The best of the trilogy?


Agree or disagree?

reply

I disagree. I think that the first is by far the best. There was nothing really memorable about this one for me.

reply

[deleted]

So, I was wondering why you liked it best, so I rewatched it, and while I think it's the most violent, I still like the first one better. The killer was much creepier for me, and I'll admit that I liked the feminist vibe in the first one even if it is a little cheesy.

reply

2>3>1.

reply

Part II (1987) is the best in my opinion because it clicks with kinetic mojo for a 'B' flick and is almost ingenious in the way it dares to sneer at slasher conventions for the first two-thirds. Instead, it focuses on establishing the quality characters, the fun antics of their outing and Courtney's bloody nightmares, the latter of which borrows from "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984).

It features the best female cast of the three, highlighted by winsome Crystal Bernard and blonde Heidi Kozak, not to mention redhead Juliette Cummins

Like "Friday the 13th Part V," part II emphasizes the lingering negative aftereffects of an episode with a mad killer. The driller killer from Courtney's nightmares is curiously part rockabilly greaser and part mid-80's metal maniac; naturally a little reminiscent of the rock star killer from "Trick or Treat" (1986), Sammi Curr, but less dead serious and more comical.

I suppose some of the editing in the suspenseful last act could be chalked up to amateurish filmmaking (e.g. when the girl falls from the ledge), but perhaps it better reflects what's really happening. I'd say more but I don't want to give away spoilers to those who haven't seen it. Let's just say 2 + 2 = 4. This original element was borrowed by later flicks.

The first one (1981) comes in second for me. While there are a few amusing bits, like the pizza-eating scene and the refrigerator sequence, it is a serious slasher, yet it's hampered by an unimaginative bluntness and the final act isn't all that compelling (I found my mind wandering a couple of times).

Part III (1990) starts out promising (highlighted by Keely Christian and Lulu Wilson), but becomes routine by the midpoint and never recovers, which isn’t helped by increasing tastelessness. It's arguably on par with the first film, but lacks the impressive creativity and pizzazz of part II. A marginally more effective slasher with the same plot is the contemporaneous "Sorority House Massacre II.”

reply

First was the best.

reply