Serious retread of the first film with some differences
I'm fan of the "Friday the 13th" franchise even though I’m not a gorehound and only occasionally watch slasher flicks. It has nothing to do with nostalgia since I didn't become a fan until I I saw 1985's "Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning" on TV one night. I think I like these movies because they typically involve young people in a fun camp-type environment in the woods; the presence of an unstoppable killer, who increasingly becomes a hideous monster over the course of the series, adds an air of danger and suspense. Include scores of gorgeous females and various filming locations around North America and you have a fabulously entertaining franchise.
Released in 1981, one year after the first film, "Part II" is basically a retread with different characters, a different killer and a different camp on the same lake, not far from "Camp Blood," i.e. Camp Crystal lake. In reality, the film was shot on an entirely different location; specifically Kent, Connecticut.
It's interesting how none of the films were shot at the same location even though, typically, the location in the story is the general vicinity of Camp Crystal Lake. The locations of the films in the series include northern New Jersey (I), Connecticut (II), Southern Cal (III, IV, V & IX), Georgia (VI), Alabama (VII), British Columbia (VIII & XI), New York City (VIII), Toronto (X & XI) and Texas (XII).
It's the camp-like settings of most of the franchise and the unrelenting monster that is Jason Voorhees that especially sets "Friday the 13th" apart from similar franchises.
Concerning the tone, the first two films are serious in nature with the expected antics of youths on vacation in the woods, but the series introduced a campy element in Part III, which plagued several subsequent entries (V, VI, IX & X) until the reboot in 2009. Not that I'm complaining much, as these films are only quasi-believable anyway; still, I prefer the serious tone. Speaking of which, the only thing questionable about the first film, as far as realism goes, is how the killer is able to throw an adult corpse through a window or hang a body from a door, etc. But I suppose these things can be attributed to the powerful psycho Voorhees gene (or the demon thing disclosed in 1993’s “Jason Goes to Hell”).
Many people find these films scary and shocking and the first two movies have some chilling atmospherics, some of the others as well, but, with the exception of the 2009 reboot, I don't find these movies particularly scary. They're sometimes creepy, sometimes suspenseful, sometimes exciting and always fun & entertaining, but not scary. In fact, I usually bust out laughing at the inevitable death scenes. There are numerous jump-scares, of course, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Part II doesn't overstay its welcome at a mere 87 minutes. It introduces the adult Jason Voorhees, but he's noticeably smaller in stature and more human than in later sequels. A couple of times the main protagonist, Ginny (Amy Steel), is able to deter him fairly easily (like opening a car door or kicking him in the groin). Speaking of Ginny, she's a fine heroine in the manner of Alice in the first film and Pam in Part V. Kirsten Baker plays the requisite hottie, Terry, and the filmmakers don’t fail to highlight her beauty. Unfortunately, the ambiguity of the ending is inexplicable.
GRADE: A-
(If you wonder why I rate a film like this so highly, I'm grading it according to what it is: a slasher flick. No genre is beyond redemption or above contempt and this one delivers the goods).
