Final Summer

I know camp counselors in horror movies are supposed to be down right stupid, but this one goes to extremes. I would give a zero in intelligence to these characters and the person who wrote the story. Let me add, most are such cowards that pity for the next victim. Plenty of chances to help each other, heck, but why bother, it doesn't occur to any there is strengh in numbers. Then there is a thing called closing doors, a concept too advanced for these brainless people. You would think that some would have at some time in the past watched a summer camp horror movie. Super predictable ending. What a waste of time.

This first film by John Isberg, is a good start but had conflictions in providing innovation or something fresh with 80s college teen slasher movies.

Considering its limitations of the story, it offers good night scenes, that are watchable which can be technically difficult to film. The actors deliver evotive reactions to the terror uleashed to them.

PTSD is a theme carried throughout the film, providing and giving some good dialogue. Its "final girl" trope is not strong, but her acting is good. Its chase scenes has suspense, but it lacks the tension provided with 80s slasher.

One interesting aspect that it was shot in rural Illinois's woods, has strong natural landscape locations. It one makes for a good start for Isberg, there is an interesting closing credits, hopefully to make more horror genre paths for this first directorial debut!

Final Summer looks and acts like an homage, this is clearly from the poster, plot, cast and soundtrack. If specifically to Friday, I couldn't really say, because one of the cheapest horror genre is campers the woods type.

So we have Friday, but also The Burning, Sleepaway Camp, Final Girls and so on, movies that act in a specific way, one that isn't replicated here. You see, nothing worked for Final Summer and you really can't blame it on the budget.

After movies like Blairwitch or Evil Dead, this kind of horror doesn't require a big budget, but inspiration and dedication.

The dialogue here is bad, the characters stereotypical and annoying, acting is quite sub par, killshots barely visible, no gore, no nudity, one very sad excuse for a twist and the absolute worst killer I've seen, being taken down many times by the others. Just, never finished. There is some sort of fighting choreography that looks silly and fake at the same type.

So yes, you can indeed notice the fact that the people involved in Final Summer really did their best, they had their heart in the right place, but even for a starter project, this fell flat. No impact.

Thus not recommandable, do skip it and try something else. Plenty of fish out there, leave this one be.

Cheers!

I would be interested to see what they could have pulled off with a bigger budget and a more seasoned director and cast. Not a terrible movie by any means, but as I said before, it just falls a little flat. The kills aren't particularly good, nor was there anything original. The story was very straight forward and basic until towards the end when there was a predictable "twist." Acting was not very good (not that I'm looking for Oscar caliber performances) I feel they could have done better. A movie like this could have been fine without much originality, but for me it failed to capture the atmosphere of an 80's or early 90's slasher.

I agree with everything previous critiques said. The plot is the biggest failure here, running neck and neck with the visual quality of the film.

I did not understand how "everyone knew who was responsible" when there wasn't any real backstory on the camp yet, other than "accidents" that plagued the camp for years. Which makes no sense, because even in the 70s & 80s, a camp THAT notorious would've been closed down easily.

Add to that the visual quality I mentioned, I don't know what that was about. Is he trying to make the actors look younger with a failed soft focus technique? Is he trying to make it look like a movie from the early 90s (which would've been shot on film and not on video)? If so, color correcting it to look like an older movie and adding noise and a film effect overlay might've gone a lot further and wouldn't have been super expensive.

Instead, we have a movie that looks like the director just discovered this thing called depth of field, and manhandled the technique throughout the feature. Instead of being interesting or helping the movie look old, it only serves to distract.

It's too bad, too, because low budget doesn't guarantee a bad movie. Lack of imagination and poor filming choices sure will, though.