Ebert: "Jason X sucks on the levels of storytelling, character development, suspense, special effects, originality, punctuation, neatness and aptness of thought."
April 26, 2002 7:01 AM   Subscribe

Jason rules. And anyway the sequels business is pretty tricky, how can you do part 10 of a successful franchise and still have a good movie? Not even Coppola could pull off a part Three
posted by matteo at 7:33 AM on April 26, 2002

[Nigel Tufnel impression]

That's just nitpicking, isn't it?
posted by sacre_bleu at 7:44 AM on April 26, 2002

Is Friday the 13th a successful franchise? I mean, obviously there must be enough interest if they managed to get this one released in theaters, but still...
posted by UnReality at 8:10 AM on April 26, 2002

matteo: Bond seems to have pulled it off OK :) Not great, mind you (it's all been downhill since From Russia With Love IMHO) but... recent Bonds (the next will be #20) have been getting slightly more than 1/2 star :) [And no, I don't know why Bond can and no other series of which I'm aware can get past the third film, though I'd love to hear theories.]
posted by louie at 8:14 AM on April 26, 2002

This is a line from the movie?: "You weren't alive during the Microsoft conflict. We were beating each other with our own severed limbs." Yeah.
posted by panopticon at 8:17 AM on April 26, 2002

Wait... do you guys hear that?

*runs into bomb shelter*

Yes this movie is going to BOMB.

This is going to be one of those movies that other countries will torture people with. Force them to sit down and watch this movie and they will squeal. I don't think words can express how much this movie is going to suck. Of course, this is just my opinion :)
posted by thebwit at 8:19 AM on April 26, 2002

Didn't Star Wars get past a third movie? And Star Trek got it half right, with every OTHER sequel in the chain of movies not sucking.
posted by fnirt at 8:25 AM on April 26, 2002

"Camp Crystal Lake Research Facility." Splendid.
posted by delapohl at 8:30 AM on April 26, 2002

[Nigel Tufnel impression]

This series will go to eleven?
posted by kindall at 8:48 AM on April 26, 2002

This reminds me of the Simpsons quote: "Okay, Marge, you hide in the abandoned amusement park; Lisa, the pet cemetery; Bart, spooky roller disco; And I'll go skinny-dipping in that lake where the sexy teens were killed a hundred years ago tonight."

I miss good scary movies. I don't mind a little blood, but I want to be jumping out of my theater seat and nervously looking under my car when I get to the parking lot.
posted by GaelFC at 9:18 AM on April 26, 2002

a friend of mine told me that if this movie did well, then whomever would start producing a jason vs. freddy movie, which may be reason enough to see jasons X. that is, if both movie series didn't suck!
posted by mcsweetie at 9:47 AM on April 26, 2002

Is this the first time a film critic for something other than an a) website or b) "alternative" newspaper has used the word "suck" to describe a movie's quality? If so, this may be an, er, milestone of sorts. (Not objecting, just observing with amusement.)
posted by thomas j wise at 10:05 AM on April 26, 2002

La la la la la Lexa Doig la la la la la...

(Note: I am the immature rube who sometimes pilfers Opus Dark's nick. ::runs away::)
posted by Opus Dark at 10:09 AM on April 26, 2002

fnirt: I should have said 'have a movie past the third that didn't suck.' Ep. 1 (sadly) didn't meet that criteria; remains to be seen if Ep. 2 will or will not. I guess Star Trek meets that criteria about as well as Bond does; something like 50% of the movies past #3 are good. I can't think of any other series where that number is much above 0%.
posted by louie at 10:23 AM on April 26, 2002

Actually from this review, I kinda want to see this movie.
posted by phatboy at 10:26 AM on April 26, 2002

The Land Before Time...another success?

Will LOTR suffer the same "three's a crowd" fate?
posted by Mach3avelli at 10:42 AM on April 26, 2002

I read the Ebert review, and my first thought was, "Well, DUH." All the other Jason movies sucked, why shouldn't this one? You don't go see them because they're good. You go see them because they're fun. You'd have thought he was expecting Citizen Kane. Jason X sucking is hardly a bitter betrayal of the cinematic arts; hell, it's kinda the whole point.
posted by RylandDotNet at 10:55 AM on April 26, 2002


I despise Ebert, he's such a smarmy ass. I'd like to flog him over the head with a club, like he flogs me over the head with his wretched reviews. (I try to avoid them, but some times the bylines piss me off too much and, *wham!*, I'm read it.)

Jason X is supposed to be a bad movie. All slasher flicks are. That's the allure. That is why B-movies are such great fun; they are entertaining in their ineptitude and silliness.
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:07 AM on April 26, 2002

I was horrified when I heard that they were making a sequel to "Malcolm X," but even I didn't expect it to be this bad.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 11:15 AM on April 26, 2002

I mean, everyone knows that the real action this summer will be Michael Myers in the new Holloween movie.
posted by ph00dz at 11:38 AM on April 26, 2002

My question is: whatever made people think this movie wouldn't suck? The first of the series was terrible, and it achieved a relatively stable level of badness about about halfway through the second movie.

Jason X was actually completed two years ago, but it sucked so hard that it opened a wormhole in spacetime and was thrust forward two years to torture us with its badness.
posted by mrmanley at 11:44 AM on April 26, 2002

matteo: Bond seems to have pulled it off

I hear you Louie, but the Bond franchise had 30 yrs worth of Fleming books to work on. Goldeneye was the first Bond movie not adapted from a Fleming book (the reason: the author died so he's in demand but not available to write some more...)
Jason doesn't have 30 yrs worth of bestsellers. Unfortunately
posted by matteo at 1:37 PM on April 26, 2002

i remember seeing this preview during blade 2 and thinking to myself two things:

1.) oh god... oh god... that's just horrible. make it die.
2.) new line cinema just loves turning their villains into super shredder...
posted by lotsofno at 5:32 PM on April 26, 2002

When I first saw the trailers and the poster I thought, "Oh my God." I couldn't believe they'd actually made it - I mean, it's in space for crying out loud! I figured I might watch it on DVD if I ever got curious enough. But the more I think about it, the more I think I might see it on my next day off. It looks so bad it's almost good. I predict that it's going to be the riotous comedy smash hit of the year!

Then again, maybe my mother's love of cheeseball horror movies screwed me up. I remember watching "Friday the 13th, Part 8: Jason Takes Manhattan" after she taped it one night, and we watched it together one weekend while my father was watching sports in another room. Ah, the memories of youth. I will have to do the same for my own children, some day...
posted by sammy at 6:03 PM on April 26, 2002

Why does Ebert even bother to see a movie he planned on trashing anyways? It's almost as if he wrote the review on the ride over to the screening room.

Jason X suffered from lack of "originality" and "neatness"— What'd you expect, you moron!? It's a freakin' slasher flick!

You'd think a guy who's seen thousands of bad movies (and even wrote one) could roll with the punches once in a while.
posted by Down10 at 1:32 AM on April 28, 2002

Hold up -- CapAlert doesn't like it. This changes everything.
posted by NortonDC at 12:15 PM on May 1, 2002

« Older Israeli reservists tell of Jenin assault   |   Remember When? Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments