I’ve always been a fan of the "Friday the 13th" movies, even though I don’t really go for gore and only occasionally watch horror films. It's not about nostalgia either; I didn’t become interested in them until I watched "Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning" on television one night. What appeals to me is that they usually involve a group of young people enjoying themselves at a camp-like setting in the woods, and the presence of an unstoppable killer—who increasingly seems like a monstrous figure throughout the series—creates a sense of danger and suspense. Add in plenty of attractive women and different filming locations across North America, and you have a really enjoyable franchise. "Part II," released in 1981, just one year after the original, is essentially a rehash with new characters, a different killer, and a different camp situated near Camp Crystal Lake. In reality, the movie was filmed somewhere else entirely: Kent, Connecticut. It’s interesting that none of the films were shot at the same location, even though they generally take place close to Camp Crystal Lake. The filming locations for the series include northern New Jersey (I), Connecticut (II), Southern California (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 environments in most of the movies and the relentless nature of Jason Voorhees that really set "Friday the 13th" apart from similar franchises. The first two films have a serious tone, with typical scenes of young people on vacation in the woods, but Part III introduced a more playful feel which continued in several later installments (V, VI, IX & X) until the 2009 remake. I don’t mind this too much, because these movies aren't really believable to begin with; however, I do prefer the serious tone. Regarding that, the only thing that seems odd about the first film in terms of realism is how the killer can throw an adult body through a window or hang someone from a door. But those things could be explained by the powerful Voorhees family history (or the demonic element revealed in 1993’s “Jason Goes to Hell”). While many people find these films frightening and shocking, and the first two have some unsettling moments, along with some of the others, I don't personally find them very scary—with the exception of the 2009 reboot. They can be creepy at times, suspenseful, exciting, and always fun and entertaining, but not particularly scary. In fact, I often end up laughing during the death scenes. There are plenty of sudden scares, naturally, but that's not what I mean. "Part II" doesn’t overstay its welcome, clocking in at just 87 minutes. It introduces the adult Jason Voorhees, who appears noticeably shorter and more human than he does in later sequels. A couple of times, the main character, Ginny (Amy Steel), is able to hold him off fairly easily—like opening a car door or kicking him. Speaking of Ginny, she’s a capable heroine similar to Alice from the first film and Pam from Part V. Kirsten Baker plays the attractive Terry, and the filmmakers make sure to showcase her beauty. Unfortunately, the ending feels confusing and doesn't really make sense. GRADE: A- (If you are wondering why I rate a movie like this so highly, it’s because I’m judging it based on what it is: a slasher film. No genre deserves to be dismissed or praised without consideration, and this one delivers exactly what it promises).

Source on TMDB