[Friday the 13th] Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988)

Director: John Carl Buechler

Cast: Lar Park Lincoln, Terry Kiser, Kevin Blair, Kane Hodder

Screenplay: Daryl Haney, Manuel Fidello

88 mins. Rated R.

 

You’d think people would just start avoiding Camp Crystal Lake on Friday the 13th by this point. I mean, it doesn’t happen that often, right?

Tina Shepherd (Lar Park Lincoln, From the Dark, TV’s Knot’s Landing) has bad memories of her lake home, which is located near Camp Crystal Lake. When she was younger, her father drowned in the lake, and Tina blames herself. Tina was born with mental gifts, and she’s returned to the lake home with her mother and Dr. Crews (Terry Kiser, Weekend at Bernie’s, The Kingsbury Run) in order to come to terms with her abilities and her guilt, and while there, she inadvertently awakens a sleeping Jason Voorhees (Kane Hodder, Daredevil, An Accidental Zombie (Named Ted)), who is waiting at the bottom of the lake for his chance to return. Now, Jason is back and unleashed upon a group of youths that have congregated in a nearby cabin for their mutual friend’s birthday, and Tina may be the only one who can stop the hockey-masked killer.

Somewhere out there is an old VHS cassette tape that contains the unrated cut of The New Blood, but it’s unlikely we’ll ever see a version of this film from before the MPAA and the studio tore it to pieces, which is too bad because there’s a lot to love about this installment of the franchise. John Carl Buechler (Saurian, The Eden Formula) was an inspired choice as a director as he understood both how to use effects and how to create tension and shocking horror in his films. The idea of finding someone more on equal ground with Jason works pretty well, and though there’s been some calls for the silliness of a Carrie White-style character, I would argue that you’ve seen Jason drown as a child, almost decapitated, and rise from the dead due to a lightning bolt; if this is what loses you, that’s pretty strange.

Lar Park Lincoln doesn’t do so well as Tina, as she just kind of spazzes a lot and shakes. There’s not a lot of depth to the character, and the screenplay from Daryl Haney and Manuel Fidello doesn’t give her a lot to do outside of reacting. If anything, the most interesting character is Dr. Crews, played menacingly by Terry Kiser. Crews is a scumbag to end all scumbags, the prime example of a character you want to see mercilessly ripped to pieces by Voorhees.

Speaking of Jason Voorhees, this installment is the first appearance by the man who became synonymous with the machete-wielding psycho, Kane Hodder. Hodder would go on to play Jason three more times before he was unceremoniously tossed aside for being too big to play Jason Voorhees. Hodder’s Jason is the first time I remember feeling like Voorhees was an actual person at one point, and that he’s an actual character. He’s a presence on film with a performance, one that is not dissimilar to a hungry shark. There’s a hunter mentality to Jason here instead of a generic boogeyman. It’s the best Jason performance to date.

Alas, the studio had a bit too much hand in this one, as well as a producer who didn’t have a handle for what the film was aiming for and didn’t take time to work with the filmmaker on helping his vision, and The New Blood, for all its campy fun, struggles to reach the level of Jason Lives. It’s still one of the better installments, but most of its characters are not well-performed, well-written, or even likable. There’s also a building of expectation that we are headed towards an incredible and intense finale unlike anything we’ve seen before in the franchise, and what we get is a bit middling. Sure, it’s unique, but having studied the film, I can see the way it was supposed to end up in my head, and it’s not what we ended up getting.

The New Blood is good but it should have been incredible and jaw-dropping and a success in forever changing the landscape of Jason Voorhees and the Friday the 13th series, but director John Carl Buechler was almost set up to fail. As frustrating as that is, it features a solid performance from Terry Kiser and an incredibly nuanced Jason as played by Kane Hodder. This one will still please genre and franchise fans, but we’re left with the wonder of what could have been.

 

3.5/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

 

 

For my review of Sean S. Cunningham’s Friday the 13th, click here.

For my review of Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street, click here.

For my review of Steve Miner’s Friday the 13th Part 2, click here.

For my review of Steve Miner’s Friday the 13th Part III, click here.

For my review of Joseph Zito’s Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter, click here.

For my review of Jack Sholder’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge, click here.

For my review of Danny Steinmann’s Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning, click here.

For my review of Chuck Russell’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, click here.

For my review of Tom McLoughlin’s Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI, click here.

[Freddy Krueger Day] A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

Director: Renny Harlin

Cast: Robert Englund

Screenplay: Brian Helgeland, Jim Wheat, Ken Wheat

93 mins. Rated R.

 

1988 was when the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise hit peak Cool Freddy status. That’s why there’s only one name on the poster. At this point, he was like James Bond, spouting off killer one-liners while maliciously murdering teams. It’s no wonder the fourth film feels like a music video.

It’s been a year since Kristen, Kincaid, and Joey did battle with Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund, Nightworld: Door of Hell, The Midnight Man) at Westin Hills, and the three teens are enjoying life outside of the hospital, now as functioning members of society. Kristen has a problem, though; she’s still afraid that Freddy’s going to come back, and she keeps pulling Kincaid and Joey into her dream world while they’re trying to move past it. Kristen’s trying to live her life. She has a boyfriend, Rick, and she’s very close to his sister, Alice. One night, though, Kincaid falls asleep and ends up in a dream-version of the junkyard where Krueger’s remains were put to rest, and thanks to some dog urine, Freddy is now back and ready to finish off the Elm Street kids once and for all.

The Dream Master is probably the least-grounded entry in the main series, especially up to that point. There are some strengths in that way, as the film is able to expand the limits of the dream world and how Freddy is able to manipulate it. The film leans into its Alice in Wonderland homage, and all that works pretty well. At the same time, how is Freddy brought back? Dog urine that lights on fire or something like that? It’s very stupid. I don’t even understand the idea behind it.

There’s also the focus on its characters. There are so many characters in this film, and so many of them are not developed well outside of tropes and clichés. Patricia Arquette has been replaced by Tuesday Knight, who just doesn’t have chemistry with Rodney Eastman or Ken Sagoes, and she doesn’t really embody the character in any way that feels like the Kristen we know from Dream Warriors. Eastman and Sagoes, as Joey and Kincaid, aren’t given anything really cool to do. The only reason for all these new characters is as fresh meat for Freddy.

The Dream Master is a super clunky but mostly enjoyable horror entry in the Nightmare on Elm Street saga. It isn’t the worst film in this franchise but it’s a significant drop in quality from the third film. Having a strong introduction for new Freddy foe Alice worked pretty well, but it betrays a lot of the characters carried over from the predecessor. It’s damn fun and enjoyable to watch, but there’s a lot of problems. Thank goodness that the film’s cheese factor works.

 

3/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

 

 

For my review of Sean S. Cunningham’s Friday the 13th, click here.

For my review of Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street, click here.

For my review of Steve Miner’s Friday the 13th Part 2, click here.

For my review of Steve Miner’s Friday the 13th Part III, click here.

For my review of Joseph Zito’s Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter, click here.

For my review of Jack Sholder’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge, click here.

For my review of Danny Steinmann’s Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning, click here.

For my review of Chuck Russell’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, click here.

For my review of Tom McLoughlin’s Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI, click here.

Jurassic World Short Film Set to Premiere on FX Sunday?

[SPOILER WARNING for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom]

In a surprise announcement from Colin Trevorrow, a new short film titled Battle at Big Rock is set to premiere on FX this weekend. The short film is set within the world of the Jurassic Park franchise, set after the events of Fallen Kingdom.

As you may recall, that film ended with dinosaurs being released into our world, and the announcement of Battle at Big Rock would seemingly follow-up on that reveal. The poster Trevorrow revealed seemed to indicate a zoo or wildlife refuge sign stating “Do Not Feed Wildlife.” Collider reportedly spoke to Trevorrow who revealed that the short film will be set just after Fallen Kingdom at the Big Rock National Park nearby. Trevorrow directed Jurassic World and will be helming the untitled Jurassic World 3.

This is surprising news, and if I am correct, it seems like this is the mystery project that was set to premiere with the Hobbs & Shaw theatrical release. Not much is known about the project, but it is intriguing to say the least. I am very excited to see what is unveiled when the film shows on FX, and I hope it sets things in motion for the next film in the series.

So what do you think? Is this a smart move for the studio and Trevorrow, and what do you want to see in the new short? Let me know/Drop a comment below!

 

-Kyle A. Goethe

More Casting Announcements for The Stand

As the closing chapter of the It series is currently in theaters, and the release of Stephen King’s new book The Institute hitting shelves yesterday, it seems only fitting that we keep talking about King’s upcoming adaptations. Collider is reporting several new casting announcements for The Stand, the upcoming CBS All Access Series, including Alexander Skarsgård as the villainous Randall Flagg.

The report also revealed Whoopi Goldberg, Jovan Adepo, Owen Teague, Brad William Henke, and Daniel Sujata joining the cast. Previously announced cast members included James Marsden, Amber Heard, Odessa Young, and Henry Zaga.

The big reveal here of course is Skarsgård as Flagg, the villain of the book and one of King’s most important characters across his multiverse. Flagg enters the story as the world is ravaged by a plague called Captain Tripps which wipes out a significant portion of the population. So it would seem that the Skarsgård brothers will be sharing the villain spotlight in King’s work, with Alexander’s brother Bill playing Pennywise the Dancing Clown in the It films.

It was previously reported that Whoopi Goldberg would be playing Mother Abigail, the light to Flagg’s darkness, and it would seem that has now been confirmed. Not much else is known of the other additions to The Stand’s mammoth cast, but I’m excited to see some more good names joining the production, which is set to release in 2020.

Making some guesses here, I would assume perhaps Owen Teague (known for Patrick Hockstetter in the It films as well) could be playing Harold Lauder, a nerdy youth who is in love with Odessa Young’s Frannie Goldsmith. I would like to see Brad William Henke playing Lloyd Henreid, a criminal poised at Flagg’s right-hand man. I could potentially see Sunjata placed in a Larry Underwood role as a musician who just hit it big with his new single, but I’m not sure how I would place Adepo except for perhaps a role as Tom Cullen, although this is a complete out-of-nowhere guess.

What do you think about these casting choices, and who do you think they will play? Let me know/Drop a comment below!

 

-Kyle A. Goethe

Crazy Rich Asians Director Supports Former Co-Writer Adele Lim

Jon M. Chu, the director of Crazy Rich Asians, posted to his Twitter a weighty statement about former co-writer Adele Lim. Lim, for those who haven’t been following, co-wrote the original film and was in negotiations to co-write the sequel before leaving due to an equal pay dispute. Chu wrote in his lengthy statement that he “stands with” Lim and offered a little bit more insight into the pay problem while staying relatively in the middle (likely because he still wants to be employed).

Among the many notes in his statement, Chu outlined the standard practice in pay negotiations and then followed with his impression that the studio offered something more in line before she again declined, stating that she had moved on, and he offered an understanding and proud viewpoint.

Chu asked that readers not berate or attack Peter Chiarelli in his statement, writing that Chiarelli has been working steadily in the business for years doing uncredited rewrites and polishes, and that he does not deserve to be attacked for being involved. In fact, Chiarelli offered up a portion of his pay to get the two writes to equal ground, a noble gesture that I’m not sure I would be strong to have made (but I hope so).

To me, Chu’s statement is nice and all but he rides the middle-ground here, making his statement ultimately not worth a lot. He sides with Lim but also sides with the studio, and I think he buried a lot in his very long post when he could have simply sided with Lim and moved on. It’s nice and all, but I wouldn’t expect Lim to return to the project, but hopefully this will add another exclamation point to the issue, one that will force studios to pay more attention when entering price negotiations.

What do you think? How did you take this statement from Chu? Let me know/Drop a comment below.

 

-Kyle A. Goethe

[Star Trek Day] Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Director: Nicholas Meyer

Cast: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, Walter Koenig, George Takei, Nichelle Nichols, Bibi Besch, Paul Winfield, Kirstie Alley, Ricardo Montalban, Merritt Butrick

Screenplay: Jack B. Sowards

113 mins. Rated PG for violence and language.

 

I won’t begin to act like I’m a genius when it comes to Star Trek. I got into the movies in high school and the show a bit more during my college experience, but I’m no expert, but I recently heard that September 8th is considered Star Trek Day (the first episode aired on 9/8/1966), so I figured we would talk about what is considered by many to be the best of the Star Trek films, The Wrath of Khan.

It’s been fifteen years since the crew of the starship Enterprise marooned the treacherous Khan Noonien Singh (Ricardo Montalban, Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over, The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!) on Ceti Alpha V after Khan attempted and failed at taking the ship, and now, the crew of the starship Reliant have been taken captive as Khan seeks vengeance upon the Enterprise and especially its former captain, Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner, Aliens Ate My Homework, Batman vs. Two-Face). Khan blames Kirk for the death of his wife. As Khan sets his trap into place, the Admiral takes control of the Enterprise once again and sets off to answer a distress call, unaware that he is about to enter a situation he has never faced with a foe he never expected to see again.

The Wrath of Khan is, to my knowledge, the first time a film in any series was made as a direct sequel to a television episode, and the first time I watched it, I had never seen Space Seed, the episode in which we are first introduced to Khan, and I would guess a great many casual fans would not know that Khan has been there before, which is a testament to director Nicholas Meyer (Vendetta, Company Business) and screenwriter Jack B. Sowards (Desperate Women, Cry Panic) in crafting a standalone story that is also enhanced by the show which came before it and the film which preceded it. It’s a captivating screenplay and story that tackles the task of saving a franchise and shepherding it into the future without forgetting the past.

This sequel also excels at the most important element in the difference between television series and movies. When you have a weekly series, especially one as episodic as Star Trek, you have your team and they go on an adventure, but by the end of the episode, most everything has turned out okay. Now, this is not always the case, but most of the time, in these procedural shows, it is. In the case of Star Trek, though, and transitioning from television to film, there’s a bigger budget, there needs to be a bigger scope, or audiences are going to question why they are dropping serious money to see something on the big screen that they should be able to see at home. So spectacle is key, something that Wrath of Khan handles quite well. The other notable change for the series is now that you have an event series with only one story every year or two, you need that story to be very important. It needs to be something that forever alters the story, and by the end of Wrath of Khan, this story has had an effect on the Enterprise and its crew.

I need to give specifically high marks to Leonard Nimoy (Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Adventures in Zambezia) as Spock, James Doohan (Skinwalker: Curse of the Shaman, The Duke) as Scotty, and Kirstie Alley (Drop Dead Gorgeous, Look Who’s Talking) as Saavik, a new recurring character in the franchise. Everyone is quite solid in the film, especially these three. Add their work to Montalban’s scene-chewing performance and you have a good recipe for excitement. I even have to say that Shatner’s work as Kirk is great here too. He doesn’t do anything really different here but he has just honed his character over his time in Star Trek to the point where he just captivates the screen.

Overall, The Wrath of Khan is a great entry point for anyone looking to get into Star Trek but finds the daunting task of three live-action seasons, two animated seasons, and a not-so-great first film. It’s filled with dazzling characters, real tension, and stunning visuals. This is a Trek film for people that don’t normally call themselves Trekkies. Seek this one out. Happy Star Trek Day!

 

4.5/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

 

 

For my review of Robert Wise’s Star Trek: The Motion Picture, click here.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: The Mystery of Mrs. Booth “Will Be Answered”

[WARNING: Contains Spoilery Talk for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood]

So everyone working in Hollywood appeared in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino’s latest offering, which is currently in theaters. One of the quicker appearances involved Rebecca Gayheart, who showed for a scene playing Cliff Booth’s wife in a flashback. The flashback happens to revolve around the question of whether or not Cliff, played by Brad Pitt, murdered his wife. It’s a bit of a legend around the Hollywood stunt scene that Mr. and Mrs. Booth were not happy, and we are meant to wonder if Mrs. Booth was murdered on the high sea or if it was just an accident.

By the end of the film, we still have no idea, but Gayheart, and apparently Pitt, do know.

Gayheart spoke to Entertainment Weekly about the film, and she said:

I tend to believe that that question will be answered at some point.

She didn’t elaborate on how or where, but there has been speculation of a Netflix miniseries version of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and there’s also that mystery tenth film. Or, maybe she’s bullshitting us. Who knows?

I don’t want the question answered unless it’s fluid to another story. If, for example, Tarantino decided his tenth film should feature Cliff Booth or his wife, then sure, let us know, but I don’t see a version that will make me want to know. It’s like the totem in Inception. I actually don’t want to know.

So what do you think? When, if ever, will we find out the answer to this mystery? Should we ever find out or is this mystery better left mysterious? Let me know/Drop a comment below!

 

-Kyle A. Goethe

It: Chapter Two Launches Well on Thursday Night

It: Chapter Two took in roughly $10.5 million on Thursday, a pretty solid opening night for the sequel. Now, it’s not as high as It‘s $13.5 million, but it doesn’t work to compare the behemoth breakout that was It to a solid opener for the sequel.

Some box office predictions place the film’s opening somewhere between $80 million to $100 million, and that’s a pretty damn nice weekend for the sequel. I think It: Chapter Two will have legs and open nicely, but having a three-hour run time could affect its opening, even if it doesn’t affect the overall take.

It: Chapter Two has a Fresh Rotten Tomatoes score of 65%, which is notable, but it’ll depend on word of mouth just as much as the first film.

Have you already seen It: Chapter Two? Are you seeing it this weekend? Let me know/Drop a comment below!

 

-Kyle A. Goethe

[Early Review] It: Chapter Two (2019)

Director: Andy Muschietti

Cast: Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, Bill Hader, Isaiah Mustafa, Jay Ryan, James Ransone, Andy Bean, Bill Skarsgård

Screenplay: Gary Dauberman

169 mins. Rated R for disturbing violent content and bloody images throughout, pervasive language, and some crude sexual material.

 

When you have a film like It, something that was so consumed by the pop culture at the time of release, getting a follow-up to stick the landing is a pretty tough endeavor. Thankfully, It: Chapter Two was ready for the challenge.

It’s been 27 years since the Losers Club encountered It, and most of them have gone on with their lives, having forgotten all about the dancing clown named Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård, The Divergent Series: Allegiant, Assassination Nation) and the oath they made to each other, that they would return to Derry if It ever came back. Now, with children going missing and a body recovered in the small time, Mike Hanlon (Isaiah Mustafa, The Clinic, TV’s Shadowhunters) places the calls to his friends, who aren’t too keen on coming back to defeat It once and for all. Now, the Losers Club, as adults, will have to perform an ancient ritual that Mike is certain will destroy It, but it will take each of them back to the worst parts of their childhood to confront their darkest fears in an effort to save the town and the children of a new generation.

I’ve stated before that, having read the book, that the stuff with the kids is more interesting than the stuff with the adults, but director Andy Muschietti (Mama) and screenwriter Gary Dauberman (The Nun, TV’s Swamp Thing) have found an workable way to explore these characters and all the changes that have come upon them. It: Chapter Two spends some of its lengthy three-hour runtime on the flashbacks to 1989 and revisiting the Losers Club in their collective youth, something that I think helps connect these adult actors to their younger incarnations. Through the use of digital de-aging (something that has hits and misses in the film), we are able to see the connective tissue and character arcs manifest in the Losers as they return to Derry.

The casting in the film is phenomenal. I had some deep concerns about how the casting for this second part would go, seeing that there could be a potential for the studio to pick all big names or all unknowns, and the final result is more in line with picking performers who can embody the characters through their mannerisms, dialogue, and cadence. I cannot believe how great the cast is here, but the standout is without a doubt Bill Hader (The Skeleton Twins, TV’s Barry) as the adult Richie Tozier, played in the first film by Finn Wolfhard. Hader steals every scene he’s in, and even though I think he is given a bit too much comedy in the screenplay, he sells it without overdoing it. He also has the best character arc of the group due to some additions that weren’t in the book that work very well.

Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy, Filth, Glass) is the surrogate for King himself here, having aged into a writer that is constantly critiqued for his endings, and the love triangle between himself, Beverly (Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty, Dark Phoenix), and Ben (Jay Ryan, Lou, TV’s Neighbours) plays out really well in this film. I like the way it’s done in the book, but not being able to actually get inside these characters’ thoughts, I think the translation, which makes some adjustments, is satisfyingly put to film here. Chastain’s Beverly has suffered with the men in her life going all the way back to her relationship with her abusive father, and she’s haunted by visions from her time staring into the deadlights back in 1989 have led her down a successful but lonely adulthood, and finding that poem on the postcard back in Derry opens up some wounds and confusion, she herself not certain exactly who wrote it.

James Ransone (Sinister, Captive State) is one of those actors I didn’t know as well, but he embodies Eddie so well, having grown up into a man that is essentially married to his mother but still struggling with his past fears and paranoias as a child. He is easily the most terrified of the Losers upon returning to Derry, and with good reason. I think the fears that Eddie is presented with are so relatable and that’s one of the ways Ransone connects with the audience. He also nails the speech style and physical ticks of Jack Dylan Grazer, who played young Eddie in the first film.

Bill Skarsgård is yet again at the top of his game here, but I will warn you that we don’t see a lot of Pennywise in the finished film. It’s not about him; it’s never really been about him, and It is a shapeshifter meant to take on your biggest fears, so it’s a criticism I heard at my screening that I would take issue with. It’s just a problem with Skarsgård being so good that you want him in the movie more.

It: Chapter Two is, if I’m correct, the longest studio horror film ever, clocking in at 169 minutes, but I never really felt it. I enjoy myself so much with these characters and this town that it didn’t bother me that the film is long. I wanted more time, in fact, but you should know that it isn’t three-hours of white knuckle horror. Again, my biggest flaw with the film is the same as with the first one: I wasn’t scared. I would say I had more effective scares in Chapter Two, but the film is more about the characters than about It.

Muschietti gets more experimental, spiritual, and cerebral with Chapter Two. His visual style elevates here, giving a more nightmarish and odd look at the town and its many horrors, and though some of the film feels like retread, it’s done with a different hook this time around. The haunts of the film tend to rely more on CGI, something that doesn’t look as clean here, but there are still enough shocks and surprises peppered throughout that definitely got the audience during my screening.

Fans of It, be they from the original book or even the 1990 miniseries, should find a lot to enjoy with It: Chapter Two. It’s not a perfect ending, but I found myself thoroughly engaged with the story all the way through to the ending, and it made me want to go back, rewatch the first film again (a requirement, I would say, before seeing this one), and then come right back to the theater to see the second-half again. It’s a very watchable conclusion to this story, one that will be in my regular rotation during the horror months, and it’s definitely more suited to a Kill Bill-style event viewing wherein one watches both films together. I loved the film, though I will note that there are issues with the overall execution, but I would still highly-recommend this finale to anyone who liked the first film.

 

4/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

 

 

For my review of Andy Muschietti’s It, click here.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑