Skip to main content

The Everclear is kicking my ass.

Freddy vs. Jason
(2003)

(SPOILERS) It’s pretty clear who wins this slug fest, if you compare it to even the least inspired previous entries in the Elm Street series. On screen, at least, the franchise makers are compelled to call a draw, so as to avoid the dissatisfaction of either arch villain’s advocates, but who are they trying to kid? Jason brings Freddy down to his thoroughly pedestrian slasher level, in a grudge match that carries a dire lack of imagination. Director Ronny Yu does his best to paper over the cracks by making Freddy vs. Jason look very generically polished, but that only serves to emphasise how out of luck anyone seeking a glimmer of personality or inventiveness in the whole affair will be.

On which score, its effect was much the same as the following year’s team-up cash-in Alien vs. Predator. Tellingly, they were released in the same August weekend slot and made about the same amount of money in the US (AVP did better worldwide). If you want to split hairs, AVP is probably more serviceable, as anonymous as it is under Paul WS Anderson’s strictly competent eye. Freddy vs. Jason contrastingly succeeds at being actively annoying. It’s quite possible it satisfied Jason fans – although possibly not, since man-behind-the-mask Kane Hodder wasn’t involved – used to slim pickings in terms of creative fruit and really only in it for the next gory impalation. But for the Freddy crowd, desirous to smell the glove and expectant of something a little more “refined”, having their hero-villain reduced to a glorified exposition machine for much of the proceedings was surely faintly embarrassing.

Maybe – although, highly unlikely – I’m doing Friday fans a disservice. I can only recall seeing one of the series for certain, Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives, which had the atypical merit of a sense of humour. Albeit, I always thought Jason Takes Manhattan was a great title, regardless of the movie’s actual quality. I hadn’t realised this vs. had been percolating, or trapped in development hell, since 1987. As is often the case, there was the will (to make bank) but not the idea to make it worthwhile.

Actually, that isn’t entirely true. As a motive force, Freddy utilising Jason’s corporeal status as a means to make his mark on Springwood once again isn’t terrible. And the idea – rather than anything they do with it – of fear as an easily transmittable plague (essentially the plandemic, but with a red and green sweater), by which “They treated him like he was a fucking disease. And they locked up all the kids who made contact with him so he wouldn’t infect the others” is cogently expressed. As such, the authorities are actively giving the kids Hypnocil rather than preventing them from taking it (per Dream Warriors). The contrast being that the town wishes to eliminate fear, while Freddy wants to foster it (I found the timeline of those Freddy-affected in the ward confusing, but I guess he’s supposed to have impacted them at the time of Freddy’s Dead, which is/was set in 1999/2001).

There’s also the occasionally inventive beat. Possessing Freeburg (Kyle Labine doing his best John Lithgow in The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension impression) in order to tranquilise Jason (and dispose of the Hypnocil) is a nice touch. It also notably refers back to the unloved Freddy’s Revenge in terms of special Freddy powers. And Gibb (Kathrine Isabelle) being killed by Jason before Freddy can get to her, so enraging him, is a decent moment. Jason cutting a swathe through obnoxious ravers raises a (brief) smile. Less amusing is Yu’s predilection for choppy slow-motion during action scenes.

These brief examples aside, nearly every plot or character beat is hackneyed and uninspired. None of the dream sequences dazzle as they should. About the best idea is Freddy haunting Jason as Jason’s mum (Paula Shaw), with accompanying school-bullying flashbacks (we also see Englund sans makeup in the opening, clunkily bringing us up to date). There’s Will (Jason Ritter, unlike dad, bereft of personality) tries to convince Lori (Monica Keena) he saw her dad kill her mum; that might have been an interesting subplot, except that it turns out to have been Freddy. Of course, it does.

Perhaps surprisingly, we’re also informed “His name is Freddy Krueger, and he loves children. Especially little girls”. Interesting that Freddy vs. Jason should play up the very element of the originals that was soft pedalled; Hitherto, Freddy’s only ever been referred to as a child murderer.

Mostly, Englund is down by the material here, stuck looking not a little silly when striking a battle pose against the lumbering tank that is Jason or muttering “Not strong enough yet…” to telegraph to the audience why it is that he’s failing to reap victims like he usually does. The main “teens” are unmemorable, with Isabelle (Ginger Snaps) given a no-favours part and Chris Marquette (Linderman) rather short changed as the nerd.

The movie opens with nudity, so we know this is going to be preferentially staking out Friday territory (Yu apparently incurred lasting disfavour from Keena and Isabelle through pressuring them to disrobe), and even Jason’s killer moves (slapstick death by folding bed), as basic as they are, are more notable than anything Freddy does (often CGI assisted).

Yu was dabbling in US fare at this point, following the well-received Bride of Chucky (as these things go) and preceding the terribly received The 51st State (as these things don’t). As is often the case with international directors, Hollywood manages to sand down all the edges. Obviously, Freddy vs. Jason was a big hit (the series’ biggest, unadjusted for inflation). For a while, it seemed a Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash was on the cards, but as Bruce Campbell explained, it didn’t happen for the reasons this movie is so dissatisfying (“… we couldn’t control any other character, only control Ash – what these guys said, or what they did and you can’t kill either one. So right from the start, it’s creatively bankrupt. Economically, now you’re splitting the pot with two other partners – nah. We’re good”). That’s Freddy vs. Jason: creatively bankrupt.


Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…