Archive for the 2010 Category

Halloween Endurance Test: House of Frankenstein (1944)

Posted in 2010, Frankenstein, Halloween Endurance Tests with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 3, 2010 by shenanitim

Universal’s House of Frankenstein holds a special place in my heart. Maybe it’s because the film starts on a rainy night with Professor Lampini’s Chamber of Horrors traveling sideshow. Perhaps its because the studio finally did away with both Frankenstein’s castle and his mansion in the last film (Ghost of Frankenstein) allowing the franchise to use the “buddy roadtrip” formula within the horror genre. As with all the House… films, this installment throws all of Universal’s famous monsters into a giant, nonsensical story and hopes you don’t notice how quickly the whole Dracula business gets dealt with.

Dracula is the weak link in the stories. Lampini’s Chamber of Horrors displays Dracula’s staked skeleton, though it’s not long before the stake is removed. Sending the most anemic looking vampire loose again on the countryside. Sadly, I suspect this is the same vampire that was seeking a blood-transfusion “cure” in House of Dracula.

Even Dracula’s vampire powers are lame. He turns into a comically animated bat before drinking his victim’s blood! Instead of seeking the blood of attractive, young women, here he feeds off of grandfathers, and seeks to marry the women! Forever gone is his harem of vampire women. Where White Zombie illustrated the capitalist uses of voodoo, here we’re treated to the conservative side to the King of the Undead.

“We want nothing to remind us of something we’re trying to forget!”

The town of Frankenstein’s guards speak with that beautifully off-kilter internal logic of Strangers with Candy‘s Jerry Blank. Not that Professor Lampini’s own dialogue is any better:

“What do you have here?”

“It’s my own Chamber of Horrors! We’re wondering if we can set up in town?”

“You might as well leave, the burgomaster will never allow it.”

“But why not? There’s nothing here to offend anyone!”

Except a rotting vampire skeleton with a slight chance of reanimating itself. Or any of the other horrors my traveling show contains. Perhaps the word “horror” means something else in German, or to Lampini.

I know these movies aren’t the best indicators of a franchise’s quality, but these House… movies’ portrayal of the Wolf Man makes it unlikely I’ll ever pick up a Wolf Man collection. (To say nothing about that horrid Benicio del Toro Wolfman film from last year. So bad I chose not to cover it!) Plus the Wolf Man is always dressed up as a greaser mechanic (a la Billy Joel circa the Stranger). Not a good look for a creature who’s supposed to be fearsome (“I can only change your oil when the moon is full!”).

The Wolf Man immediately breaks up Lampini’s happy Chamber of Horrors. His very presense manages to steal Lampini’s hunchback assistant’s gypsy girlfriend from the troupe.

(Trapped between an infatuated hunchback and a middle-aged corpse-lover, the gypsy makes the only logical choice. Throw in the only occasionally murderous Wolf Man though, and the equation changes.)

For those wondering where the titular host of this House party is, the monster gets a full minute and a half of screen time! He’s reanimated, then immediately driven by a horde of angry townspeople into quicksand.


Halloween Endurance Test: Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)

Posted in 2010, Frankenstein, Halloween Endurance Tests with tags , , , on November 3, 2010 by shenanitim

Ygor’s back again? After being shot numerous times by the Son of Frankenstein? My pet-theory about how Ygor was created by the filmmakers as a separate Frankensteinian-id is gaining ground here. Ygor/Id as a way for the Frankenstein character to commit the murders the story demands without sacrificing the valuable “good guy” sympathy with the audience. After all, just how guilty can the Baron really feel when he’s ordering the murders?

Though I’m beginning to suspect that all this focus on visualizing Frankenstein’s psychological split is distracting me from the true action: the villagers. Tired of constantly running scared from the monster, today the villages take action. Deciding to blow up castle Frankenstein to ward off the curse that is causing the crops not to grow. I’m not sure how the castle is affecting the crops; it is located on a mountain and not an arable field, and thus seemingly out of the way. I’d suspect that the castle brings in more tourist revenue then anything else in this fiefdom.

Have you ever seen how people use dynamite to destroy castles? Apparently just as they did at the finale of The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers. The scene where the orcs prepare to invade Helm’s Deep, and run a bomb into what appears to be the sewer entrance holds everything you’ll ever need to know to other throw unresponsive feudal lords.

Four movies into the franchise and we still have no idea what era this is all supposed to transpire in. Horses and carriages are the main sources of transportation, but one can’t forget the telephone Dr. Pretorius brought out in Bride of Frankenstein.

While the title of Son of Frankenstein was spot-on, I have no idea how ghosts play into the story here. The main gist of the story is the monster wants a new, non-criminal, brain. Dischord on the homefront, Ygor wants to give the monster his brain; tired as he is of ending all his films either shot or hung. The monster, with his first demonstration of free will ever, wants the brain of an innocent child.

“Let’s go to Frankenstein and choke the truth out of him!”

At this point I can’t tell whether the movie’s pro-vigilante justice, or just con-child murder. There’s just too many generations of Frankensteins running around the screen now. His daughter too? It’s longwinded hokum like this that made the following road-trip cinematic excursions so popular.

Perhaps this was all a trick by Universal to get Bela Lugosi to finally play the monster, even if it’s byway of dubbing his voice onto Lon Chaney’s body? Do studios hold grudges that long? Did Lugosi even have any star power left to make such a move worthwhile? (He is after all, billed fourth in this feature.)

Halloween Endurance Test: Son of Frankenstein (1939)

Posted in 2010, Frankenstein, Halloween Endurance Tests with tags , , , on November 3, 2010 by shenanitim

The first thing one notices in Son of Frankenstein is that it’s a revenge flick. You’re not even a minute in and Bela Lugosi leans his head out of Castle Frankenstein’s ruins; attempting to scare away juvenile vandals, and failing at it! The major studios might turn a blind eye to a star’s “personal demons,” but they’d never forget a slight such as refusing a role they wanted for you. Instead they’d wait out your good fortune, and slap you with fourth billing as Igor the hunchback, the next chance they get. Ygor isn’t even a “true” hunchback, he just seems to have lopsided shoulders due to his broken neck.

Ygor plays the film’s comic relief, a new turn for Lugosi. Called in front of the court to inform them about Frankenstein’s son’s experiments, the authorities can’t decide on how to deal with Ygor, not Frankenstein. At first they want to hang him, but as he points out, they already have. They ultimately decide on the almost Fulci decision that if he’s hung but the devil doesn’t want him, they’ll have to wait to hang him again. Apparently the courts here only prescribe a punishment, not what the end result of that punishment should be.

In time Ygor will become the darker side of Frankenstein’s son’s conscience; commanding the murders that Frankenstein’s father had to call for himself in Bride of Frankenstein. Ygor trains the monster to respond in a Pavlovian manner to the playing of what appears to be a kind of backwoods Hungarian flute. Bela jams, a townsperson dies. Only this time they aren’t dying for (body) parts, they’re dying so no one finds about the experiments that they’ll need (body) parts for.

Frankenstein’s heir, true to the film’s title, runs the show. Traveling to the family estate from England, where he was a professor, Frankenstein wants to escape the academic life. What he can’t escape is the baggage of his name; as his absentee, monster-making father isn’t the most popular person in the village. The village inspector introduces himself, explains why the Frankensteins are so unpopular, then shows off his wooden arm; as the monster ripped his last one out during his rampage.

One really wonders what happened after Elizabeth was kidnapped in Bride of Frankenstein. Here Frankenstein’s son admits he’s only ever heard tales about his father, and he’s excited to find his father’s scientific notes. Notes, we soon find, that outline how to create everlasting life. Igor, always eager to please, helpfully points out how Frankenstein’s son and the monster are technically half-brothers, in a strange attempt to perversely justify the monster’s resurrection in a twisted, familial way.

“The cells seem to battle themselves… as if they have a mind of their own.”

The monster’s angry disposition now becomes conditional upon his origin. The forcing of life into dead tissue has left that tissue disagreeable even amongst each other. The cells within his own blood can’t get along. (He also has a heart twice the size of an average human. Where Frankenstein Sr found that specimen is never explained.)

Or perhaps its due to the castle’s layout. Which owes more to German Expressionism then ever before. Gone are the majestic cathedral ceilings, replaced with meandering staircases and hallways composed entirely of shadows. Making one think that young Frankenstein made a wrong turn somewhere and ended up at Caligari’s castle.

Halloween Endurance Test: Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Posted in 2010, Frankenstein, Halloween Endurance Tests with tags , , , , , , , on November 2, 2010 by shenanitim

As superior as Frankenstein was to Dracula, its sequel, Bride of Frankenstein, sits higher still. This is the film that made the franchise, and director James Whale’s career. While the Dracula films never truly found a rhythm, never reached a highpoint, and the Mummy films reworked its origins tale numerous times, here director Whale takes all the themes that made the first a success and builds on them.

Freed from the constraints of reproducing a literary classic, Universal’s screenwriters could run with the characters in ways Mary Shelley never dreamed. Including, in yet another opening disclaimer sequence, having “England’s greatest sinner,” Lord Byron, and Mary and Percy Shelley sitting around talking about the book’s creation. Segueing perfectly into a flashback montage from the first film. Which leads Mary to note that Frankenstein’s monster end at the mill was not actually the end at all…

One thing that did end in the first film though, was Frankenstein’s monster’s innocence. The original was censored because of a scene where a little girl drowns. The sequence plays more tragic than horrific though, as the monster doesn’t understand that she can’t float the same as the lily pads around her. Ten minutes into the sequel, and the monster is truly a monster. Revenging himself by drowning the father of the girl whose death he accidentally caused.

30 minutes into the film and we’ve seen two drowning scenes, and Dr. (now Baron) Frankenstein’s teacher Professor/Dr. Pretorius’ own experiments: five homunculi (miniature humans). Where Frankenstein worked with the dead, Pretorius works from the seed of life; hoping to populate the world with “Gods and monsters.” If that isn’t blasphemous enough, the first time the monster is caught, he’s brought to town crucified on a pole!

Frankenstein refuses to work with Pretorius, claiming his experiment was a mistake. He now just wants to be a Baron. The monster, befriending a blind man who teaches him to talk, as well as sanctifying him in a strange dinner scene (bread is broken, wine drank, all under the watching gaze of a crucifix), wants love of his own. This desire for a bride meshes well with Pretorius’ own desires. So a kidnapping is in order.

Don’t think Frankenstein as some tragic hero though, as he fiends as well as any of the others. Finding a suitable body is again a chore, so he pays off an assistant to bring him one that suffered a short and surprising death. (At which point the idea of two ideologically clashing doctors truly falls apart.) No longer will the reanimated dead be a patchwork of cut up body parts. The bride sports a few seams on the head, and a (famed) electrically shocked haircut, but is in no way as mutilated as the monster.

This advance in the reanimation of the dead brings about the ruin of both, as the bride wants nothing to do with her scarred groom. She hisses as a cat when approached, causing a heartbroken monster to end it all by exploding Frankenstein’s lab.

Or was it all? While the franchise would jettison most of what happens in this film story-wise, the ruined tower would remain as an understated constant. Serving as a focal point for the multitude of Frankensteins who would pass through its walls after Victor.

Halloween Endurance Test: Frankenstein (1931)

Posted in 2010, Frankenstein, Halloween Endurance Tests with tags , , , , , , , on October 31, 2010 by shenanitim

Did you really think after watching most of Universal’s Dracula and Mummy franchises, I’d end the holiday without tackling the grand-champ, Frankenstein? Plans for a spiritual sequel to Dracula were in motion as soon as the box office receipts were in. Problems concerning the production arose just as quickly.

First, Bela Lugosi, already a star in Hungary, now a star in the States, immediately started throwing his weight around. The one aspect of Dracula that the Mexicans couldn’t improve upon, Bela refused to play the monster in Frankenstein. Going so far as to get a doctor’s note saying he couldn’t play the monster, as all that make-up would be bad for his health.

Amazingly, Bela’s real concern was a.) being typecast, which happened anyway, and b.) the monster’s lack of dialogue. Bela was an actor, and the groans and grunts the script provided just weren’t enough for him. Strange reasoning coming from a man still learning English at the time, having learned his Dracula lines phonetically.

Second, Dracula had been a risk for Universal to begin with. Carl Laemmle, founder of Universal, did not want his studio spearheading a horror genre. He was concerned with the censorship potential to such a film playing throughout the States. His son, Carl Laemmle, Jr., saw the potential in horrific films, making them the centerpiece of his time at the studio.

Frankenstein was a different beast altogether though. The church could take some issue with a undead prince, but God still reigned. A crucifix was all one needed for protection. Not so with Frankenstein’s monster, who was an affront to all religions the world over. A man, bypassing God, and creating life in his own piecemeal image! A concept so shocking director James Whale would include a disclaimer before the movie starts. Having Edgar Van Sloan (I believe, Dracula’s Von Helsing) come out from behind stage curtains to warn movie-goers of the shocks they were about to see.

Factor in a scene where a young girl drowns (quickly cut from the prints), and this film had controversy written all over it. Luckily for Laemmle, Jr., that writing included profits.

All in all, a better film than Dracula. James Whale wasn’t the drunk Todd Browning was, giving the story technical merits that its predecessor unfortunately lacked. This film established Universal’s reputation as a horror studio, a title it would carry for decades until it was dethroned by Hammer studios in the late ’50s.

Halloween Endurance Test: the Host (2006)

Posted in 2010, Halloween Endurance Tests with tags , , , on October 31, 2010 by shenanitim

I’ve been on the fence about whether to include this film or not. I’ve heard glowing reviews from “my converts.” The two people: my brother (who bought me this copy) and my best friend, had, growing up, to be convinced of the merits of bad movies.

Neither of them would believe me on just how awesome Escape from New York is until I forced my brother to watch a not-edited-for-television version. My best friend only watched comedies and horrid action movies. (He had a Last Action Hero poster on his wall for way too long.) It wouldn’t be until “the incident” with him that our distinct cinematic tastes would start to converge. This film, however, made me wonder what kind of monster(s) had I created?

I think, here, it’s all the CGI that ruins it for me. I understand why, if one were to make a modern-day monster movie, they utilized CGI. This understanding does not bring acceptance though. Sure the two-headed mutant-boy from the Funhouse wasn’t really scary. Even in the moment it was hard to buy into him. His murderous father/keeper was totally believable; even if he was only a Greek-looking carny.

I’ve gone on numerous times about the visual lameness of CGI blood (here and here). It just doesn’t look real. Compounding the issue here is the fact that barely anyone dies in the movie. During the monster’s first riverside rampage, only a handful of people get eaten.

The film’s main drive: a drunken, layabout father’s search for his missing daughter loses its appeal since you never truly believe that the girl is dead. She’s just missing. She doesn’t even spend the movie in the belly of the beast! Instead camping out in a modern version of Attack of the Giant Leeches air-filled, underwater caves.

In fact, there’s little difference between the two films. Instead of an army of giant leeches, there’s just one giant monster of indeterminate origins. Rather then deny the monster, in the Host, the government does believe in it, but are ineffectual in containing it. This film is also twice as long as the original. Equalling, for you, the reader/viewer, twice as many topical references that’ll make no sense in 10-20 years.

Most damning is the entire extraneous government subplot, which drags on for 45+ minutes before the final insult; there’s no virus. Making the subplot worthless except for a few “laughs” (if you want to call them that) provided by the Korean version of Get a Life‘s Chris Peterson.

Not to mention they spend an hour looking for the monster. Only to have said monster show up at a demonstration in the end. Meaning any editor, good or bad, could/would/should have cut out all the extra fluff. Just because you can shoot 80 minutes of horrid, unfunny subplots doesn’t mean you should.

A monster movie for people who don’t understand monster movies.

Halloween Endurance Test: Attack of the Giant Leeches (1959)

Posted in 2010, Halloween Endurance Tests with tags , , on October 31, 2010 by shenanitim

Few people know this, but leeches don’t bleed, they bubble when shot in the water. This is just one of the many questionable “facts” I learned watching today’s film. Boasting Roger Corman as its Executive Producer, you know what you’ll be getting here. Giant leeches (a given), hillbillies, and sassy women in the vein of ‘Gator Bait.

A man is found dead in the Florida swamps. The sheriff figures a giant alligator got to him. They are living in the bayou after all. (The sheriff saying words such as “Garntee.”) Steve, the local scientist, disagrees, of course. No, he thinks they should be looking for a giant squid or an octopus.

Have you ever seen a movie where all the authority figures are always wrong? I’m used to seeing a scientist voice and fight for an unpopular theory, but never an unpopular and clearly false theory. Corman blazing cinematic trails yet again! Giant octopuses and squids? Did the man even see what he was shooting? I’m not an expert on leeches, but I don’t believe they have tentacles, or anything even remotely resembling tentacles!

It’s movie like this that made me fall in love with B-movies. Ever since that Christmas years ago when my father bought me a copy of the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. Just from looking at its box I knew it was something special. How can one go back to traditional cinema when you could be watching films populated with a menagerie of giant animals? Everything just seems small after that.

Steve does seem to have some brains though. When the town doctor figures out that they could kill all the baddies by planting dynamite underwater and blowing the lake to kingdom come, environmentalist Steve is against it. Until the doctor goes maverick, and sets off some dynamite. Steve doesn’t complain so much after it’s done.

You’d think leeches would make more fearsome killers. If it wasn’t for their immobility, you wouldn’t know their victims are dead. They just drain a little blood, bit by bit, leaving the bodies in underwater, air-filled caves. Why the victims don’t just wake up and swim away rather then wait for the giant leeches to return will forever be an unsolvable, scientific mystery.

Holy good news! Thanks to the wonders of “public domain,” I can offer you the chance to view this film yourself with a clear conscience. Enjoy!

Eew! Something for the ladies… Attack of the Giant Leeches was made in the days before wetsuits, when men wore tiny swim trunks when diving in the Everglades. Corman had his sight’s on the better half of the movie-going population by having Steve’s friend Mike cross all boundaries of good taste. Mike pulls a John Ritter and accidentally flashes his scrotum onscreen! No wonder he’s always smiling! What’s he doing? Testing an emergency floatation device? Making sure he doesn’t get “the bends” (to the right)? Dammit Corman, this isn’t what I wanted stuck in my head as the movie ends!

Halloween Endurance Test: the Funhouse (1981)

Posted in 2010, Halloween Endurance Tests with tags , , , on October 29, 2010 by shenanitim

Another outside submission to the Halloween Endurance Test, Tobe Hooper‘s the Funhouse was a shoo-in. A movie about a traveling carnival’s seedy underbelly, filmed by the man who made both Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist? The spiritual successor to Tod Browning’s classic Freaks, with a bit of David Friedman’s She Freak thrown in, and taking its stylistic cues from choice parts of James Bond’s Diamonds are Forever? It’s practically a documentary of my mind!

Testament to Hooper’s vision, one scene has a brilliant crane shot of the carnival. It really looks as if he had as close to a lifelike replica of a carnival as he could afford to built! The only flaw is it appears that the carnival is only intended to last one night; packing up, as they do, at the end of the night. Most fairs will stay in town a couple weeks to minimize any chance of bad weather ruining a profitable run.

Maybe it’s because of my lack of familiarity with “carny law” but you do get a general feeling of unease watching this film. Even with the heroine’s little brother, who surreptitiously follows her to the carnival, one gets the feeling he could die if caught. (The murder of children being one transgressive act that most horror films won’t even touch.)

Apparently sneaking into funhouses to screw around is a teen sexual rite of passage. I must’ve missed that course in high school. I can understand making out in those little motorized buckets people sit in, but fooling around up in the rafters next to a black-lit, screeching witch head? I figure that would kill the mood, rather than set it (pun intended!).

It goes without saying though, that the film’s titular funhouse does bring to mind the alien spaceship from Killer Klowns from Outer Space. Two films that could play back-to-back if one wanted to make a circus-themed night of horror.

The film’s scariest scene is the one where the “more experienced” female is trapped by the funhouse owner’s mutant son, and offers herself for him. It brings to mind every eighties blame the victim theory ever proposed into law; only this time acting it out on the screen. As unlucky in life (genetics?) as he is in love, the beast with two faces makes the beast with two backs, only to end up with a knife in his.

Not so scary though, is the mutant boy who, while failing as a franchise monster, still serves as the movie’s catalyst. He spends the movie sexually frustrated after a short encounter with the carnival’s resident psychic. (Note to self: akin to apes, carnies should never kill carnies.)

She evokes a law nearly as old as the world’s oldest profession; maintaining that she only provides the meat of a course, it’s up to you to decided whether it serves as an entree or an appetizer. Unfortunately for her, you shouldn’t argue over prices with a man who’s head has two faces. He can, after all, continue to argue with you as his other face chews through yours.

Halloween Endurance Test: Blood and Black Lace (1964)

Posted in 2010, Halloween Endurance Tests, Mario Bava with tags , , , , on October 29, 2010 by shenanitim

A model, on her way back to the agency, is murdered one night. Mario Bava’s cinematography and set design deserves much of the credit here. Upon opening the viewer is immediately confronted with bizarre, deep blood-red mannequins and one of the most haunting wooded murder scenes seen yet.

Walking through a cove where all the trees slope upwards, illuminated from the back, you immediately realize Bava’s reveling in what the Girl… lacked: color film stock. As a heavy wind blows, the killer hits the model with the force of a hurricane; knocking her towards a tree and choking the life out of her. Deposited in a closet, her corpse is found at the next day’s fashion shoot.

The story is another mystery in the vein of the Girl Who Knew Too Much; only this time with decidedly less humor. If the Girl… was cinema’s first giallo, then this was filmdom’s first “body count film.” Drugs play a large role in this film; oh, to be as innocent as the detective here, shocked that models are abusing cocaine!

As with most mysteries, no one is to be trusted. They either hate the dead model due to her success, boyfriend, or access to drugs (via the boyfriend). They all have something to hide: an abortion, debts, outright chemical dependance.

The killer comes dressed as the Blank from Dick Tracy. Sporting a black trench coat, wide-brimmed hat, leather gloves, and no face. Surprisingly physical and spry for a horror movie villain; always running and jumping around to reach the victims, but also always in close proximity. This is an important ingredient in the “body count” genre’s recipe that would be lost in just 15 years.

The film is literally a “body count” film in its original European configuration, with the (translated) title of 6 Females for the Murderer. Letting the audience know, before the film even starts, how many are going to die!

During the police lineup one suspect becomes so agitated that he falls into an epileptic seizure. That’s brilliant! Showing all the stress taking its toll; why hasn’t other mysteries picked up on it?

I love how the director is so nonchalant about her models being murdered. I don’t care that two of my models were killed. I understand you live out in the country, alone. But you know we have a big day tomorrow; so quit complaining about being scared and go out there and get murdered! I’ve worked for bosses with that same attitude.

Cameron Mitchell and Udo Kier: separated at birth?

“Perfect… perfectly awful.”

Okay, I know the film is European, but did the villain have to be so European? It’s as if I’m looking at a Udo Kier doppleganger. He works hand-in-hand with his girlfriend; the costume’s panty-hosed blank face allowing either gender to perform the murders. It also strengthens this film’s mental connection to Dick Tracy/Blank/Madonna in my mind.

Halloween Endurance Test: Freddy Vs Jason (2003)

Posted in 2010, Halloween Endurance Tests with tags , , , , , on October 29, 2010 by shenanitim

I sincerely hope they gave Freddy top billing here because he came first alphabetically. ‘Cuz everyone knows he gets decapitated in the end, which spells “LOSE” anyway you want to argue it.

They should really use gonzo porn as the basis for these films. No story elements, character development, or plot points. Just eighty to ninety minutes of carnage. As soon as one group of four teenagers die, jump cut to the next group. They could even cut costs by using the same set over and over.

Lord knows they cut enough costs with all the CGI blood they used. I guess I might’ve been too tough on Burton and his Sweeney Todd. When Destiny’s Child Kelly Rowland has a nightmare about Freddy giving her an amateur nose-job, the resulting computer generated bloodbath is less convincing than any Elm Street boy turning into a haunted motorcycle 80s effect. The one scene where the dead kid’s in the bathtub is a prime example; it looks as if the tub’s full of Kool-Aid! Hard to believe the special effects in I Spit on Your Grave‘s bathroom scene could top this.

The “snapped in half” effect still rules though.

(To think, just days ago I was mocking Jennifer Aniston for starring in Leprechaun. That, at least, was before she reached stardom in a sit-com with a monkey. Imagine going from selling out stadiums to sharing the silver screen with a bunch of nobodies in the equivalent of an eighties horror gang-bang.)

This script’s a product of postmodernity. Freddy’s introduction references all his past films, and even hints at his own loss of cultural significance (hence his being forgotten by the kids). Freddy resurrects Jason to harvest the fear multiple homicides inevitably produces.

“One, two, Freddy’s coming for you… You know why they sing that? ‘Cuz that’s when he comes for you…”

See? It practically has a porno’s script! It’s not that I expect a film such as this to have New Line’s top writers assigned to it, but come on! What were they smoking when they thought up the grand finale fight.

Jason’s scared of water? Fifteen minutes after being doused in water in the cornfield rave slaughter? Plus Jason totally wins the fight. Slicing off both of Freddy’s arms, to which Krueger responds by using telekinesis? Making Jason a human pinball? That’s supposed to be scary?