Review of Jason Lives - Friday the 13th Part VI (1986) by Mr J — 24 Aug 2010

?Jason belongs in Hell - and I'm gonna see to it that he gets there? Tommy Jarvis ? Thom Matthews.

The Friday the 13th franchise and I don?t exactly have a good relationship. The first film, which everyone seems to regard as one of the best slasher films ever, is a highly over-rated film in my opinion. I criticise it not just for the poor elements that typically make a bad film (bad dialogue, poor acting, hollow characters, etc), but because it completely fails to entertain me, no matter how many times I watch it. Parts II-V of the franchise fared no better, and none entertained me any more than the first film. Part VI: Jason Lives however, is a film that I actually enjoy. It works greatly as a slasher film, and is actually decent as a standalone film. Don?t get me wrong, it?s highly flawed and is nowhere near as good as some of the other slasher films out there (Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street for example), but it?s the high point of the Friday the 13th franchise, and the only time I?ve ever enjoyed Jason Voorhees within his own franchise. The only question I have though is why did it take 6 films for them to do it right?

Tommy, the mentally disturbed protagonist of the last 2 films, wants to make sure Jason Voorhees is definitely dead, so he can put both his nightmares and fears to rest. While Tommy inspects Jason?s grave, a lightning bolt strikes Jason?s Corpse and reanimates him. With Jason alive again and invincible, Tommy must stop Jason?s mindless killings and make sure he is stopped once and for all. From a plot perspective, the premise is completely stupid. The idea of a bolt of lightning bringing someone back to life is really lazy, and shows that the audience isn?t expected to think much. It was different when they used it in the Frankenstein novel, and the film adaptations of it, because it explained Dr. Frankenstein?s explanation as to how the lightning would indeed bring to life a corpse. The film isn?t deep like that, and is completely predictable. After about 10 minutes, you can easily guess what sort of thing will happen, and which characters will live/die. There?s no room for surprise, and it plays like most of the other entries in the franchise. However, the film succeeds because Tommy is a character you can actually side with. In the previous 2 entries, Tommy was poorly developed and while they had some mildly clever ideas for the character, it was never expanded on too well. Jason Lives expands the character slightly, and while he?s still not the most developed or likeable, it?s done much better than any other character in the franchise so far. One of the key problems I?ve had with the franchise until this entry is that though Jason is meant to be a regular person, albeit physically deformed, he was always perceived as invincible; the sort of person who could be stabbed and be completely unaffected. It was only in Part IV that we actually saw how much damage it would take to cause him harm, and even kill him. In this, he?s still invincible and pretty much immune to harm and sever bodily damage, but despite the lazy and little explained reason as to why he is, they at least provide you with the explanation. Either you buy that he is a Zombie whose body has been brought back to life, or you don?t. Either way, they?ve at least informed you somewhat. For me, I went with it for the sake of trying to enjoy the film. It worked, and was the dumb fun that I occasionally enjoy watching. Naturally, it?s not the sort of film I watch when I want to think about the plot deeply, but it?s good that it has somewhat of a plot and showed me that the writers of this film were actually trying to write a decent film.

Unlike the previous entries in the series, the acting in this isn?t terrible. The problem is that it is so mediocre that it means nothing. Your characters are only as good as the actor that portrays them. Thom Matthews plays Tommy. This is the third actor to play Tommy, and I feel that he does a decent job. Though he?s not too convincing when it comes to displaying the emotions of the character, he does the job decently enough. It?s nothing special, but it?s good enough for the genre. Most of the other characters in the film were just side characters, only there to move the plot along. As a result, none of the performances are memorable and no-one stands out. They all do their jobs, and nothing more. The only other cast member worth a mention is C. J. Graham as Jason Voorhees. Performing as Jason is much like performing as Michael Myers from the Halloween series: you just need to be able to walk menacingly and convincingly kill people. Jason?s always been a character that?s had a lot of ?physical treatment? delivered to him. He gets stabbed all the time; people punch him, you need to be able to respond well enough to the pain and make it convincing for the audience. Graham does the job just fine, and he benefits from not having to give any dialogue.

One of the things I really admire about Jason Lives is the fact that it doesn?t contain any nudity, and it also knows when to leave well enough alone when it comes to gore. Besides a murderer in a Hockey Mask, the distinguishing aspects of Friday the 13th franchise are the high gore level and showing lots of breasts. Jason Lives has a lower Age Certificate, because it has limited gore. It focuses more on genuinely entertaining the audience, rather than going ?Here?s a hot girl, she?s going to strip off her top during this film?, or ?How much blood is going to be showed when Jason stabs this guy?. People always call me gay and weak stomached for these sorts of complaints with the films, but those people don?t seem to understand me. I?m certainly not gay; I just don?t need to see naked women in every film I watch to support my sexuality. As for being weak stomached, I?m a lover of gore when it?s done right. If you use the right amount, you can make me cringe and get a decent reaction from me, but most of my complaints with gore are down to it being overly excessive, yet not at all disturbing. That?s not to say that Jason Lives isn?t gory, because it has a fair few scenes where you see lots of blood, but I like fact that it doesn?t go overboard on either of these elements.

What I liked about the film, and separated it from the others, was its humour. Whereas none of the Friday the 13th films have intended to be deadly serious, all of them were funny in an unintentional way. This one is different; it uses comedic references and actually is written almost as part comedy. There were references to Dirty Harry that I picked up on, but what had me laughing the most was the opening Title Sequence. It?s a direct spoof of the typical James Bond opening. You know the one I?m talking about; Bond is walking across the screen, then stops and shoots at the screen, as the screen then wipes down with Red. The same is done here, but it?s Jason instead walking across the screen, and rather than shoot the audience, he throws his iconic machete (try watching that tiny clip with 3D glasses on, it?s much better than the 3D in Part III). That sort of humour is great, and is one of the aspects of the film that made me enjoy watching the film more than the others.

Despite some obvious flaws that I have mentioned, Jason Lives is actually a recommendable film for the casual audience. It works well, and is actually a sign that Friday the 13th films can be of decent quality when they?re not being lazily made for a quick success at the Box Office. If you only see 1 entry in the Friday the 13th franchise, make sure it?s this one.

Andrew?s rating: 6 out of 10.