6.1/10
28%
49%
26%
3/5
62%
In the emerging market of horror sequels of the 1980s, the Friday the 13th saga has to be the most prevalent with almost yearly releases until the end of the decade.
While you could argue that Mrs Vorhees and her son Jason’s tale had been finished quite neatly at the end of the first film, with Halloween still exceptionally popular it would be stupid not to capitalise on the horror fever taking over cinemas, especially if you have an existing IP you know people resonate with.
The imaginatively titled Friday the 13th: Part 2 starts off with us seeing basically the last 15 minutes of the first film edited down a little bit. We then cut to a year after the terrible murders at Camp Crystal Lake and Alice, the sole survivor of the massacre, is not doing too well.
There are several shots of a man’s feet walking purposefully towards Alice’s house and… Well I don’t want to spoil it but let’s just say that Alice doesn’t make it to the final girl category in the sequel.
Five years on (so in theory we’re in 1986 now if the dates in the trailer are correct), a training camp for counsellors is opening up just down the road from Camp Blood Camp Crystal Lake. The people are there to learn what makes a good camp counsellor so they can go off to work on other camps around the country.
As with the first film, everyone is there for a good time first and work second, and this means lots of alcohol, drugs and of course, sex — all the key ingredients to make them prime targets for a crazed killer, right?
But there’s one small problem, Mrs Vorhees was very much dead at the end of the last film, and her son died in 1957 so who is the killer going to be?
It’s the last night for the trainees before work starts in earnest so a bunch of them pile into to cars and head to the local bar for one last night of freedom. Several of them stay behind at the camp: a couple because they want some “alone time”, one girl because she’s tired, Mark stays back because he’s in a wheelchair and no one wants to put up with a drunk in a wheelchair and Vickie decides to stay with Mark as they’ve been a bit flirty.
One-by-one they’re stalked by an unseen killer as the rest of their friends continue to party at the bar not knowing how much danger their friends are in.
Returning from the bar early, Ginny and Paul are met with the horror of missing friends, a bloody bedroom and a hooded attacker.
Who is the stranger attacking them? What connection do they have to Mrs Vorhees and Camp Crystal Lake? And will Ginny and Paul be able to survive the night?
Cash Grab Or Clever Pivot?
🎃Warning! Spoilers for Friday the 13th: Part 2 ahead!🗡️
The rehashing of the last 15 minutes of the first film struck me as particularly unnecessary. I know that we’re always told to “show, don’t tell” but seeing basically the entire end of the first movie seems a bit excessive, especially when you consider that after the repeat finishes, Alice is only in the film for another 5 minutes. It’s almost like they used it to pad out the run time as it would struggle otherwise.
Moving on the the main film itself, there’s nothing really to set it apart from the first movie, if anything the kills are more mundane and less inventive with the majority of victims being slashed with a knife. This is unusual as it’s often the case that a sequel tries to up the kill count and make the deaths even more of a spectacle but that doesn’t happen here.
You could argue that it’s to ground the killer in reality, whereas you could also argue that Michael Myers from Halloween is more of a supernatural killer. but as the killer turns out to be Jason, the boy who apparently drowned back in 1957 and whose death turned his mother Mrs Vorhees into a murderous psychopath, so how is that not supernatural?
Jason is also more of a lumbering hulk than his Halloween counterpart. He’s easily confused and overpowered by Ginny on more than one occasion and while this could be down to the fact that he’s a child in an adult’s body that doesn’t explain his level of violence and hatred. I know kids can be evil but I don’t think that can be that evil.
Also Jason isn’t in his iconic final form — wearing his famous hockey mask. In this film he’s got what looks like pillowcase over his head which makes him look like a rather comedic character and not a frightening serial killer.
While the first film offered an interesting twist on the serial/spree killer genre, Part 2 doesn’t really offer much different in order to justify its existence apart from introducing us to adult Jason. As I said in my review of Friday the 13th, I’m not familiar with the franchise, other than knowing Jason ends up with a hockey mask for some reason so without this film we wouldn’t have 10 (yes, TEN) sequels featuring Jason as the main killer.
So while they could have let the story rest at the end of the first movie, you have to admit that Friday the 13th: Part 2 allowed the franchise to grow into something that the first film couldn’t allow it to become because of how the story ended.
Friday the 13th: Part 2 was an enjoyable watch but it didn’t provide anything new or definitive to the genre and it’s a film that I could take or leave if I am honest. It will be interesting to see how much of an impact (Jason’s appearance aside) it has on the rest of the franchise which I might pick up again at some point in the future.
What do you think? Was this film necessary in order to keep the legacy going or would it have been better to leave it as a one-and-done with the first film?
Watch this film if you want to point people at an excuse why it’s always better to head to a bar than to stay in a cabin in the middle of the woods.
Apple TV
Google Play Movies
Fandango At Home
Amazon Video
YouTube
Plex
Paramount+ Amazon ChannelParamount+ Roku Premium ChannelParamount Plus Premium
FawesomeParamount Plus Essential
