Connect with us

Editorials

‘Freddy vs. Jason’ 20 Years Later – The Ultimate Horror Battle Still Satisfies After All These Years

Published

on

freddy vs jason netflix

I was somewhat of a late bloomer when it came to my exposure to horror. I lacked the cool older relative or friend that seems to serve as a customary gateway for many genre fans. I had seen a few horror movies growing up (Child’s Play and Scream each terrified me at different points in my youth), but seeing Freddy vs. Jason at the tender age of 15 is single-handedly responsible for the horror fandom that has consumed my life ever since. Without the movie — which hit theaters 20 years ago today — I very likely wouldn’t be writing for Bloody Disgusting now.

I knew of Freddy and Jason through pop culture osmosis, but I hadn’t seen any of the combined 17 films that comprised the Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th franchises when Freddy vs. Jason piqued my interest. Even with the advent of Netflix’s DVDs by mail, I had neither the patience nor the budget to rent them all before seeing the two slasher icons duke it out, so I thought I could get the gist by watching the first movie in each respective series. Elm Street became an immediate favorite, but you can imagine my surprise when I discovered that Jason isn’t even the killer in the first Friday.

Little did I know that horror fans had been waiting many years for Freddy vs. Jason, the development of which is among the most complicated in horror history. Fan desire for a crossover began shortly after Freddy started dominating cinemas in the mid-’80s and studio negotiations followed shortly after, but it seemed like the two slasher icons would finally face-off after Elm Street rights holders New Line Cinema purchased the rights to Jason. Years of speculation were all but confirmed by Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, which concludes with Freddy’s glove pulling Jason’s mask down to Hell.

But it would be another decade before Freddy vs. Jason came to fruition. More than 15 screenwriters tried to crack the story — costing the studio a reported $6 million — but none of them could satisfy all the parties necessary to secure a greenlight. Most takes read like overly complicated fan fiction, including retconning backstories with Freddy having an affair with Mrs. Voorhees and/or being a camp counselor who let Jason drown. (For more on the various false starts, Dustin McNeill’s 2017 book Slash of the Titans: The Road to Freddy vs. Jason is required reading.)

It was Damian Shannon and Mark Swift, who previously penned an unproduced adaptation of the comic Danger Girl for New Line, that conceived a concept which everyone could agree on. Both the Elm Street and Friday series were at their best when kept simple, and Freddy vs. Jason‘s setup is ingeniously straightforward compared to the prior attempts. It presents the classic versions of the horror icons known the world over while avoiding — but not ignoring — other baggage to keep it as widely accessible as possible. It also isn’t as outlandish, with the only real suspension of disbelief (beyond what’s inherent to supernatural slashers) being that Springwood, Ohio is within a night’s driving distance from Camp Crystal Lake, New Jersey.

Having recently revitalized another slasher favorite for modern audiences with Bride of Chucky, Ronny Yu was hired to direct. The incomparable Robert Englund would, of course, play Freddy Krueger for the eighth (and as yet final) time. Kane Hodder, who had become a fan favorite for his commitment to the previous four Friday the 13th installments, was expected to reprise the role of Jason, but Yu had a different vision for the character; he wanted a hulking killing machine with sympathetic eyes. Ken Kirzinger, who previously donned the hockey mask for a stunt sequence in Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan, fit the bill.

Freddy catches new viewers up to speed with a voice over during the prologue, explaining that the children of Elm Street and beyond have forgotten about him, rendering the Springwood Slasher powerless. He resurrects Jason from Hell in order to make people remember him. “He may get the blood, but I’ll get the glory,” he sneers. “And that fear is my ticket home.” The plan proves to be too successful, resulting in the two baddies duking it out first in the dream world where Freddy has home field advantage and then in the real world at Jason’s stomping grounds of Crystal Lake.

Not safe awake or asleep, among those embroiled in the chaos are final girl Lori (Monica Keena, Dawson’s Creek), love of her life Will Rollins (Jason Ritter, Joan of Arcadia), stuck-up Kia (Kelly Rowland of Destiny’s Child), party girl Gibb (Katharine Isabelle, Ginger Snaps), nerd Linderman (Chris Marquette, Fanboys), stoner Freeburg (Kyle Labine), Will’s loyal friend Mark (Brendan Fletcher, Tideland), Gibb’s obnoxious boyfriend Trey (Jesse Hutch, Batwoman), and Deputy Stubbs (Lochlyn Munro, Riverdale).

Freddy vs Jason 20 years

I went into Freddy vs. Jason with my limited knowledge and loved every second of its 98-minute runtime. 15-year-old Alex was admittedly scared, but I couldn’t get enough of the gratuitous bloodshed, the unexpected sense of humor, and the WWE-worthy battles. It didn’t hurt that the soundtrack perfectly coincided with the transition of my musical taste from nu metal heavy hitters (Slipknot, Mushroomhead, Powerman 5000, Ill Nino) to metalcore acts on the rise (Killswitch Engage, Hatebreed, Lamb of God, From Autumn to Ashes).

After the titans of terror’s bloody battle, the ambiguous ending allowed the debate between fans to continue in perpetuity. Friday the 13th defenders have criticized Freddy vs. Jason for feeling more like an Elm Street movie and aligning Jason with the teens to stop Freddy, while Fredheads have condemned the film for giving Jason nearly all the kills. Both points are valid, but the fact that such a dichotomy exists with no consensus is proof that the approach worked; no matter who you were betting on, an argument could be made that your preferred killer came out on top.

Freddy is more sinister than several of the later Elm Street installments, and England still chews the scenery with his one liners. Kirzinger is appropriately imposing, although Hodder’s signature Jason mannerisms are missed. Keena gives an operatic performance, in step with the movie’s tone, but it’s not without nuance; I’m surprised she didn’t go on to more high-profile roles. She also has good chemistry with Ritter. It’s always a treat to see Isabelle, even if she isn’t given much to do. Rowland makes a better singer than actor, although her arc with Marquette earns her a dash of sympathy. Labine looks and acts like a Wish.com Jason Mewes.

Yu and cinematographer Fred Murphy’s (Secret Window, Stir of Echoes) use of colorful lighting extends the elemental division between the killes — blazing red for Freddy, who died by fire; icy blue for Jason, who died by water — and affirms the heightened reality in which the film is set. The idiosyncratic aesthetic isn’t totally out of line for the Elm Street universe, which often explores the surrealism of dreams, but it’s certainly more visually ambitious than most of the Friday the 13th franchise.

Freddy vs Jason 20

Freddy vs. Jason is decidedly not the scariest, most original, or most realistic movie in either killer’s arsenal, but it may very well be the goriest. Drawing influence from his Hong Kong action roots, Yu unleashes geysers of blood with every slash, stab, and hack. Spotty CGI is largely offset by old-school practical effects. Trey’s death — in which he’s folded in half backwards into a mattress — is arguably one of Jason’s best kills, and I rank the blazing cornfield massacre as a highlight of either franchise.

The crowd-pleasing elements of Freddy vs. Jason hold up two decades on, but that’s not to say it isn’t dated. There’s an indefensible use of the F slur, which is especially egregious because it’s hurled as a casual taunt to Freddy by one of the teens. While the movie has glossy production value carried over from the post-Scream slasher boom, the jittery editing effect occasionally employed for emphasis makes it feel very early 2000s.

With a worldwide gross of $116.6 million on a budget of $30 million, sequel talks began almost immediately, but the horror remake trend sparked by The Texas Chainsaw Massacre a mere two months after Freddy vs. Jason‘s release would ultimately lead to both Friday the 13th (also written by Shannon and Swift) and A Nightmare on Elm Street getting rebooted. The story of Freddy vs. Jason continued in the Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash comic book limited series as a satisfactory consolation.

I don’t expect everyone to look at Freddy vs. Jason through the same rose-colored glasses, but I’m always taken aback when it falls toward the bottom of fans’ franchise rankings. It’s far from a classic — or even one of the strongest entries in either series — but it delivers on everything I wanted from a movie called Freddy vs. Jason. 20 years later, the passion for horror cinema it ignited in me still thrives.

Freddy vs Jason 20th

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading