Review of a Review of “Friday The 13th 7: The New Blood” (1988)

Yes, I have yet another Friday the 13th offering!
This is a brief review of pizowell’s review of “Friday The 13th 7: The New Blood (1988),” wherein I take a few more swipes at Roger Ebert (hey, it’s part of what I do).
Quite simply, I like how pizowell presents his opinions. To begin with, he gives the impression that it’s ultimately just a movie, and not some grand thing for us to worry about. That is, of course, the complete opposite of how Roger Ebert treated the franchise, as you can see by scrolling down to my review of Ebert’s review of Friday Part 4 (or you could hold a séance and ask Roger Ebert’s ghost about the series, and hear his spectral righteous indignation).

Pizowell employs humor in his review, which is basically always a good thing. For example, while noting how MPAA censorship resulted in excessive editing of the movie, he says, “It looks like Jason himself edited it with a machete.” That qualifies as funny. I didn’t slap my knees in uncontrolled laughter, but it merits a snicker. (As an aside: I was going to say “it merits a sniggle,” but it turns out sniggle means “to fish for eels by pushing a baited hook into holes in which they are hiding”).

Rather importantly, this film was reviewed by someone who likes the franchise/genre, which is sometimes the best way to get an idea of whether a movie’s good or not. If a fan of the franchise likes the movie, you know it might actually have something. Maybe you won’t like it equally, maybe you’ll even hate it — but you’ll know it’s capable of being enjoyed by someone. And if a fan says, “Well, it’s the worst one in the series, and here’s why…,” you know he or she might make some valid points. If, on the other hand, it’s someone claiming all these movies are horrible and will lead to the destruction of mankind (or whatever), you can reasonably assume they are a little full of themselves, and probably not open to enjoying the movie (this isn’t to say Roger Ebert didn’t enjoy any horror movies, but the point remains).

If that’s not good enough, pizowell does assess some of the film’s greater flaws, which are rather obvious to anyone who’s watched the movie. He notes that the film looks overlit and cheap. There are no highly memorable characters, other than the very main ones. Most of the people are just disposable, stereotypical characters with boring dialogue, etc. These are standard horror movie problems, though, and can sometimes be part of the charm of such movies. As pizowell notes, a sense of nostalgia helps “sugarcoat” such flaws.

In closing:
I probably used too many parentheses in this writing. Goddamn it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s