Over the weekend I saw what was, at first glance, arguably the stupidest movie I’ve ever seen.
“Tucker and Dale vs Evil” is a horror movie parody about a pair of blue-collar aAppalachianites who have just bought a new vacation cabin which had, unbeknownst to them, previously belong to a family of serial killers. Both comedy and tragedy ensue when they cross paths with a group of overtly stereotypical college students who happen to mistake them for “Deliverance”-esque sadistic rapist killers.
Wikipedia defines ‘parody’ as a ‘work meant to mock, comment on or trivialize an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of satirical or ironic imitation’
Wikipedia also defines ‘horror’ and ‘terror’ as two aspects of a horrifying experience; ‘terror’ being the dread in anticipation of the event, and ‘horror’ being the revulsion in reaction to the event.
Parody is a cornerstone of comedy, and has been a part of literature nearly as long as there has been literature; a part of theatre nearly since the first actor stood on stage to recite words as an actor; a part of film nearly since the first camera rolled. In fact, much of the early days of comedy in film were parody; from the Keystone Cops to Buster Keaton’s “Sherlock Jr.” to Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” (one of many acts to parody Adolf Hitler). These and many more parodies from this era are regarded as some of the most popular and renowned comedies of all time, including Abbott and Costello’s ‘Who’s On First’ and many of the works of the Marx Brothers, namely “A Night in Casablanca” and “A Night At The Opera”.
Horror has also always been a part of literature since Cain killed Abel; a part of theatre since since Oedipus learned the truth of his fate; a part of film since Count Orlock rose to walk the night. The earliest horror films were stories of ghosts and monsters; adaptations of literature which the world knows as ‘gothic’; the nineteenth century creations of Stevenson and Doyle, Shelley and Stoker, Poe and Wells. Many of the films that we think of today as artful classics, including “Dracula and “Frankenstein”, are horror movies.
Almost as traditional is the act of combining these two, applying comedy in the face of terror, horror and tragedy, known as ‘gallows humor’. In “Hamlet”, Shakespeare presents the gravedigger’s conversation as comic relief from the string of deaths which plague the play. In film, the very same monsters which permeated horror cinema in the early days of the silver screen are, not long after, lampooned by sharing that screen with comedy greats Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. Some of Bob Hope’s earliest films would include horror comedies “The Cat and The Canary” and “The Ghost Breakers”. Even the aptly nicknamed ‘Master-of-Suspense’, Alfred Hitchcock would use comedy throughout his films, particularly in “Rear Window”, but most heavily in “The Trouble With Harry”, which is a movie about a small number of people in a small town who each think that they are responsible for the death of the title character, and who continuously and inadvertently counter each other’s efforts to dispose of his body.
In recent years, horror comedies and horror parodies have gained popularity. As with any genre, there are, as George Carlin would say, “a few winners, a whole lotta losers”. Most are the direct-to-dvd efforts of “National Lampoons” wannabees, but a few, like “Scream”, “Tremors”, and “Cabin In The Woods”, are not only very funny, but are solidly frightening and entertainingly clever as well, each sending up different subgenres of horror, and each in very different ways.
“Tucker and Dale vs Evil” falls into this company. While you might expect it to send up “Deliverance” and other, more brutal 70’s horror films, such as “I Spit On Your Grave” or “The Hills Have Eyes”, the movie instead lampoons a particular cliche of horror movies which I would call ‘stupid teenagers going camping’, which is a staple setup for numerous horror films and horror film franchises (“Friday the 13th”, “Sleepaway Camp”). Movies of this genre often sought to serve as cautionary tales, pointing out ‘this is what you don’t do’, yet showing no causal relationship between having sex, smoking pot and drinking beer and getting eviscerated by an axe wielding, hockey mask wearing undead psychopath. “Tucker and Dale” follows these standards of horror, albeit this time with tongue firmly planted in cheek, and this time illustrates causal relationships between being stupid when you’re camping and getting killed.
It teaches important lessons, like ‘Don’t dive headlong at someone standing in front of the business end of a woodchipper.’, ‘Don’t look down the barrel of a gun to figure out why it won’t fire’, ‘Don’t run a chainsaw through a bees nest’, or (and I cannot stress this one enough) ‘Don’t throw moonshine on a fire’. The movie also offers some fun asides, like “He’s heavy for half a guy”, and one-liners, like “I shoulda knowd that if a guy like me talked to a girl like you, somebody’d end up dead.”
The end of the second act drags a little, with the twists and turns at that point feeling a little forced. But the third act is solid, with a lead-in that feels a little like the ‘Groovy’ scene from “Evil Dead 2”. In all, I have very few complaints. However, be prepared for an over-abundance of stupid from the teenagers as well as the titular characters.
If you can get past that and just enjoy it, “Tucker and Dale vs Evil” is a very funny movie and a lot of fun.
I do not consider myself to be exceedingly intelligent. I am not a member of MENSA. I have no access to state secrets or privileged information (other than my own). I am not, nor do I pretend to be, a prognosticator of any degree or talent. I have no knowledge of the inner workings of Hollywood politics. There are a great many things that I do not know, but only one of them haunts me.
How, for . . . How does Katherine Heigl keep getting work? Please, someone explain this to me. End my sleepless nights.
I recently watched “One For The Money”, the film adaptation of the Janet Evanovich novel of the same name. In the movie, Heigl plays Evanovich’s popular sleuth, “Stephanie Plum”. I say plays, as though Heigl were capable of some sort of acting range. What really happens (and anyone who has seen “The Ringer”, “Knocked Up”, “27 Dresses”, ”The Ugly Truth” and “Killers” can testify to this) is that Katherine Heigl keeps the same character, and that that character is uptight, condescending, obnoxious, snide, inept and phony.
In her earlier movies, it wasn’t quite as noticeable or detrimental. In “The Ringer”, Heigl’s character seemed like more of an afterthought; a romantic interest for Johnny Knoxville’s character whose presence was meant to be a distraction for Knoxville and to create an internal conflict for him. In this movie, Heigl plays a coordinator at the Special Olympics where Knoxville, pretending to be developmentally disabled, has entered as a contestant to pay off his gardener’s extensive medical bills. The movie, however, focuses very little on the potential or would-be romance between Knoxville and Heigl, and much more on Knoxville bonding with the other contestants. Both of these aspects are meant to make him feel guilty about what he’s doing (which he already does from the beginning) which leads to him eventually confessing.
In “Knocked Up”, Heigl plays a woman who gets pregnant from a one-night-stand with a nearly-unemployed slacker played by Seth Rogen. The bulk of the movie is fairly predictable, going through the motions of these two people, who would never have been brought together were it not for random chance and too much alcohol, following through with a decision that, clearly, neither of them want to, pretending the whole time that it’s what the want, and trying not to resent each other for any of it. Any resemblance between this movie and romance or comedy is purely coincidental. The only comedy to be derived from this movie is from the supporting cast, which, for all the very funny people involved, should be more.
“27 Dresses” is nearly unwatchable, and had almost ruined Elton John’s “Bennie and the Jets” for me until I saw “Gnomeo and Juliet”. In it, Heigl plays a character who has, (and I cannot emphasize this enough) voluntarily, been the maid-of-honor and organizer of 27 different weddings for different friends, and then spends the rest of movie demanding that everyone else feel sorry for her that she hasn’t been married yet, particularly when her sister starts dating her boss, for whom she (Heigl’s character) has had a secret crush. It is the most predictable and unoriginal story, full of unlikeable and unsympathetic characters, with lame jokes and unnatural dialog. The only redeemable quality this movie is a (mostly) decent performance by James Marsden.
“The Ugly Truth” breaks new ground of predictability as Heigl plays an uptight producer of a morning news show who hires the cable equivalent of a shock jock to boost ratings, then lets herself be convinced to take his advice to better her chances with some other guy. He (the shock jock) then proceeds to fall for her. This is yet another version of “Pygmalion”, which was the basis for “My Fair Lady”, and every version which has proceeded it has been more original, less predictable, better performed, more sympathetic, more likable, and generally more stomachable. This is even probably the worst performance I’ve seen put forth by Gerard Butler.
In “Killers”, Katherine Heigl is back to being the only unlikeable part of the film, when she marries a man, played by Ashton Kutcher (“That 70’s Show”, “Two and a Half Men”), without knowing that he’s a secret agent, and she doesn’t find out until people start trying to kill them. It starts out as a solid film for Kutcher before he falls into old habits of being over-the-top in order to be more funny, but once he’s rolling, both he and Heigl quickly become insufferable. This is also yet another film which teaches the lesson of “just because you cast a bunch of comedy actors, doesn’t mean you have a comedy”.
As bad as all of these films were that came before, “One for the Money” is even worse. Instead of getting someone who could actually carry the roll, like Mila Kunis or Rachel Weiss, they take Katherine Heigl, dye her hair brunette and have her try to speak in a New Jersey accent, which just ends up sounding caricaturish. Everything Heigl does in this film plays as phony. The character of Stephanie Plum is supposed to not know what she’s doing, but the way Heigl plays it, it’s as though she’s pretending to not know what she’s doing, and she’s hamming it up for the camera, the way she always does.
I feel I need to acknowledge those parts of the film which actually pass muster, but I with the caveat that it is in no way a recommendation for this film. Debbie Reynolds shines as she always does as Stephanie Plum’s grandmother. Jason O’Mara turns in an adequate performance, and his accent is more subtle, but I’ve seen him do better.
However, making this film a Heigl vehicle has done it’s damage. I now have less interest in the works of Janet Evanovich than I did before. If you want to see a decent movie about a woman learning how to be a badass bounty hunter, rent “Domino”. If you don’t want to see yet another wretched Heigl performance, then save yourself the $1.30 at Redbox and the two hours. Also, I want to ask the people who make the trailers for her movies one question: To what demon in hell did you sell your soul to be able to keep convincing me to see her movies?
If you find a large, old creepy square door bolted to the cement floor of your basement which is locked by six padlocks, just move out. Get out of the basement and don’t ever go back. Don’t ask questions. Don’t bother to call your Realtor until you’re safely in another timezone. Only pack what you absolutely need and will fit in your car. Just get out of the house and as far away as you can. Whatever else you may do, do not, ever, under any circumstances, take the locks off. Do not ever, EVER, open it.
Do not ever open the large, old creepy square door bolted to the cement floor of your basement which is locked by six padlocks.
I know that I’ve said before that what makes a good horror movie is also what makes a good movie, but I’ve forgotten that the directors of some of my favorite films from when I was a kid also made some of the scariest horror movies ever. Joe Dante is the only director I know who could do both with the same movie.
I don’t know who’s more sick, me or him.
Joe Dante got his start in the 70’s working under Roger Corman. In the 60’s, Roger Corman was a cottage industry for making the worst movies in history including “X: The Man With X-Ray Eyes”, “The Creature From The Haunted Sea”, and the original “Little Shop of Horrors”. He also made a series of highly regarded adaptations of the works of Edgar Allan Poe. In the 70’s, though, Cormon founded “New World Pictures” whose purpose was to produce and distribute smaller films that larger studios wouldn’t, particularly independent films, and mass distribute foreign films to US audiences for the first time, including the works of Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini and Akira Kurosawa. From this time forth, Corman made a life of shepherding and mentoring young filmmakers. He has influenced the careers of directors, producers, writers, and actors alike, such as Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard, Peter Bogdanovich, Jonathan Demme, James Cameron, Curtis Hanson, John Sayles, Jack Nicholson, William Shatner, Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Talia Shire and Robert De Niro. So Joe Dante is in good company.
My first exposure to the works of Joe Dante was “Explorers”; I was seven. “Explorers” is about a three boys who build their own spaceship out of a 'Tilt-A-Whirl'. When you’re seven years old, what’s not cool about that? Dante’s best known film is “Gremlins”, but his career, which began in the 70’s with “Piranha” and “The Howling”, has included “Innerspace”, “The ‘Burbs”, “Twilight Zone: The Movie”; all of which blending Looney-Tunes-esque comedy, an eye for terror and suspense, and a sense of the fantastic and ridiculous into very fun films which pay solid tribute to Roger Corman. In the early 90’s, Joe Dante went one step closer to paying tribute to Roger Corman and his contemporaries, such as William Castle with “Matinee”, a period drama about what happens when a big name monster movie director comes to a small town to host the release of his latest film at the height of the red scare. Dante’s career in the late 90’s / early 2000’s took a few missteps with “Small Soldiers” and “Looney Tunes: Back in Action”, but now, with “The Hole”, hes back.
“The Hole” starts out simply enough with a mother moving her teen and preteen sons into a new house in a small town (next to a cute girl, of course, which is just prerequisite). While playing, the boys find a door (just as I described at the beginning of this review) in the floor, and, of course, they open it. Weirdness ensues, but in a much more original way than the opening or credits might imply.
"The Hole" stars Chris Massoglia ("The Vampire's Assistant"), Teri Polo ("Meet The Parents"), and features cameo appearances by Joe Dante alumni Dick Miller ("Explorers","Gremlins") and Bruce Dern ("The 'Burbs").
As the film progresses, Joe Dante is in full form and more. There are elements from a number of his previous films, including "The 'Burbs", "Gremlins" and "Twilight Zone". There are also elements which show influence from other sources as well, such as Asian horror cinema, like "Ringu" or "Ju-on", which integrate well to build a highly creepy atmosphere and an overall scarier movie.
The most impressive part of the film, however, is the rating. "The Hole" is rated PG-13. There are very few horror movies which manage an R rating, and fewer still which manage to be actually scary. Most horror films tend to be, to some degree or another, over the top, which means death, blood, gore, violence, sex, drugs, swearing, and pretty much anything else which will get the MPAA’s ire up. Making a horror movie without any of these things also tends to be extremely difficult, as it depends entirely on the director’s ability to create atmosphere. Fortunately, Joe Dante’s skill at this has never abated. The ending doesn't disappoint, either. While inevitable, even predictable, the ending corresponds perfectly to the setup.
Two lousy efforts and a six year absence are enough to put any director off his game, but Joe Dante has come back with all his old tricks and even some new ones. I hope we’ll be seeing more from him soon.
Quick note: "Army of Darkness" is the sequel to "Evil Dead 2".
Although, it really stretches the definition of the word 'sequel'. At least, not in any sense that Hollywood is familiar with. In fact, it's the only sequel I know of that has been of a completely different genre then it's predecessors.
Where the previous two films were fairly straight forward supernatural horror movies, "Army of Darkness" is the 'Evil Dead' equivalent of "A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" with mixins of "Jason and the Argonauts", “Bride of Frankenstein”, "The Three Stooges", and a somewhat unsettling reference to "The Day the Earth Stood Still".
“Army of Darkness” is a fun movie . . . if you’re a thirteen year old boy. It’s fun even if you’re not, but that seems to be it’s target audience. How could it not be? To a thirteen year old boy, this movie has everything: swords and sorcery, an awesome battle against an army of the dead, demons and monsters, slapstick comedy, and a chainsaw in a pear tree! (Hell, it even has tits . . . Just for a second, but they're still there)
As a grown up (in a manor of speaking), “Army of Darkness” is still a lot of fun, and not only for the nostalgia (or the tits). That’s not to say there isn’t plenty of nostalgia for me. When I was a teenager, I thought Bruce Campbell’s character was awesome, and I would recite line after line: “Alright you primitive screw heads, listen up: This . . . is my BOOMSTICK!”, “Give me some sugar, baby”, “Klatu Verata Nnnn . . . Necktie, Nickle-”, “By God, let’s give’em what for!”, “Keep your sardine can on, bucket head!”, “Sure, I coulda been king . . .”. To this day, I still recite my favorite lines along with the movie. But, now that I’m older, I also notice things that I haven’t before, particularly details. For me, there are three kinds of movies: movies that I only need to see once, movies that I like to watch when I’m in a particular mood, and movies I can watch over and over again, no matter what mood I’m in. The mark of this kind of movie is that I notice something different everytime I watch it. “Army of Darkness” is definitely in the third category.
Even just watching it over the weekend, noticed little things. Not just the fact that, in the pan across the front lines of the army of the dead, every other skeleton is a guy in a mask, and the rest are puppets, but other things. Like the look of boredom and confusion on the faces of the villagers while Ash is giving the “Boomstick” speech (why is he giving a sales pitch to a crowd of 14th century peasants, and does he honestly think they know what a ‘sporting goods department’ is?). Or the fact that, besides a book on chemistry and a book on Steam Plant Production and a couple of comic books, Ash has a 2 liter of Coke in his trunk.
There are little details like that that I’ve never noticed before. There are also parallels to the other movies that I hadn’t noticed before, like the floating witch, or the force in the woods chasing Ash, or the use of mirrors.
In all three movies, the first person to be revealed as possessed floats errilly in the air and speaks in a warped voice without moving their mouth. In “Army of Darkness”, the witch even makes the same quick head reveal that Cheryl does in “The Evil Dead”.
In “Army of Darkness”, when Ash quests for the book, his horse is spooked by and he is chased through the woods by (presumably) the same force which chased and stalked the people in the previous two films.
In “The Evil Dead”, Ash reaches out to touch his reflection in a mirror, and his hand passes through like it was water. In “Evil Dead 2”, Ash’s own reflection reaches out and begins to throttle him. In “Army of Darkness”, Ash’s reflections come to life once again, but after he has shattered a mirror, so the reflections are all small. This may lead to one of the silliest sequences in the entire series, but it’s also arguably one of the most creative, and definitely one of the most fun (“London bridges falling down . . .”).
It seems to me that one of the places where “Army of Darkness” gets a lot of flack is the silliness of it. However, I would argue that much of the creativity and originality of the film lay in the silliness. I’ve already mentioned the mini-Ashes, but also the whole leadup to the “Good Ash, Bad Ash” scene, or the fact that he’s fighting himself at the end, or the skeleton’s skull popping open at the end, showing his brains.
Actually, I think Sam Raimi deserves a lot of credit for this film. Unlike it’s predecessors, who, while containing numerous elaborate effects, had comparatively limited cast and setting, “Army of Darkness” is a big production. It’s huge! There’s a period setting, complete with costumes, large sets, and horses. The camera work is also more impressive, particularly the large scale scenes depicting large crowds or more complicated shots, like the one where the camera follows Ash up through the battle preparations to the top of a tower to look out over the enemy army.
The only major problem that I have with it is that, with all the opportunities for creativity, “Army of Darkness” is highly derivative. While I know that I said that I felt that much of the creativity and originality lay in the film’s silliness, there are numerous opportunities to be much more creative with the use of elements from the previous films, scary or not, funny or not. I understand that they may have had a limited budget, but “Army of Darkness” had a much larger budget than that of the previous two combine, and, I feel, anyway, that, as much fun as it is, it is the least creative and least original of the two.
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.
