One, Two, Jason's Coming for You...
filed on Thursday, August 21, 2003 at 1:26:27 AM CST

I can't tell you how long I waited for the long awaited Freddy vs. Jason movie to come out.  Probably since the minute that it was mentioned in some fan-mag somewhere.  All I know is it's been a damned long time.  My history with Friday the 13th is a long one, dating all the way back to watching horrifying movies with my father.  It's funny, because I actually ran out and picked up the first four movies just to have something to go through, and somehow, I hope they remake the original someday soon (I haven't unwrapped the other three yet).

Rewatching the original F13, I'm reminded how as a kid I was turned on by most of the movies in this series.  It seems like someone's always fucking someone, and Jason (or his mother, as the case is in the original) is always lurking right around the corner.  Kevin Bacon, DAMN he was a cutey way back then.  Not that I think he's bad now, just a bit rugged with age.  But he was a hot one.  All of that aside though, it's funny my memories of the Jason flicks.  I think the part I was most frightened by in the first one was the end.  Woman out on the lake, Jason himself pops up and pulls her under... up until that point, Jason was just the kid who died at Camp Crystal Lake.  The mother was out killing.

Then I remember what I think is Part II; Jason walks into some girl's house (probably the survivor from the first one) and drives an icepick through her head.  This is where the series went for even more gore.  I can't tell you much about Part III, because I don't really remember it.  Part IV on the other hand, that one has a funny tale to it.  My friend, Hugh, and I were watching it one night, getting a kick out of it, as Jason bursts through a door, chases a girl around the house, she then runs to the front door, opens it (there's a huge hole in it, mind you), slams it, and Jason stops for a moment, either thinking, "Did she just slam that hole in my face?" or actually thinking, "Damn, she's dumb."  It was just too funny.  All I remember of Part V is that it's got something to do with an ambulance driver.  Then comes Part VI, where someone decides they want to make sure Jason's dead, dig him up, stab him with a metal rod from a nearby graveyard fence, and watch as it's struck by lightning, rejuvenating him.  This is also the movie Hugh and I were watching when Jason went to kill someone and the power in the house went off.  I think, perhaps, that was the most frightening a horror movie has ever been!

Now, the titles along the way got silly.  Part IV: The Final Chapter, Part V: A New Beginning, Part VI: Jason Lives, and that brings us to Part VII: The New Blood.  I actually took my Freshman-year girlfriend, Lori Palmer (really great girl... somedays I still miss her!), to see it.  There were two other people in the theater, and we spent more time laughing and making fun of the movie than being scared by it.  Of course, by now, not a lot is scary.  Then Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (who comes up with these titles?), and the "Part IX" of the series, Jason Goes to Hell, the first movie from New Line Cinemas, having bought the rights to Jason from Paramount.  They tried to give the movie a plot.  They tried to start explaining Jason.  It failed, because they left too many questions, and the movie was far too campy.  Still, it was better for plot than Jason X, which really, just sort of brought Jason into sci-fi.  It did have its moments, but as everything since VI, it was more comedy than horror.

The first time I ever saw Freddy Kreuger was at Hugh's house, watching the origina A Nightmare on Elmstreet.  Then we saw Part II: Freddy's Revenge, both on video.  After that, the remaining four movies we saw in the theater.  Dream Warriors saw the return of Heather Langenkamp from the first, and I think she finally bit it in The Dream Master.  Then The Dream Child came, and finally, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.  And that ended seeing Kreuger in the theater.  I still haven't seen all of Wes Craven's A New Nightmare on Elm Street, but the concept sounds interesting.

Anyway, now that I've completely bored you with the very brief history of the two lines, my biggest fear with Freddy vs. Jason was that it wouldn't make any sense.  After all, why would Jason Voorhees leave Camp Crystal Lake to go to Elm Street?  Sure, New Line teased us at the end of IX with Freddy pulling Jason's mask underground, but that sure didn't hint at a plot.

Well, after having seen it on opening night, I have to say, I'm damned impressed with how they handled the story.  It made rather decent sense, and didn't leave me going, "Huh?"  In fact, Freddy summons Jason to sort of resurrect his own memory that has been repressed by the citizens of the town.  He knows they'll think of him if people start dying.  And he's about to strike out when he comes to the realization that Jason just won't stop killing.  Yeah, the movie's got some campy, comedic scenes (which is necessary these days), but it also has thrilling scenes where you're sort of on the edge of your seat hoping the next victim will get away (or praying he'll get killed).

My first reaction at the end of the movie?  "That was fucking awesome!"  I really enjoyed it.  It was 1000% better than I thought it would be.  No, the critics aren't likely to recommend it, and no, it's probably not going to be scary... but I recommend it to any fan of either of these series.  It's very well done, and quite enjoyable.  The battle between Jason and Freddy is so well done, it's not even funny, and there's a particular death that sort of shows they're willing to keep on killing while they're going at it.

The end of the movie?  You have to go see it.  I'm not going to tell you who won!

It's Only Love
filed on Thursday, August 21, 2003 at 1:55:06 AM CST

You know, I'm starting to wonder just who it is pulling strings here in the United States of America.  I seem to remember way back in oh, what is it?  The 1700's?  Somewhere 'round about 1776ish or so... There were these fledgling little colonies who took up arms against Great Britain for their independence, wanting to be able to have representation for their taxation, and, the focus of this little rant, the separation of Church and State.  Yeah... we've done that really well.  The words "In God We Trust" are all over our seals, our money, engrained in the country to a ludicrous degree.  Great, fine, whatever.  I don't really care, because I do trust that God, whatever it happens to be, will guide the universe, and that everything will turn out As It Was Meant To Be.  This, of course, does not necessarily mean God's plans will coincide with Man's plans or beliefs.

So the Supreme Court finally struck down all remaining sodomy laws.  I'm now free to fuck whomever I want as long as it's a consenting adult.  I don't have to worry about being arrested in my own bedroom for screwing my boyfriend (anyone out there want to volunteer for the position?), and I don't have to worry about the government telling me it's wrong.

Nah.  They're saving that for marriage.  Because, you know, Dubbaya has a definition for marriage.  "A man and a woman bound in the covenant of love."  Or whatever crap that makes it a heterosexual-only club.  Of course, this definition means that the Webster's New World College Dictionary Fourth Edition must not have gotten his memo.  It reads:

marriage n. 1 the state of being married; relation between spouses; married life; wedlock; matrimony 2 the act of marrying; wedding 3 the rite or form used in marrying 4 any close or intimate union 5 the king and queen of a suit, esp. as a meld in pinochle.

Hmmm... odd... save for the fifth one, pertaining to cards, I don't see any mention of sexual identity between the married couple.  Now, to be fair, the definition for marry does, as its first definition, mention husband and wife, man and woman.  It then goes on to be very vague on the subject, so as to imply that marriage is not a male-female only union.  The traditional church given definition of marriage is, of course, man and wife.  But then, let's flash back to the separation of church and state.  Who exactly do some of these politicians think they are trying to define marriage, going so far as to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would forever bar gay marriage.

And then I think to myself, "What are they so afraid of?"

What, exactly, is hurt by allowing a man to marry a man, a woman to marry a woman?  After all, it's just a slip of paper.  The tax breaks for marriage ONLY come if you have children, and that tax break is far outweighed by the expense of caring for said child.  So certainly the IRS shouldn't be taking a stand against marriage.  After all, they would end up making more from a gay couple who was married than single, unless they had a child.

Then it must be the morality, right?  And because some leather-bound black book from the dawn of recent history happens to make some pretty vague mentions that are used as straight-jackets, we get to hear about how immoral homosexuality is.  Wait just one damned second here... Homosexuality is exhibited in the entirety of mammal species, and possibly beyond.  In fact, dolphins, the only other species known to have sex just for pleasure, do, indeed, have their "gay uncles" as well.  Where's the morality in an animalistic urge?  And let's be honest here, that's all sex is.  It's an animalistic urge, sometimes to procreate, and sometimes just to get off.  There is no morality in sex itself, it's in the conduct surrounding it.  Surely rape, pedophilia, having sex with goats, and so forth are all wrong.  It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.  Because in all cases, the conduct is not consentual.  A rape victim didn't scream, "Please rape me," and children don't know any better, so even if they "enjoy" what's being done to them, it doesn't make it right.  And animals certainly can't consent to sex, whether or not they seem to enjoy it either (as some strange people would testify they do).

So let's look at the last two areas... consent and love.  Two men want to get off, one man says, "Hey, I'll blow you," and the other guy says, "Sure."  Where's the harm in that?  They're having sex.  Most children will have had sex by or at the age of 16 these days (most with people their own age, thankfully), because sexual urges are just that, urges.  There is nothing immoral (save by religion, and I'm not convinced on that front either) about having sex.  Maybe you're not into two men having sex.  That's great.  You don't have to watch.  (And while I, myself, have fantasies of sex in public places, I believe you should have sex out of sight of others, and enjoy what you're doing, and not intrude on other people's lives, whether you're gay, straight, or otherwise... though I'd also lie if I said I'm not turned on by people having sex nearby... I'm strange though, and no, I'm not a peeping Tom... I get permission to watch... hehe).  Most gay people don't want to see straight people having sex.  Sex is generally a personal thing, shared by people who either have an attraction to each other (or just want to get off), or by people who love each other.

And that's where this marriage thing ends up... Love.  No two homosexuals are going to get married simply because they've had sex.  They're not going to get married because they're gay.  They're looking to get married because they love each other, and marriage is society's way of saying, "I'm committed to this person for the rest of my life."  Personally, I think if you love someone enough, you don't need that piece of paper.  But that's me, and I'm a bit odd, as I've already said.  Some people want that right, and why shouldn't they have it?  If just one person could give me a valid reason that's not based on fear, prejudice, or hate, I might listen to it.

But so far, it's just people who think, "Hey, that's wrong!"  As I'm sure they've said about gay couples raising children.  Because, you know, (enter Patty Smyth and Don Henley) "Sometime love just ain't enough."  And then I think to Independence Day (yes, the movie), and to the line uttered by the guy from Taxi... "All you need is love.  John Lennon, smart man, shot in the back, terrible shame."  (Or something to that effect.)  And how true it is... Why should anyone be able to deny anyone else consentual love?  It hurts nothing, and if it offends, I'm sorry... Aren't we done hating people because they're different?  Treating people differently because they're different?  Do old ladies still clutch their purses as a black man walks by?  Sure... I'm sure they do... but thankfully, it's getting to be less and less.

So really, please... someone tell me... what's wrong with love?