Final Summer

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!

On the final night of their employment in the sticks of Illinois, several camp counselors are assaulted by a masked man with an axe.

"Final Summer" (2023) is a proficiently-made Indie slasher in the tradition of the first two "Friday the 13th" flicks from over four decades earlier. The sylvan cinematography is great, there's an effective air of creepiness with a full moon and fog, plus the diverse actors are convincing. Unfortunately, the director/writer failed in one of the most important areas -- an interesting or, at least, entertaining script. It doesn't help that the females are subpar (and I'm not talkin' 'bout nudity or sleaze).

It's like he said, "Beautiful women? We don't need no stinkin' beautiful women." I can accept that, but at least make the story compelling with fleshed-out characters. The contemporaneous "Totally Killer" is a fine example of a modern slasher that's entertaining. "Silent Retreat" (2016) is a good sample of a no-budget production that's a watchable slasher with the requisite staples. "Crazy Lake" and "The Lake on Clinton Road" are two other relatively recent examples.

So "Final Summer" is an interesting study: It's got practically everything for an effective traditional slasher, but drops the ball with boring storytelling, uninteresting characters and subpar females.

The film runs 1 hours, 22 minutes, and was shot at Camp Robert Drake, which is just southeast of Oakwood in east-central Illinois, a dozen miles from the border of Indiana. The flashback scenes were done in Champaign, which is 25 miles west of there.

GRADE: D+

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.

Taking place at Silverlake camp, it is about to close and be sold for development. The owner says she has had it in the family, and the first year there were a couple of deaths, and each year after there were 'accidents'. So she is selling as the camp isn't viable anymore. One of the camp counselors makes a Jason joke, so is this a homage or a parody movie? Regardless, it would have been greatly improved if all killings took place in the first 10 minutes of the film. The actors seem earnest in their roles, although most seem amateurs, and when face to face with the killer, they immediately decide to make the worst possible decision. Dumb and inept seems an appropriate description. Difficult to care who get killed. The most adult of the group is among the first killed. Very predictable and a waste of time.

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.