This was the first, in what turned out to be several, Friday the 13th sequels. The original idea was to attach the Friday the 13th moniker to a Horror movie every year, without the movies having any continuity to the original film. The "Halloween" franchise actually practiced this idea, when they released, "Halloween III: Season of the Witch". The 1983 release entirely distanced itself from the main antagonist of the series, Michael Myers. It also went on to bore audiences to tears, on it's way to bombing at the box office. Five years later Michael Myers returned. Wisely, Paramount prevented the folly of straying from an established brand, and insisted that Jason Voorhees take over as the villain in the series, and millions of dollars later, the rest is history.

Stylistically, the film is nearly identical to the original. The direction of the film borrows heavily from the Italian slasher films that came before it. In this case, borrowed heavily is a gross understatement. Steve Miner, the film's director, went on to lift scenes directly from Mario Bava's, "Twitch of the Death Nerve". The most notable example is when Jason drives a spear through a pair of lovers. The scene is a shot-for-shot ripoff of the one that originated in the Bava film a decade earlier.

Plagiarism aside, there are plenty of other things in the movie that annoy me. The body count rises so it doesn't seem quite as slow as it's predecessor. Still, it's downright brutal watching the counselors, literally killing time, in between meaningful scenes. In "Friday the 13th: Part 2", we get to see counselors playing chess, arm wrestling, and screwing around with vintage handheld video games. All the while, engaging in tediously forced dialogue.

The plot holes that became a staple of the franchise are also very evident here. What's always bothered me, is how Jason ended up discovering the "Alice" character from the previous movie. I don't understand, did he just look her up in the phone book, or what? Well, he must have, because she received a creepy phone call, just minutes before her life was ended with an ice-pick. But that would have meant that Jason called her from within her own house, right? Or, maybe she had another deranged stalker. You'd think she would have explored some witness protection options. I don't know why I'm trying to apply logic here.

Speaking of Jason, he was far from perfected at this point. Watching the character run is awkward. While watching him struggle to overtake the "Paul" character in a wrestling match is shameful. Aside from that, when Jason's on camera, he is no more intimidating than any other inebriated imbecile with a pair of overalls and a bag over his head.

In case you haven't already figured it out, I'm not a very big fan of this chapter. I suppose it's taken on some sort of cult following, but that doesn't mean it's good. If you're set on watching all of the "Friday's", I suppose this is a necessity. If you just want to see a good slasher film, might I suggest, "Twitch of the Death Nerve". The makers of this film sure must've enjoyed it.

At one point, I promised myself that I would never force myself to witness another Guillermo del Torro horror movie. That was shortly after I witnessed his previous abomination, "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark". If you were lucky enough to miss "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark", it was inspired by a 1970's made for T.V. movie, that basically dealt with deranged tooth fairies. Fortunately, I've chosen to repress any further details from that ill-fated trip to the theater in 2010. How could I ever again trust the judgement of Guillermo del Torro after such a wretched performance? Never again, I said. Of course, I don't know why I make such bold claims. One way or another, I convince myself to watch almost every horror movie. Plus, we'd already watched "Django Unchained" and the only other choice was "Gangster Squad". A bad horror movie is better than a bad gangster movie, right? Hmm, I guess I'm not sure about that. Well, at least "Mama" isn't a found-footage movie, the likes of which I absolutely loathe.

Luckily, "Mama" is better than Guillermo del Torro's previous abortion, but it still isn't very good. It basically delivers the same pattern as most modern horror movies. It starts off promising, before degenerating into a convoluted mess.

The biggest problem with "Mama" is the storytelling. The picture never knows what it wants to be. The characters that aren't entirely pointless, end up spending too much time on the fence. This is most unforgivable when it comes to the movie's antagonist. In a horror movie, or supernatural thriller, or whatever it was del Torro was shooting for here, it just muddies the film when what you're suppose to fear wears a grey hat. Then again if every single character in the film is a "-tweener", eventually you just become indifferent to the whole cast. That's how I felt about halfway through "Mama", I just quit caring, shortly afterwards I was just bored.

Guillermo del Torro does deliver some impressive CGI, and when the film's ghost is ambiguous, "Mama" delivers some creepy moments. Unfortunately, the latter portion of the film is not as subtle. Once the shroud is lifted the apparition is far less intimidating and it's given far too much screen time. Before long the visuals just become comical. If I feel like pointing and laughing at something that's suppose to be terrifying, there's obvious problems.

Although it wasn't very good, nothing offered was utterly offensive...until the ending. The conclusion is absolutely shameful. I notice this with just about every recent horror movie, writers just can't bring their stories to a satisfying conclusion. It's ridiculous. I guess it's time to brush up on H.P. Lovecraft and start studying Alfred Hitchcock, because quite frankly, they aren't getting the job done.

In the end, "Mama" is certainly worth missing. It's also just salt of the earth. With the exception of the erratic characters, you could slap the same review on "Sinister" or any other recent horror movie. They just aren't delivering the goods.

The most important thing to remember when you watch a new Texas Chainsaw Massacre film, is that you can't compare it to the original. No movie will ever reach the grisly terror that was unleashed in 1974. If you're hoping to stroll by the theater and witness anything comparable, you're setting yourself up for a massive disappointment. If you do elect to view new "Chainsaw" movies, it's best to judge them as just another slasher film. If you do, you'll realize that there have been some entertaining installments in the past 39 years. Well, few, but still.

"Texas Chainsaw 3D" came about when Platinum Dunes announced that they would not be producing any future installments of the series. This prompted Lionsgate, who enthusiastically promised great things, to secure the rights to the franchise. Volumes could be written about how poorly Platinum Dunes handled several of their remakes, but to their credit, the pair of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" movies weren't that bad. Both films were far from perfect, but they attempted to make the story their own, while delivering some sadistic brutality. Surely, if Lionsgate made good on their bold promises, fans would be in for some quality Horror movies. Unfortunately, the studio's initial effort failed miserably.

"Texas Chainsaw 3D" was intended to be a direct sequel to the 1974 classic. The best parts of the 2013 version are the first 5 minutes when they recap Tobe Hooper's film. Sadly, I'm not even exaggerating. The only good parts of this movie are the highlights of another movie. After introducing several plot holes, the story attempts to start off exactly when the original ends. Everything that transpires from that point on is just ridiculous. Even by slasher movie standards, the storytelling is absolutely shameful. The most unforgivable blunder is the fact that the filmmakers actually attempt to make the viewer feel sympathetic toward Leatherface and the Sawyer family! Really? I couldn't even make this up if I tried.
What an embarrassing error in judgement. So they begin the film by showing the clan shred an invalid with a chainsaw, before torturing his sister to the brink of mental incapacity, but this behavior is apparently excusable because the whole lot is just misunderstood. Talk about a massive departure from the realm of competent storytelling. The self-proclaimed writers are actually attempting to shovel this manure down the viewer's throat. As a lifelong fan of Horror movies, I was offended.

Aside from the horrendous liberties taken with the characters, this film offers nothing unique or even vaguely interesting. The murders are generic, the body count is slim, and to label the 3-D effects uninspired, would be a gross understatement. "Texas Chainsaw 3D" is an utter catastrophe.

The makers of this film should be entirely ashamed of the feces that they served up. They should be as embarrassed to have made this wretched film, as I am to say that I spent money on it. Here's hoping the crew responsible for this negligence aren't allowed anywhere near this franchise in the future.

I don't remember the original "The Hills Have Eyes". I saw the movie, at least a couple of times, when I was younger, but it failed to leave a lasting impression on me. I think I even owned the VHS version at some point. I don't remember it being a bad movie, boring perhaps. I seem to remember it being just another reason to consider Wes Craven criminally overrated. Maybe I'll revisit the original at some point. Until then, when I'm in the mood to watch a Horror movie, you probably won't hear me say, "You know what I'm in the mood for? I'd really like to watch the 1970's version of 'The Hills Have Eyes' directed by Wes Craven." It probably won't happen anytime soon.
The remake on the other hand, is a truly disturbing slab of cinema. It was unleashed at a time when remaking Horror movies was routine. Beginning with "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", filmmakers that were unable to capture the grisly atmosphere that made the originals terrifying, would instead, amplify the violence and gore. In most cases, while entertaining in their own way, the efforts fell significantly short of the originals. I don't think that's the case with "The Hills Have Eyes".
The 2006 version, succeeded in becoming an excruciating spectacle. Although exaggerated at times, the deformed "hill people" are a lurid visual. As foul as the antagonists are visually, the most distressing elements of the two hour journey is the sordid behavior on display. Alexandre Aja's re-imagining runs a gauntlet of malevolent moments. The viewer is exposed to mutilation, suicide, kidnapping, cannibalism, and at it's worst, delves into rape and sexual humiliation. I'd venture to guess that even the most desensitized members of the audience would find something in the film to cringe at.
It's difficult to say, whether I'd be still consider this film successful if the shock value wore off, but I imagine that's irrelevant. The point of a Horror movie is to make you uncomfortable. "The Hills Have Eyes" succeeds.

This is the film that launched the most successful Horror franchise in the history of the United States. It spawned 9 sequels, a crossover with Freddy Krueger, an eventual reboot, and a whole host of imitators. It was originally made to cash in on the success of the most brilliant slasher movie of all-time, John Carpenter's "Halloween". Needless to say, it took on a life of it's own.
Many would argue that this is the best of the Friday the 13th movies, and it's not difficult to understand their argument. After all, this was the birth of some of the most iconic characters in the history of Horror. I'm sure that it also benefited from being released prior to the eventual saturation of the slasher genre. Sean Cunningham was able to produce an ominous atmosphere, in what was probably one of the best settings ever imagined for a Horror movie. This film, along with it's sequels, had a pronounced influence on me as a child, so I'll always give Friday the 13th credit, at least from a nostalgic standpoint.
Unfortunately, I don't consider Friday the 13th that great of a movie. To me, much of the appeal of a "Friday the 13th" movie, was watching Jason kill people. The initial installment borrowed heavily from the Italian films, that were very influential at the time. The camera normally pans the surroundings with a voyeuristic approach. So in most cases, you're witnessing events from the viewpoint of the killer. It is effective at times, but it has never been my favorite technique. True to the Italian formula, the mysterious killer isn't revealed until the film's climax. In Friday the 13th, this results in a largely embarrassing cat fight between Pamela Voorhees and the "Alice" character. Further complaints would include the overly methodical pace, and the fact that after 30 years, the film hasn't aged well at all.
This is probably one of the better installments in the series, which might not be saying that much. You can certainly do worse if you're sitting down with a Friday the 13th movie, but there are far more entertaining slasher movies to spend your time on too.