"Evil Dead 2"

Quick notice: If you haven't seen "The Evil Dead" yet, 'thar be spoilers ahead'.  After all, I can't exactly talk about where the sequel picks up without talking about where the previous one left off.

Actually, in this case, and (presumably) only this case, I can.

There are four ways in which a sequel traditionally begins in relation to how the previous chapter ends: eventually, immediately, ignorantly or expositionally (yes, I know it’s not a word, but . . . well, it is now).

Most commonly, a sequel will begin after some period of time (maybe short, maybe lengthy) has passed in the lives of the characters in the first film (Ghostbusters, Star Wars, The Ring, Transformers, Ace Ventura, Blues Brothers, etc).  More common in horror (particularly slasher movies, where everyone or at least nearly everyone has died by the end of the film), a sequel will begin sometime after the original with a new cast of characters who have no awareness of the events of the original (Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St).  In this case, the events of the sequel may not even tie into the original beyond a common concept, theme or style (Urban Legend, House, Creepshow).

Sometimes a sequel will begin immediately where it’s predecessor ended, briefly recapping the end of the film to establish context (Back to the Future, The Karate Kid, Hellraiser).  Occasionally, this recap will take longer and the events in the recap will be seen from the perspective of a character who has not yet been introduced as a way to establish a new character base, including a new antagonist or protagonist (this is used more often in TV series for season finale/premiere or at the end of the film to establish a cliffhanger).

“Evil Dead 2” distinguishes itself in being the only sequel to begin by summarily retelling the story of the original within the first 10 minutes of the film, but only with Ash and Linda.

The retelling ends exactly how the original did, and then picks up from there, the story picks back up more exposition for the story of the rest of the film (which focuses on the voice on the recording and the book of the dead) and goes from there.

The most noticeable difference from the original (besides the recasting of Linda) is one of production design and quality: lighting, camera movement, picture quality, set construction and many of the makeup effects are noticeably more impressive than that of “The Evil Dead”.  That isn’t to say that “The Evil Dead” isn’t impressive; I’ve already stated that it was impressive that they were able to do what they did with what they had.  However, it is fairly obvious from the opening of the film on that those limitations are not present in “Evil Dead 2”, and they took every advantage with what they now had to make more elaborate effects.

The next most noticeable difference is the change in tone.  American sequels tend to make the mistake in sequels of following the ‘bigger’ formula: to set the sequel apart from the original, the filmmakers try to do everything bigger; bigger events and bigger baddies to make bigger stakes.  In action movies, this means bigger stunts, bigger chases, bigger fights.  In horror, this means bigger body counts, bigger kills.  However, the problem with this formula is how easy it is to take it too far and go over the top.  Once that happens, the stakes cease to be dramatic and become hokey, even campy.

When an original film is more serious, this change in the sequel is done by mistake.  Sequels are usually only made deliberately hokey if the original is hokey, and usually only by Michael Bay (Transformers, Bad Boys).  “Evil Dead 2” is the only case I know of where a sequel to a terrifying horror film is made at all hokey or campy deliberately.  There are plenty of moments in the film which are still scary, if not downright disturbing, but they are, to a certain degree offset by some more deliberately comedic elements.  There are even moments in the film which (to its credit) may be frightening to some and funny to others.  Frankly, I think it makes the movie even more fun than the original.

This blend of silly and scary also serves to cement director Sam Raimi’s signature shooting style, which appears time and again throughout his films (most notably in “Darkman” and in the three “Spider-man” movies).  

Now, a lot of people I know would question my judgement at noting the signs of a given director’s impending career in having debuted by directing a horror movie.  Well, I have two words for them: Steven Spielberg. Spielberg’s debut film was “Duel”, a white-knuckle suspense film about a man being chased along a barren highway by an unrelenting semi.  He followed that up with “Jaws”.

What’s my point?  Well, for one, horror as a genre gets a bad rap. Just because someone likes horror movies doesn’t mean they have a puerile mind; it doesn’t mean they are a sociopath or a psychopath; it doesn’t mean they have a death fetish. Also, the qualities that make a movie good or bad are the same qualities that make a horror movie good or bad, and the main quality is honesty.

For all it’s flaws, for the cheesy moments or campy effects, for the ridiculousness of the situation, there is honesty in “Evil Dead 2”.  There is honesty in Ash’s reaction to having to kill Linda.  There is honesty in Annie’s reaction in seeing the cabin in the state it is in when they first arrive and think the worst.  There is honesty in Annie’s desperation when trying to escape Ash.  While the situations that these characters find themselves in is both impossible and ridiculous, their reactions (terror, desperation, anger, panic) are all portrayed honestly.

“Evil Dead 2” may not be a great movie; it may not win any major awards, it may not be recognized as a hallmark of great acting or production value.  However, it is fun, and it is creative, and it is honest.

In my mind, this makes it, at the very least, a good movie.