It takes a while, but “Freddy Vs. Jason” eventually gives you what you came to see: The two most prolific (and resilient) serial killers in movie history hacking away at each other with machetes, blades, axes and whatever other sharp metal instrument happens to be lying around. Yes, there is a decisive winner (though not so decisive as to prevent a sequel). Yes, the gore flies in big, deep buckets. Yes, this is all as silly as it sounds.
And yet … while it’s easy to dismiss the “Friday the 13th” and “Nightmare on Elm Street” franchises as exploitative garbage, the fact that these two characters have amassed 17 movies, two TV spin-offs and countless imitators makes them worthy of consideration. Jason Voorhees, the unstoppable, silent killer who wears a hockey mask to hide his deformity, and Freddy Krueger, the child murderer with knife-tipped fingers who inhabits your dreams, are permanent fixtures of American pop culture (or at least junk culture), as recognizable as Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, but even more iconic.
The reason for their longevity is due, in large part, to their connection with adolescence. Freddy and Jason prey primarily on teenagers, of course, and their movies revolve around many of the same themes that John Hughes built his career on: Insecurity, alienation, sexuality, cruelty, rebellion. The difference is that these movies present a relentlessly dark and twisted view of those subjects, impaling kids as they discover the joys of casual sex, eliminating the usual security blankets of parents and authority, and proving that just because you are essentially good and responsible and well-behaved does not necessarily mean you will live to see the end credits (the lucky few who do survive are either bumped off in the prologue of the ensuing sequel, or else are never heard from again).
As a whole, the “Friday the 13th” and “Elm Street” movies provide a cathartic antidote to feel-good teen comedies, where everything always turns out OK in the end.
They’re a confirmation of the adolescent viewer’s worst fears, wrapped in a familiar, visceral formula that allows them to blow off steam. “Freddy Vs. Jason” continues in that vein, keeping the “Scream”-style self-referential irony to a minimum while doling out severe punishment to those deserving and not (it’s the first of these movies in ages where you’re actually sorry to see some of these characters meet their grisly ends).
The plot, intentionally reminiscent of “Frankenstein,” finds a powerless Freddy (Robert Engl und) resuscitating Jason (Ken Kirzinger) in order to facilitate his own return to Elm Street, then scrambling when Jason becomes a little too greedy with the machete, stealing Freddy’s spotlight. What’s most disappointing about “Freddy Vs. Jason” is how spectacularly unscary it is (the movie doesn’t even contain a single good jump), but anyone weaned on these movies – which is to say, pretty much anyone who grew up during the 1980s and 1990s – will get a kick out of seeing how those two universes, with all their respective tropes and rules, have been melded.
“Freddy Vs. Jason” was directed by Ronny Yu, who, after “Bride of Chucky” and now this film, officially becomes the go-to guy for Part Thirteens of any horror film franchise.
“Freddy Vs. Jason” isn’t as demented or over the top as “Bride of Chucky” was, but it’s certainly a well-made picture, with strong visual compositions, adequate acting (including Destiny’s Child’s Kelly Rowland, making her film debut) and a warped sense of humor that is sometimes intentional (“That goalie was pissed about SOMETHING!”) and sometimes not (“Kia, he has asthma!” may be the year’s funniest line of dialogue, although you have to hear it in context).
More importantly, though, Yu does not look down on this material, which may test the patience of viewers eager to get to the Grand Guignol showdown, but leaves “Freddy Vs. Jason” as a surprisingly ambitious entry into a genre that felt bankrupt and over more than a decade ago.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
