A Quick Look at "Cyberpunk 2077" (Patch 1.5): Is It Worth Playing Now?

CD Projekt has finally delivered a decent game with patch 1.5 for 'Cyberpunk 2077'

When CD Projekt RED finally released "Cyberpunk 2077" at the end of 2020, the game was a bonafide hot mess. It also didn't help console gamers that plenty of the better reviews for the game didn't disclose clearly that they were reviewing the PC version of the game which had turned out the best despite the game still being glitchy even on the best of computers. When I initially bought the game, it was on a base PlayStation 4 and it was a gigantic dumpster fire on consoles.

Playing it for the first time, I encountered absolutely unforgivable glitches and plenty of game crashes. It was a heartbreaking experience considering how much I was looking forward to the game. I was relieved when Sony offered a way for us to get a refund for those who had bought it digitally. I got my money back and never looked back... until now.

CD Projekt RED had been releasing patches throughout the past 14 months, fixing all the numerous bugs and glitches. Still, none of those patches corrected the game enough for me to try the game out again. I had already been burned once and was not going to let it happen again. Also, I was waiting patiently until I had finally gotten a PlayStation 5.

Then, a few days ago, the developer released patch 1.5 and it was a massive upgrade. Not only did it add an extra 50GB to the gigantic game, it also provided a free upgrade for the PlayStation 5 and the Xbox Series X. I went to the PlayStation Store and saw that the game was on sale for $25. That meant that it was time to take the risk and see if "Cyberpunk 2077" had gotten any better.

Now, first off, I'll talk about the game itself and go ahead and tell you that if you managed to play through the game before now, then you're not getting anything new here. If you enjoyed V's story and the game's first-person shooter RPG, then you'll still enjoy it here minus the glitches. If you did not enjoy the direction of the gameplay, then this will do nothing to change your mind... minus the glitches.

For me, I enjoyed the gameplay for what little I played before the game decided to take a giant crap on me. Therefore, I wasn't worried about whether or not I would find something fun within. I was worried about the game breaking problems the game had suffered over a year ago when I played it on my PS4 and hoped that I would not have to go through that again now.

The good news is that I've spent a few hours with the game on the PS5 and can say that I really wished this had been the game that CD Projekt had released in the first place. The graphics are better, the gameplay is smoother, and I've barely encountered any truly egregious bugs that plagued my first experience.

THE GRAPHICS

Night City is a gorgeous city to look at and it looks even better now that it plays at a smooth 60fps on the PS5. You could also change the settings to allow for ray tracing, though that will cause the game to drop to 30fps. I prefer skipping out on the ray tracing for the 60fps.

THE COMBAT

The combat is fast, furious, and fun for the most part. There have been complaints about the gameplay being shallow when compared to other action RPGs. I can't deny that the game is mostly a shooter and if that's not your thing, then you won't like what you find here. So far, though, I've been having a blast (literally) with most of the missions that I've been playing through.

THE RPG ELEMENTS

One thing that "2077" does suffer from is a seemingly overwhelming skill tree that is actually pretty simple to use but only looks daunting at first glance. The only real problem with this game is that there are so many weapons to choose from with each having their own powers and abilities. It kind of suffers from the same thing that the original "Mass Effect" suffered from in that you'll find yourself with an exceedingly large amount of guns, most of which you'll find that you'll want to disassemble or sell as you already have a more powerful weapon at your disposal.

THE DRIVING

This is a point where the game still suffers a bit for me. The handling of the vehicles is far better than it was originally when some of the vehicles were just not drivable. While the handling has been improved, I would still suggest either walking or running to your objective if you're close enough or using one of the game's many fast travel points to get to your goals instead.

THE STORY

I'm really digging the story so far, but if a post-apocalyptic cyberpunk setting isn't your bag, then what are you even doing here anyway. I also enjoy the fact that a pissed off Keanu Reeves is stuck inside your head and helping guide you along the way.

OVERALL

Overall, I'm very impressed with the few hours that I've spent in Night City and can't wait to dive back into more of the game. The game breaking glitches are gone for the most part and the few that have remained I can at least live with as most massive open world games often have a few unavoidable bugs. "Cyberpunk 2077" will never be the overly ambitious game that CD Projekt promised us before the game was finally released. Thankfully, with enough time and patches, they have at least delivered a decent shooter with RPG elements and a gorgeous open world.

It may never be perfect, but at least "Cyberpunk 2077" is a decent game now that is worth your time if you haven't played it or if you were screwed over the first time with the game's dubious launch.

OSCAR ROUNDUP #3 - 'Don't Look Up'

Of all the Best Picture nominees at this year's Academy Awards ceremony, "Don't Look Up" seems to be the one that split the critics straight down the middle. That is poetic when considering the film's subject matter. The movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence as two astrologers that have discovered a comet that is going to hit Earth in just over six months.

At first, it looks like they're alerting all the right people and that this may turn into another disaster film the likes of which you usually see from Roland Emmerich... then the politicians enter the picture. In this case, the politician is Meryl Streep as President Janie Orlean and her completely inept Chief of Staff son Jason, played by Jonah Hill. The midterms are coming up and they don't want to start a riot even if the science is showing that there is a almost 100% chance that the comet is going to hit Earth.

Both DiCaprio's Professor Randall Mindy and Lawrence's Kate Dibiasky then have to fight a 24 hour news media that actually doesn't give a damn about the actual news. They also have to face a public that is more concerned with their smart phones and fighting on social media than actually doing anything about this very real crisis. Oh, and there's also a tech billionaire that the government is trusting to resolve the situation at a certain point in the movie that has an alternative plan in order to get the rare materials detected on the comet that could benefit his company.

Now, on the outside, writer and director Adam McKay's biting and darkly comic satire may look a little ridiculous when you seen half the population ignoring the comet that is heading right for them. Take the comet and the rare materials and swap them with climate change and oil and the idea suddenly doesn't seem so absurd.

In fact, looking at the politicians in the movie and how people are reacting to the comet, I was surprised by just how much it wasn't coming off as absurd. When you go back to those critical scores, I bet you anything you could figure out those who want to listen to what McKay has to say and those who simply want to ignore the message because, maybe, it hits just a little too close to home.

In addition to McKay's masterful writing and directing, there are also the performances. DiCaprio and Lawrence are as dependable as they have always been, turning in award winning performances that I'm actually surprised that the Academy ignored this year. In addition to the leads, though, the supporting stars that includes Streep, Hill, and Mark Rylance are also exceptional.

My only real problem with the movie is a very minor one and that is that the ending takes one extra beat that I don't really think is needed, but it is darkly funny. That is another thing about the movie. It is still a satire, so there is still plenty of humor to be found throughout that helps you accept the message a little bit more than you would have if McKay had taken the material deadly serious.

He could have also fell into the trap of turning it into a generic action film, something that is made fun of in the film itself when Hollywood quickly turns around to make a big blockbuster based on the real world situation. There is also a funny little cameo during this moment.

The truth of this movie is that it comments on something that is very real and holds up a brutally truthful mirror to how our society handles (or flat out ignores) actual problems facing both humanity and the planet. There are those of us who want to actually do something about these problems, those who want to ignore it, and those who simply bitch about these problems on social media. To be honest, I had to admit to myself that I've been guilty of belonging to that last group and I've been trying to break myself away from it though I still slip up from time to time.

This film is a startling reminder that we all need to figure out how to come together and figure these problems out. If we don't, we may very well be doomed to extinction. This is a film that is not only worthy of your attention, it should also be considered required viewing for the lessons found within.

OSCAR ROUNDUP #2 - 'The Power of the Dog'

Once again, like with "Nightmare Alley", we have an ensemble period piece. This time, the story centers around four characters on a ranch in Montana in 1925. Benedict Cumberbatch and Jesse Plemons play Phil and George Burbank, two brothers that run a highly successful ranch. George is a soft-spoken and generous man while Phil is a rough-and-tumble and highly temperamental man.

One day, George becomes smitten with a waitress, Rose Gordon, played by Kirsten Dunst. They eventually marry and she moves into the ranch. Phil, unfortunately, is an uncontrollably manipulative person who doesn't trust Rose and tortures the young woman. Initially, he also makes fun of her more effeminate son, Pete (Kodi Smit-McPhee), before he also eventually starts to get close to the young man, though this is also suggested to be a manipulation to torture Rose.

To say much more would be to spoil the movie more than I've already had to, so I'll stop there with the synopsis. The first thing that I'll say is that if you don't like a slow burn psychological drama, then this movie is not for you. The movie methodically takes its time and you might find yourself wondering where any of this is going but it definitely gets there and sticks the landing by the end.

Now, this is the movie that is leading the charge in Oscar nominations this year with 12 nominations overall. It's the odds on favorite to win the big prize that is Best Picture. Also, I have no idea why they only gave Dunst a Best Supporting Actress nomination. It definitely should have been for Best Actress, especially when considering that it is Rose and Phil who face off the most in the movie and it is their conflict that drives the story.

While I don't necessarily know if the movie deserves the Best Picture award, the film's four leads definitely deserve their awards should they win in their categories. The performances all around are top notch, including Cumberbatch and Smit-McPhee.

Another aspect of the movie that works is the cinematography and setting. Now, director Campion couldn't actually shoot in Montana due to budgetary constraints, so she opted to shoot in her native New Zealand instead. She and her cinematographer, Ari Wegner, definitely did a great job of recreating Montana as I wondered if they actually shot on location or not. I'll be very surprised if Wegner doesn't win Best Cinematography.

After finishing the movie, I realized that I couldn't stop thinking about it. The movie has several layers that open up over time, including themes of jealousy, rage, and repressed sexuality. I didn't know what to expect from this movie as I had not seen much about it until I actually saw it, but this was not the film I thought I'd be getting.

Thankfully, though, it turned out to be quite the compelling drama and one that stuck with me long after I was done with it. Again, if you don't like extremely slow burns, then you may not like this one. However, beyond that, I can't think of too many other reasons for why you shouldn't watch this pretty incredible film from Campion and co.

OSCAR ROUNDUP REVIEWS #1 - "Nightmare Alley"

For the next few days, I've decided to write about the Oscar nominees for Best Picture at this year's Academy Awards ceremony. The first film I'm looking at is "Nightmare Alley", directed with loving care by the always impressive Guillermo del Toro and starring just about every great actor found in Hollywood's phonebook. The movie is a hard hitting film noir piece featuring an impressive lead, a few femme fatales, and impressive cinematography from Dan Laustsen and production design by Tamara Deverell and set design by Shane Vieau, all of whom have been nominated for Academy Awards.

The movie follows Bradley Cooper as Stan Carlisle, a drifter who happens upon a carnival after burning down a house with a body he places in the floorboards. Down on his luck, Stan takes a job as a carny and learns about the various shows. The one that impresses him the most is a clairvoyant act by Madame Zeena (Toni Collette) and her alcoholic husband, Pete (David Strathairn).

He is drawn to Pete's former life as a "mentalist" though Pete warns him about turning the act into a spook show about a target's lost loved ones. Eventually, Stan becomes attracted to Molly (Rooney Mara) and they eventually strike out on their own. Stan wishes to become a mentalist with Molly at his side.

Now, I'm going to admit that for the first hour of this movie, I was wondering just where in the hell it was going overall. During this time, we stay with the carnival and I began to wonder that this will be about the lives of those in the carnival. However, after Stan sees Pete's book of tricks when it comes to being a mentalist, I foresaw where the movie was going and I was there for the whole ride.

As I mentioned before, the style of this movie is spot on with brilliant direction by del Toro and its comparable in style to his earlier work (and Best Picture winner) "The Shape of Water" in 2017. On top of that, the movie also contains an impressive cast that includes the likes of Cate Blanchett, Willem Dafoe, Ron Perlman, Richard Jenkins, Mary Steenburgen, and Holt McCallany. I think it also goes without saying that they all bring their best to the film.

Honestly, I would say that "The Shape of Water" is a better film for me in del Toro's filmography. That movie hooked me a lot faster with its story while this one kind of dragged a bit too much in the beginning. Yet, by the end of the movie, I knew that I had watched something pretty spectacular and worth watching again to see what I may have missed the first time around.

The movie was rightfully nominated for Best Picture, though I feel that del Toro and Cooper were snubbed for the Best Directing and Best Actor categories. If you haven't seen this movie and you're a fan of good film noir period pieces and del Toro's distinctive visual style, then this movie is definitely for you!

UNEDITED - What I Want From 'Scream 6'

 

Welcome to Unedited, an article straight from my brain to the page. No editing... which means that you'll see all of the warts. These are quick articles where I just take a few minutes to write down a few thoughts and today, I want to share my thoughts on what I would like to see from "Scream 6", a film that was officially confirmed by Spyglass and Paramount Pictures.

Today, it was announced by Spyglass and Paramount Pictures that active development had begun on "Scream 6" due to the unexpected success of the recent film. The only thing announced beyond this was that the creative team behind this year's "Scream" would be returning to develop the new story. Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett will return to direct the latest film and writers James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick will return to pen the new script.

Apparently, Paramount wants production to begin as early as this Summer. So, what do I want from another entry into this long-running franchise? Let's see...

NO SIDNEY AND GALE

It may come as a shock to some that I'm even suggesting that they let Sidney Prescott and Gale Weathers go, but let's face it, their story is effectively done. While it was great to see Sidney, Gale, and Dewey (R.I.P.) return for another outing, I found that I was actually entertained by the new cast members. I found that I really didn't need the "legacy characters" as much as I thought I did.

Also, it was good to see the original characters return in order to pass the baton down the line to the new kids on the block in Woodsboro. It really did feel like Sidney and Gale could ride off into the bloody sunset after the events of the latest film. Finally, these characters have survived five run-ins with Ghostface and it's time to just let them rest.

However, that's not to say that other legacy characters from other sequels couldn't return.

BRING BACK KIRBY!

I was talking to a friend of mine and a fellow "Scream" fan and she suggested what the internet has been after for awhile anyway. Why not bring back Hayden Panettiere as Kirby Reed from "Scream 4"? In the latest film, there is already an easter egg suggesting that her character actually survived the events of the previous film.

Also, there is a scene where kids at a party yell "For Wes!" It is known that the filmmakers got a lot of cast and crew members to record themselves saying that in honor of the late, great Wes Craven, the original director of this series. Panettiere was one of the actresses brought in to record the line, suggesting that she has a good relationship with the studio and filmmakers.

Another point is that she's not as big a legacy character as Sidney or Gale, so her safety in the new film wouldn't be as assured as it was for the original survivors that had already survived four encounters with Ghostface. Besides, the internet is behind bringing the character back and considering that the internet doesn't usually agree on just about anything else, I think there's a golden opportunity to bring back one of the better characters to come out of "Scream 4".

POSSIBLY TAKE IT OUT OF WOODSBORO?

Finally, the new movie doesn't necessarily have to take place in Woodsboro. Now, this point I'm not really that hung up on. If "Scream 6" is set in Woodsboro, then so be it. However, the series has proven in the past that the movie doesn't have to be set in the original film's setting. The second film was set at Sidney's college campus and the third film was set in Hollywood.

"Scream 4" commentated on remakes of the original film and the latest "Scream" commented on the idea of requels, sequels that have connections to the original film. Therefore, setting those films in Woodsboro actually made sense for the nature of their story.

I'll go ahead and say that whether or not "Scream 6" is set in Woodsboro is not a deal breaker, but it does depend on what direction that the filmmakers take the story in.

TRUTH BE TOLD, I'LL STILL WATCH IT NO MATTER WHAT

At the end of the day, though, these are just my suggestions. No matter what the filmmakers do, I know I'll go see the movie. I'm too big a fan not to go. Still, my only concern is that they manage to keep the new film fresh and with a great take on whatever horror films they decide to tackle next in "Scream 6"!

UNDERRATED - '2010: The Year We Make Contact' (1984) Review

In 1982, author Arthur C. Clarke released "2010: Odyssey Two", a sequel to his hit novel and film, "2001: A Space Odyssey". The book was a massive hit, so it was no surprise that MGM wanted to make a sequel to their original film. Stanley Kubrick had no interest in making a sequel, so the responsibilities fell to Peter Hyams to helm the picture.

Therefore, in 1984, MGM released "2010: The Year We Make Contact" and produced what is one of the most underrated films ever made. Now, of course it's understandable why the movie is underrated. It is a sequel to the best science fiction film ever made.

Before I go on, I should go ahead and admit that the movie is not as good as "2001", but that was already going to be a tall order. Instead of trying to duplicate what Kubrick did, Hyams gives us a more straightforward film with less ambiguity than featured in Kubrick's movie. Also, and this is a bit surprising considering that this movie came out 16 years later, some of the special effects just don't hold up as much as those found in Kubrick's classic.

Beyond that, though, this is a pretty stellar adaptation of Clarke's novel with most of the changes occurring due to budget concerns and consideration for the movie's runtime. In the film, Dr. Heywood Floyd, played by the always great Roy Scheider, is still feeling guilty after the failure of the Discovery mission to Jupiter nine years prior. America is preparing to send another ship to Jupiter to find out what happened, but the ship won't be completed for another two years.

Floyd is visited by his Soviets counterpart, Dimitri Moisevitch (Dana Elcar), who tells him that they have a ship that is almost ready to head that way. Unfortunately, the Soviets don't have the knowledge about the Discovery's systems or how to bring HAL 9000 back online safely. When Floyd states that America wouldn't mind the Soviets going up there and failing, Moisevitch points out that Discovery's orbit around Jupiter's moon Io is decaying for unexplained reasons.

Therefore, Floyd, engineer Walter Curnow (John Lithgow), and HAL creator R. Chandra (Bob Balaban) hop onboard the Leonov that is commanded by Captain Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren). On the way there, they make some pretty big discoveries about the Monolith, the status of Discovery, and why HAL went insane in the first place. On top of all that, relations between America and the Soviet Union are not great, causing undue tension onboard the ship.

The movie works primarily because of its performers. Scheider is fantastic as Floyd while Lithgow also adds more weight to the proceedings. Also, Mirren is fantastic in the film that is also her American film acting debut.

One standout performance for me, though, is Balaban as the somewhat emotionless Chandra. This is a character that could have come off as very bland, but Balaban gives Chandra the necessary emotions that he needs, particularly when he is interacting with HAL, the AI computer system that he created and a character that Chandra obviously relates to more than the human characters.

Speaking of HAL, it was great that they also got Douglas Rain back to provide the voice for the formerly psychotic computer. Rain always knows how to add just that little bit of possible menace to the voice, especially when one of the problems our characters might face is HAL breaking down yet again. In addition to Rain's return, Keir Dullea returns as Dave Bowman... or at least as whatever Dave Bowman turned into at the end of the original film.

I mentioned earlier that some of the special effects have aged rather poorly. However, that doesn't speak for the majority of them. You mostly run into the problems with the effects when they show the Leonov flying through space. There is that transparent box around the ship from when they put the model of the ship onto the space background and it sticks out like a sore thumb.

When they're at Jupiter, though, and you get to see the Discovery again, almost all of the effects work pretty well. Speaking of the Discovery, Kubrick had all of the original sets destroyed after he made "2001" so every set onboard the ship had to be recreated using old photos from the original movie. The set designers did an impeccable job of recreating the sets and it's like they were never destroyed in the first place.

For me, "2001: A Space Odyssey" is my favorite sci-fi film of all time. So, it means something when I say that while "2010" is not a perfect sequel, it is ultimately one hell of an adaptation of Clarke's book and a stellar follow-up to Kubrick's classic movie!

UNEDITED: A LOOK AT THE 'FRIDAY THE 13TH' SERIES

Welcome to Unedited, a series of articles straight from my brain and unedited. Therefore, you're seeing the rough draft of an article that I haven't edited after writing the first draft. In this one, I take a look back at one of the most iconic horror franchises ever to exist. Enjoy!

THE PARAMOUNT YEARS

In 1980, a film came out made by filmmakers that were trying to capitalize on the success of 1978's "Halloween". While it was derivative in a lot of areas, it was also unique in others including a camp setting and a serial killer unlike any other found in films up to that point. "Friday the 13th" would go on to make over $59 million on a budget of only $550,000.

Paramount Pictures was the studio behind the movie and its success spawned a franchise that would carry on for the almost the next 30 years. During the '80s, there would be only two years where we wouldn't get a "Friday" sequel: 1983 and '87. The movies were hated by most major critics at the time, but audiences kept coming back for more.

During this era, I enjoyed the first, third, fourth, sixth, and eighth films in the series. The first movie is a great film where a mysterious killer is taking out teenagers that are trying to get Camp Crystal Lake back up and running after it was shut down in the '50s due to a couple of murders. The film ended with the killer being revealed as a deranged mother named Pamela Voorhees who wanted revenge against anyone trying to reopen the camp.

She hated the camp because her son, Jason, drowned due to the counselors not watching him so that they could party. What surprises me is that more people don't note how the killer in this film is an older woman seeking revenge for the death of her son. Most of the time, the killers in slashers are white males with fairly simple motives.

However, that changed in 1981 with the release of "Friday the 13th Part 2". The movie made Jason Voorhees the main villain, vaguely describing that he somehow survived his drowning and was living in the woods all these years. He had witnessed his mother's death in the first movie and sought revenge on anyone seeking to return to Camp Crystal Lake.

I don't mind the first sequel, but Jason wears a burlap sack over his head, similar to the killer found in "The Town That Dreaded Sundown". Also, he's depicted as more of a mentally disabled survivalist and he isn't quite the Jason that we would come to know in the series. That really happened in "Friday the 13th Part 3" when Jason finally gets his iconic hockey mask. The 3D effects that they tried to implement at the time don't quite hold up, but the movie is still a lot of fun to watch.

In 1984, Paramount decided that they had wanted to end the series. Despite their financial success, the "Friday the 13th" films were hated by critics and looked at as the black sheep in the studio. Therefore, "Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter" was supposed to be the final movie. It introduced the character of Tommy Jarvis and Jason finds even more unique ways to take out his unsuspecting victims.

The fourth film is one of my favorites in the series as Paramount actually gave them a pretty decent budget. It was also the last time that Tom Savini, the master of practical special-effects in horror, would work on the series. Savini, thinking this was going to be the last film like everyone else, gives it his all in this movie and delivers in the effects department.

Once again, though, the box office numbers could not be denied. So, Paramount decided to make a fifth film, titled "Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning". This time, though, it is about Tommy Jarvis being sent to a special home for troubled teens near a lake. Sadly, the killer ended up being a copycat killer and the MPAA started coming down hard on the series due to the excessive violence.

That meant that the film was severely edited. With a weak story and crappy editing, this is easily one of the worst, if not THE worst, film in the series. The movie still ended up being a success, so Paramount knew that not only did they need a new movie, they also needed to bring back the true monster of the series.

In 1986, "Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives" brought back the infamous killer as an unstoppable undead monster. The movie is exceptionally well made and absurd in all the right ways. It is the final chapter in what fans refer to as the "Tommy Jarvis Trilogy" is one of my favorite films in the series not only because it is well made, but because it is also isn't afraid to completely embrace its inherent silliness.

After the movie's success, Paramount started talking to New Line Cinema about possibly crossing over both the "Friday the 13th" series with New Line's main horror franchise, "A Nightmare on Elm Street". This is the first attempt at getting a "Freddy vs. Jason" film made but neither studio could come to an agreement about who would fund the production and how the box office receipts would be split between the two.

With a deal not being made, the filmmakers behind what would become "Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood" decided that they would attempt to make a story that would be, spiritually speaking, "Carrie vs. Jason". In the movie, Jason confronts a telepathically gifted teenager and it's the first time stuntman Kane Hodder would take on the role of Jason, a role that he would inhabit all the way up to 2002's "Jason X".

Despite that fact, though, the movie really isn't the strongest in the series. They were once again hit hard by the MPAA and the characters just aren't that interesting. Despite diminishing box office returns up to this point, Paramount decided to make one more movie during the 1980s. In '89, "Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan" would be released.

Now, I noted this as one of my favorite entries into the series, but don't get me wrong, this movie is bonkers. First off, the budget for the film restricted how much time the production could actually shoot in New York City. Only the final few minutes are set in the Big Apple while the rest of it is set on the boat taking the students to the city.

The movie still contains some great kills, though, including Jason literally punching someone's head off. The movie is bad, but it falls into that fabled "so bad, it's good" realm. After this, though, Paramount decided to finally call it a day on the slasher series that helped defined horror in the '80s.

THE NEW LINE YEARS

After "Jason Takes Manhattan" failed to light up the box office, Paramount decided to sell the rights to the Jason Voorhees character to New Line Cinema. Now, take note that I said that they only sold the rights to the Jason character. Paramount wanted to retain their rights to their "Friday the 13th" series and that meant that they kept the rights to the title. So, the first film New Line made with the character couldn't contain the title "Friday the 13th".

Also, by the time the '90s arrived, the horror genre was also declining in general across the board. New Line had already killed off their own horror creation, Freddy Krueger, in 1991's "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare". Therefore, New Line decided to do the same thing with Jason in 1993's "Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday". In the movie, Jason is blown to pieces right at the top of the movie, but a coroner eats his heart (no kidding) and becomes possessed by the famous killer.

However, Jason can't stay alive for long in another person's body, so he transfers his soul (via a disgusting wormlike thing from mouth-to-mouth) from body to body until he can transfer his essence into one of his relatives. He finally does this and he has to be taken out by his niece, Jessica Kimble. She would stab him with a mystical dagger and he would be dragged straight to Hell.

If you've managed to stick with me up to this point, then you're probably thinking (if you've never seen the movie), "What the hell did I just read?" Don't worry, the movie is pretty nuts as described and it really isn't that great, though there are some great kills and I do applaud the effort of the filmmakers to try and do something different with the series. However, the movie does have a hell of a capper when Freddy's clawed hand emerges to collect Jason's iconic hockey mask and drags it to Hell as well.

This was supposed to setup yet another attempt at making a "Freddy vs. Jason" film. With New Line owning both of the characters, it seemed that the movie was all but inevitable. However, after several failed scripts and director Wes Craven wanting to return to the series with 1994's "Wes Craven New Nightmare", the movie stalled yet again.

Then there was the problem that for the first half of the 1990s, the horror genre was all but dead with mainstream audiences. Therefore, New Line held off making anymore films featuring either character. It wasn't until original director Sean S. Cunningham returned to produce a new movie in the series.

Since "Freddy vs. Jason" wasn't coming together, Cunningham wanted to make a new movie to get audiences interested in the character again. So, the filmmakers made "Jason X" and Jason Voorhees found himself being launched into space in the distant future. After being thawed out onboard a spaceship, he proceeds to kill almost everyone in several different ways.

The movie is a big joke, but it does contain some of the series' best kills, including the scene where he shoves a character's head into liquid nitrogen and smashes the head into several pieces. After the movie failed at the box office, though, the character's future was in doubt... until the very next year.

While "Jason X" was in production, New Line finally received a script for "Freddy vs. Jason" that they were proud off. In 2003, we finally got the matchup we all wanted between these two titans of horror. The movie is a fun romp written by fans of both series and directed with extreme energy by Ronny Yu. The movie was a success for both horror series and became the highest box office earner for both franchises.

After this, though, the horror genre started to go through a remake/reboot craze. Several classic horror franchises were revived as remakes and, eventually, that included "Friday the 13th" in 2009. New Line teamed up with Paramount so that they could use the title and they co-produced a new movie from the writers of "Freddy vs. Jason". The movie is, in my opinion, the worst film in the franchise with uninventive kills and an uninspired story that simply stitches together the plot of the first four "Friday the 13th" films except with mostly a new set of characters.

Sadly, this has been the last time we've seen Jason on the big screen. It has been 13 years (heh) since the remake and it is time for him to come back. Unfortunately, I don't know who that will be to bring the famed killer back. There were talks of a sequel to the remake, but that would have meant that New Line would have to work with Paramount again for the title.

Then, in 2013, New Line got a new horror franchise when "The Conjuring" was released. Therefore, they decided to give Jason a break yet again. Also, original "Friday the 13th" writer Victor Miller has been trying to get the rights to the series from New Line and Paramount and this has further complicated bringing the character back to the movies.

While I don't know when we'll see Jason on the big screen again, I do know that there is still a pretty solid series of films out there that horror fanatics can still enjoy to this day! I know I certainly do.