"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.

"The Evil Dead"

Let me begin by saying that I cannot write an impartial or objective review of this film.  I, as many others of my generation, love "The Evil Dead".

I think that it is important to note for our younger readers that this is not the new film which is soon to be out in theaters, but is the original, which is now over 30 years old.

I first saw "The Evil Dead" in October of '99.  I'd been a fan of "Army of Darkness" (the third movie in the "Evil Dead" trilogy . . . yes, it is a trilogy) since the first time I'd seen it on the SciFi channel, and I'd seen it at least a dozen times prior to seeing "The Evil Dead" or "Evil Dead 2", and for that matter, had no idea that it was a sequel.  Then, in the lat nineties  as a result of the movie "Scream", I was having a bit of a horror movie renaissance; not in the sense of the new horror movies that Hollywood was churning out like cars off an assembly line, but at the horror section of my local video store.  I plowed through as many horror movies of the 70's and 80's as I could, and, being a slacker in college, having the time to do so.  And then a friend mentioned "The Evil Dead" and put it in the context of "Army of Darkness" for me.  So I promptly borrowed their copies of "The Evil Dead" and "Evil Dead 2".  At the time, we had a decent sized TV in our dorm room, and I had (what I considered to be) a decent stereo, so, sometimes, when I would watch movies, I would turn out all the lights and watch theater-style.  So, I watched it.

I was stunned.  I was shocked.  

I was disturbed.

I had been frightened by movies before; not many, but a few.  When I was four years old, my mom took me to see E.T. in the theaters, and the scene with the NASA guys in the reflective helmets gave me nightmares.  Then again, I was four.

"The Evil Dead" is the first time I was disturbed by a movie.  It was the first time that, when watching a movie, I could hear myself thinking, "This is some disturbing, fucked up shit right here", and did not want to look away.  I can count on one hand the number of films which I have found out rightly disturbing since, but "The Evil Dead" was the first, and has since stood as my own personal bellwether of disturbing in movies.

"The Evil Dead" has also stood as my own personal bellwether of independent film effort.  The film was made for what was then an extremely small budget of $90,000 dollars in the woods in Tennessee.  It was made without the assistance of a studio at the end of the 1970's by a small handful of Michigan college students and their friends and family.  Those college students were (most notably) Sam, Ivan and Ted Raimi, Bruce Campbell, and Robert Tapert.  

Since "The Evil Dead", these men have continued to work together, and have since gone on to lead successful careers.  They also became friends with the Coen brothers, with whom Sam co-wrote "The Hudsucker Proxy". (which is fantastic . . . but I'll get to that one later)

 In the nineties, Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert would go on to produce numerous TV series, the most successful of which would be “Hercules: The Legendary Journeys” and “Xena: Warrior Princess”, on which, Bruce Campbell and Ted Raimi would play staple characters.  Bruce Campbell would also star in the short-lived anachronistic steam-punk western “The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.” (which was a better remake of “The Wild Wild West” than the Will Smith movie of the same name).  Bruce can now be seen as “Sam Axe” on the USA series “Burn Notice”. 

Sam also flexed his directing muscles in the nineties on the original superhero creation “Darkman”, on the western “The Quick and the Dead”, the suspense thriller “A Simple Plan” (in my opinion, his best work), and the Kevin Costner baseball vehicle “For Love of the Game”, and the supernatural murder-mystery “The Gift” (which is a close second to “A Simple Plan”).  Then, in the 2000s, Sam would go on to direct the three “Spider-Man” movies, once again fitting Bruce and Ted into cameo roles.  Many of these movies also featured, to some degree or another, the fiercely original shooting style which is already evident in “The Evil Dead”.

His latest effort, “Oz the Great and Powerful” will be in theaters this summer (which I am looking forward to).

However, this success is understandable when you consider that they were not only the driving force behind getting “The Evil Dead” made, but they did so without the benefit of a studio; they financed the film by seeking local businesses to invest in their own home town themselves, in their twenties.

Imagine being a twenty year old college kid going into a local, family owned business, a grocer or pharmacy, and asking them for $90,000 dollars to make a zombie movie.  What the hell do you say?

Even without this knowledge, “The Evil Dead” is still an impressive effort.  While the low budget is obvious, the acting is, in numerous places, amateurish, and the editing in the opening scene is somewhat awkward, the story is thoroughly original, Bruce Campbell’s acting throughout is solid, and even powerful in the third act, and he does all his own stunts, and, in fact, the entire third act (the last twenty minutes of the movie) are impressive, disturbing, and unlike anything I’ve seen anywhere, ever, before or since.

Steven King also wrote a rare review of “The Evil Dead”, calling it “the most ferociously original movie of 1982”.

Not that Steven King is the be-all-end-all of horror (oh . . . wait), but I wouldn’t even qualify it with the year.