FvJ, which I’ve caught parts of. Well, maybe not entirety; a lot of them I caught on cable (mostly TNT and USA, one of which used to run marathons of them every Friday the 13th) so they were edited. I realize I missed most of the reasons they exist in the first place, but they weren’t really good enough for me to bother seeing uncut unless a movie channel happened to play one. I’ve seen the first, fourth, sixth, eighth and ninth uncut.

1: decent, probably the best one
2: all right
3: pretty bad
4: has its moments, and also its cringes
5: AWFUL
6: decent if ungory
7: pretty bad, but fun at the end
8: VERY AWFUL
9: Interesting, ultimately a failure

I have a feeling you might like 6 all right; it was where they started having to really cut down on the gory kills, and it’s got some fun moments. I’d recommend the first two but I know you hate gore, and brother do you get it in those two.

Rock Baker

He’s more or less a golem in many ways. His lack of personality doesn’t bug me so much as everything else about the series. You could certainly take an indestructible, emotionless giant that kills without obvious motivation and build a neat-o story around it (they do it with mummies which serve the same basic function). Jason as a monster is workable enough, I think Freddy vs Jason proved that (and was a far better movie than it had any right to be*). No, the problem with the Vorhees saga was the repeated formula. The first film, as a who-done-it, at least has justification of sorts. (Still, the plot minus the murder angle could’ve set up a 70s porno. In fact, first seeing some of these flicks on commercial television and seeing how they were edited, I was quite surprised to find the uncut films didn’t have as much nudity and sex as one might expect. What they DO have is lots and lots and LOTS of padding between kills, and I can’t see death scenes to be much of a reason to see a movie. It sort of worries me that an entire genre is pretty much built around scenes of people being murdered. I’m not saying anything about people who do enjoy these films, but I’d like to ask why a murder is fun to watch when Jason is doing the killing?) Once the series began continuing the adventures of a fiend we knew was behind everything, the films just became pointless in the extreme. I think what it is is that the audience for these films seem to root for Jason rather than eagerly waiting to see his end. When Fu Manchu headlines a movie, we still root for the hero who opposes him and take pleasure at his latest scheme being foiled. It broke my heart to see Mark Richman reduced to a supporting role in a Jason movie.

(* Freddy vs Jason -I wish they’d stuck with the more elegant “A Nightmare on Friday the 13th” title myself- really was a miracle picture. I really enjoy it, with the exception of one scene. The jerk who gets killed while his girl is in the shower? Most sensitive tastebuds in the world! The guy is practically staggering drunk and he can still taste and smell his girlfriend’s cigarette? Wow!)

Ensor O’Brien

I thought that the Red Skull might receive an entry. Why? The number 88 has a special meaning in hate groups.

BeckoningChasm

They used to release z new entry on Friday the 13th when the series was making money. I think if they’d kept to that schedule and released a new one today, it would be number 13. (Counting the Michael Bay one.)

It’s interesting how people like the first and hate the fifth, despite the fact that they’re pretty much the same film.

The Rev.

The first and fifth pretty much the same film? I suppose in the sense that all of these movies are more or less the same.

The first gives us a bit of mystery, Tom Savini doing nasty things to people, a decent final girl, and a really nicely done shock scene. The best scenes are at the end, which helps with the overall impression upon watching it. I suppose some affection comes from it being the first, too (although that holds no stock with me, personally). When I say it’s the best of the series, that’s damning with faint praise.

The fifth has almost no characters to like, and a couple to actively loathe (Ethel, Junior, lookin’ at you here), reduced gore despite an increased body count, the least plot of any entry in the series (think about THAT for a while), more padding than the first one (possibly the most padding of the series…again, just think about that), and a nonsensical “twist” as to the culprit’s identity. It has exactly two good, surprising scenes, and they come in the first, oh, five minutes or so. After that it’s a downhill ride, except for Ethel and Junior getting whacked. (I laughed and laughed when Ms. Kingsley pronounced “Pseudo-Jason” her hero for kacking those two, because I knew exactly how she felt.)

Kirk

I think Kane Hodder did the best job as Jason. Even in a script as flimsy as Jason X, he puts a lot of menace into the character.

BeckoningChasm

It’s been forever since I’ve seen any of them, but I remember one of the big criticisms of V was “It doesn’t have Jason in it!” which you can also say about 1. But the big similarity is that both are presented as mysteries–“Who can be doing all these killings?” and 1 even gives us a scene where the guy walks to the woods and says, “Say, what are you doing here!” before being killed, implying this is someone he knows, and therefor we’ve seen. But in both 1 and V, the killer is someone we couldn’t possibly have guessed, in 1’s case because she doesn’t even show up until she’s revealed as the killer.

The Rev.

Kirk: Hodder did have some nice moments throughout the series (seven particularly; haven’t seen X). Myself, I think the acting Gillette did near the end of his only appearance in part 2 was great, and he remains my favorite for that reason. His reactions to Ginny are affecting/touching in an odd way; his contribution helps make it one of the best Final Girl sequences in slasher history.

BC: Ah, I see what you’re getting at. That is indeed a simliar connection; in fact, both feature a parent avenging a child by mass murder, which makes the connection even closer. Good point.

Of course, the resolution of the first one makes sense in context and is kind of interesting, whereas the resolution of the fifth is along the lines of, “Wait, who? Oh, that guy? Really? Ummm, OK. Whatever, movie. I’m just glad you’re over now.”

BeckoningChasm

Trust me, Rev, I’m not trying to defend any of them – I think if Ken goes on his current course and doesn’t see any, he’ll still have lived a rich, full life. :)

The Rev.

BC: Yeah, I hear ya. Not much to defend in that series. At best, I can only recommend a couple of them for certain moments, and none of them as a whole.

As I said before, I think the only one Ken would remotely enjoy would be VI. Not enough for me to recommend him to see it, though. Of course, he could watch Manhattan for the site. As a bonus it’s probably the most gore-free of the series so he’d be safe on that end.

BeckoningChasm

Rev: Was VI the one with the James Bond opening, and Jason standing like a triumphant caveman on the RV? Yeah, that one did have its moments. At least it had a sense of humor.

Actually, as you say, most of them have a moment or two here and there. I wonder if anybody with a DVD recorder has ever compiled the “best” bits.

John Campbell

I always thought the scene in “Jason in Space” (I call ’em like I seekem) where he pushes the woman’s face intothe liquid nitrogen and then shatters her head was quite nifty!

Rock Baker

I have a friend who finds the Jason X scene in the hollodeck (where Jason kills a couple of bimbos in their sleeping bags by slamming them against each other) to be absolutely hysterical. For myself, I found it to be too cruel. Yes, they were holograms, and sluts to boot, but for some reason I can too easily imagine what it would be like to be trapped in a sack and thrown around until dead. It kinda’ creeps me out. That something like that would be played as a joke only raises the creepy-vibe.

The Rev.

BC: I don’t remember the James Bond opening, but yeah, it has the RV scene.

Its touches of humor are why I think Ken’d enjoy it, if he were able to enjoy any of them. Tommy trying to light the matches, the paintball scene, the afore-mentioned RV…

JC: The part of X I saw was near the beginning, so I did see the nitrogen kill. I laughed too, because HOLY CRAP that was ridiculous. Which, if Ms. Kingsley’s to be believed, is par for that particular course.

I’m feeling the urge to go and reread her reviews of all these films now…some of her best work, I think. If anyone hasn’t, I highly recommend them. Her analyses of the last two are pretty great, and her disgust with the fifth one makes for hilarious reading.

Plissken79

Actually, the frozen nitrogen death in Jason X was ripped off directly from an episode of season one of the X-Files called Roland (it came out in 1994), where a retarded janitor possessed by his dead genius brother kills a scientist in the exact same manner

Related Posts