GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

jansergeant Friday the 13th will always be a classic the horror genre but this one had more of a funny touches then it was actually scary. The story is a bit weird but OK, there were some suprising twists but the acting besides some was bad. Some ways of how Jason kills his victims were pretty original. Nice cameo of Corey Feldman in the beginning.

bensonmum2 In the five or so years since his run-in with Jason Vorhees, Tommy Jarvis (played by John Shepherd in this film) returns to Crystal Lake to enter a mental facility. Tommy is still haunted by visions of Jason. Tommy has also developed something of an anger management problem. Not long after Tommy's arrival, Crystal Lake is the scene of a series of gruesome murders. Who could be behind the killings? Is it Jason back from the dead? Is it Tommy? Or is it some other, unknown party? I don't apologize for being a Friday the 13th fan. I've been a fan since 1980. But I'm not blind. Not all Friday the 13th movies are created equal. Some are good and some are not so good. If I made a list of favorites, Friday the 13th: A New Beginning would fall toward the bottom of that list. It's not the worst, but it's close. My issues with the film are many, including:Character development – Never a strength in the series, character development is thrown out the window in Part 5. Unknown characters are introduced just so they can be killed five minutes later. A perfect example are the two greasers killed near the beginning of the movie. Who are these guys? It's hard to care whether a character lives or dies when fodder is all they are.Overacting – Junior and Ethel have to be two of the worst characters ever to appear in a Friday the 13th movie. I know a lot of people list Shelly from Part 3 as the most annoying character in the series, but for me, these two take the prize. They are just so over-the-top and unbelievable. I don't necessarily mind a little humor mixed into a film as heavy as Part 5, but his is way too much. Their actions completely take me out of the film every time they pop-up on screen. They're cringe-inducing. The mental facility – What kind of place is this? You gather together a bunch of troubled youths, but still you have more dangerous and sharp implements than you'll find at a knife show. There seem to be knives, hatchets, and machetes lying around everywhere.Roy Burns – Who? I remember seeing Part 5 in the theater and when the killer was unmasked (Scooby Doo style no less), I wasn't sure who I was looking at. Re-watching last night, I see all the hints and clues to the killer's identity, but Roy Burns is such a nothing character that I still didn't recognize him when he was unmasked. In the list of great slasher villains from the 80s and 90s, I've never seen Roy Burns' name listed alongside Freddy, Jason, and Michael. I don't care that the movie included a copycat killer, but make it someone we'd at least recognize.Outhouse serenade – Has there ever been a more ridiculous scene in a movie? It's another low point in a movie filled with low points. This is another of those lists that I could go on and on with, but, as I often say, what's the point? Friday the 13th: A New Beginning is a bad movie with a lazy script, an instantly forgettable killer, and characters we can't care about because we don't know them. Overall, it's a low point in the series for me. I can't bring myself to rate it any higher than a 3/10.

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com It's one thing when a franchise becomes successful because of a formula. It's another to repeat that formula into submission and bring nothing new into the equation. The original Friday the 13th (1980) was not spectacular storytelling but it did captivate its audience with a character's mysterious past. Sure it was ripping off John Carpenter's Halloween (1978) but it was a flattering gesture towards it. Friday the 13th Part II (1981) although not exactly keeping its continuity together, managed to continue the story of Jason Voorhees to some degree. Friday the 13th Part III (1982) lazily rehashed the concept again. The only thing making it pop out was literally all of its 3D gags it had to offer. Friday the 13th Part IV: The Final Chapter (1984) attempted to bring fresh blood to the table but ultimately did nothing new at all. What exactly was this series trying to accomplish? There has been no story development on Jason Voorhees since the second sequel. Apparently nobody saw the downhill slope this franchise traveled because it happened again.Picking up several years after the last entry, Tommy who killed Jason Voorhees is now grown up (John Shepherd) but still scarred from his encounter with the masked assailant. After being relocated to a more liberal asylum that allows its patients outdoors owned by Pam (Melanie Kinnaman), people begin dying off again and Shepherd thinks Jason has returned. While this occurs the local sheriff (Marco St. John) thinks Jason is around as well although there are several other suspects that could be doing the killing, including a crazy neighbor named Ethel (Carol Locatell). As much as this could be interesting because almost all the characters are mental patients, nothing is ever done with them. The screenplay was written by Martin Kitrosser, David Cohen and Danny Steinmann, who also directed. One would think someone would know what to do with these characters, especially Martin Kitrosser who wrote for Friday the 13th Part III (1982) and Friday the 13th Part IV: The Final Chapter (1984). Not one character gets the attention they deserve.Corey Feldman who played Tommy from the first film is credit as appearing. He's only in one scene and that's it. This doesn't develop the current state Tommy is in. All audiences will get is that Voorhees haunts him. Why? No reason is given. John Shepherd as the older Tommy barely says anything and at one point vanishes for a good portion too. Assisting Pam attend to the patients is another boy named Reggie "the Reckless" played by Shavar Ross who doesn't add much either. He's probably the most likable of the cast but he's not given much to work with. Melanie Kinnaman as Pam is another waste of time. All she does is show up for the finale pretty much. There are a bunch of other cast members to the list but none of them stand out because they are by the numbers fodder for the killer. None of the dialog is witty, clever or memorable at any level. If Danny Steinmann wrote for Savage Streets (1984) and Martin Kitrosser was the script supervisor for big budget productions that belong to Quentin Tarantino like Pulp Fiction (1994), why isn't that quality here?Even for gore hounds this film is a disappointment. Understandably the first submission to the MPAA was bound have cuts but this entry barely shows a thing. All other films before it had some level of explicitness to it. Here, much of the kills are off screen hardly showing a thing. It's not that entertaining when characters are so poorly written and all a viewer is betting on is how good the violence will be and it's not even shown. There's a nice scene where Jason Voorhees gets attacked briefly but in the end it doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Playing Jason was stunt man Tom Morga. This was Morga's only time playing Jason and for how he portrayed the character it was okay but nothing distinguishable. Many times its just Morga holding his machete up in the air for dramatic effect. Morga is better known for doing stunts in numerous films such as Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), Ghostbusters (1984), Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (1985), The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 2 (1986), and Spider-Man (2002).The cinematography by Stephen L. Posey is possibly the only real credible aspect to this picture. Not a whole lot works here but Posey manages to at least keep the picture looking somewhat decent. When the shots are during the daytime, the picture is clear. Even the shots during the night hours have decent lighting so the viewer can see what is going on. Posey has done work on other horror films like Bloody Birthday (1981) and Slumber Party Massacre (1982). Shockingly not even returning composer Harry Manfredini's film score could save this entry. Although the full scores did not receive different treatments in themes, fans could always rely on Manfredini bringing back the iconic sound of the original film. Oddly enough Manfredini did not do that. The main theme sounds in the same vein as the original but sounds very sloppy this time around and it's a bit off putting. The assumption could be that because the title had "a new beginning" in it, Manfredini needed to make a slightly new theme? Why bother though, if a sequel is this bad, keep the good stuff.Camera-work is adequate for the entry but nothing else is here. The actors and their performances are as forgettable as they come. The music is bizarrely different from past film scores despite it being the same composer. The story doesn't make sense and the gore almost is non existent.

Michael_Elliott Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)** 1/2 (out of 4) Tommy Jarvis (John Shepherd) is now a teenager and is sent to a home for troubled youths. Once there we learn that he's still suffering major damage from the trauma that he suffered as a child thanks to Jason Voorhees. Before long various people are being killed off and it seems that Tommy's damaged mind might be behind it.Friday THE 13TH: A NEW BEGINNING is probably one of the most hated sequels in the history of cinema but I must say that I think the film is a lot more entertaining than many of the A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET sequels as well as several films from the other major horror series. And yes, this here is a lot better than JASON GOES TO HELL and Friday THE 13TH PART VIII. With that said, on a technical level there's no question that this here is a pretty awful movie. The performances are weak. The death scene are rather lame. The entire mystery is downright stupid. So, why do I still like this movie? To me this fifth film in the series is hated because of who the killer isn't. Yes, by now we all know who the killer is but why can we be mad at the film when the title tells us we're starting something new? I really don't mind the film going off course even if it was a failure. The entire mystery aspect really isn't played out all that well because the screenplay and director never tries to really push it. There are a couple red herrings brought up at the start but the screenplay never bothers to try and build the mystery of who is doing the killings.That's because the majority of the running time is devoted to death scenes. There's a large number of people that are killed off here, which is usually a great thing but sadly the death scenes here are pretty forgettable. The biggest problem is that a lot of the violence happens off screen and that's not something fans of the series wanted. I'm not sure if the producers were fearful of the MPAA or if they were just trying to deliver something different. Either way, the lack of any real kills is rather annoying.With that said, the entire film has a very cheap feel like a direct-to-video film that was trying to rip-off the series. It never really feels like a F13 movie and I'd argue that it almost comes across as some cheap softcore film. There's a lot of nudity here and a terrific sex scene. There are some really annoying characters and a lot of questionable material from the screenplay. You could even argue that the film has more laughs than anything else and especially how the Vic and Joey characters play out. I might even go as far to say that the film was meant to be a comedy. Hell, how to you explain the mother-son redneck characters?