NOT GEEK
"Evil Dead" was exquisite. We show up at a location, establish no one will be leaving, and start killing people one at a time.
"Evil Dead" was exquisite. We show up at a location, establish no one will be leaving, and start killing people one at a time.
Is it a slasher movie? No. Something starts happening to these... not kids, exactly, since it's established they're all in their early-to-mid 20's. First one starts to lose her mind, then they all do. There are knives, needles, smashing, trashing, vomiting, bleeding, cutting and DEMONIC POSSESSION (not in that order), and it's exactly what the doctor prescribed.
There's a certain bored familiarity with slasher movies, in that we know what the threat is and what it's gonna do, and it's just a question of if our characters can avoid that threat to get to... wherever safety is. "Evil Dead" is important, and great, because you don't know WHAT the fuck is going to happen. Evil spirit? What the fuck are THEY capable of? Well, whatever the fuck the filmmakers say they are, and that's more and more right up until the final scene. It keeps you on your toes, it will surprise you, it WILL make you jump sky-high. Worth seeing on the big screen, and in a year or two, if you're considering the DVD.... take hold of it, watch it, and think "Damn, I shoulda seen this in the theater."
GEEK
This is the exact same movie as the 1981 original, but with a budget, and a few minor differences. At the theater, the girlfriend mentioned the original and someone nearby was completely unaware that such a thing existed. It's just as well; the scares are there, but they remain completely different animals.
This is the exact same movie as the 1981 original, but with a budget, and a few minor differences. At the theater, the girlfriend mentioned the original and someone nearby was completely unaware that such a thing existed. It's just as well; the scares are there, but they remain completely different animals.
To enjoy "Evil Dead" (1981), you must first get past the non-existent budget. If you can do that (not all casual viewers can, or want to), then it doesn't matter that one of the actors is a young Bruce Campbell, it's just an enjoyable low-budget horror movie that doesn't always make sense, but hey, lots of people die and the special effects are pretty good for the money.
"Evil Dead 2" is as much comedy as it is horror, and the continuity with "Evil Dead" is marginal at best. Sure, you can argue that Ash brings his girlfriend Linda make to the same house as the first movie, but WHY THE FUCK WOULD HE DO THAT. They're separate animals, enjoyable but not really a continuing story.
"Evil Dead" (2013) has a plot. Mia is there to detox. It's an intervention, they're all going to be out at so-and-so's mom's cabin in the woods, away from society, to help their friend through this difficult time in her life. Of course, there happens to be some remnants of "witchcraft" in the basement......
One of the hallmarks of any movie, smart or dumb, is "If you think about it later, does it make sense?" I mean, sure it makes sense in the moment, it happened "because," but what about later? If not, the movie falls apart, you probably won't watch it again (Transformers, Phantom Menace), but if so......
Well, despite the movie devolving (and I use that term with respect) into blood and death in the final act, the filmmakers actually CARED enough to give a reason for all this. Where did the Book of the Dead come from? It's never explained, but nor is it explained in the earlier movies. It just IS, the schoolteacher among them gets curious (he's a schoolteacher! he likes to read!), then none of them believe the recovering junkie, because she's a recovering junkie. THEN THE BLACK CHARACTER DIES FIRST.
.... This is a horror movie standard, to be sure, so that goes firmly in the "not geek" section. ON THE OTHER HAND, I turned to my girlfriend during the movie, who is an avid gamer (hence our love), and said "They killed the cleric first. Smart move." Because the first to die is (oh, btw, spoilers, sorry), also the nurse. Not that a nurse could have patched up what happens after that (oops, severed arm!), but it's still a wise tactical move. After that, every kill seems to be a kill of opportunity by this demon or whatever it is, up to and including as many references to the original as possible. The opening shot of the movie, practically, has someone far in the distance, silhouetted by fog and shadow, who appears to be carrying a shotgun and a chainsaw. Who it is turns out to be a minor character of no importance, and it's all in a flashback sequence before the story gets started, but they filmmakers CARE. They care enough to drop in references without making them obvious or contingent on knowing the original, like when Stan Lee or Lou Ferrigno show up in an Incredible Hulk movie, or Leonard Nimoy shows up in the Trek reboot. Hey, if you cheer at the Book and Shotgun on table in the big reveal there in Act I, good for you. If you don't know the image, it's not important, and doesn't detract from the movie at all if you don't get the reference.
......... 1993 was TWENTY GODDAMN YEARS AGO, and they even used three words that summoned the evil, and they WEREN'T "Klaatu Verada *cough cough*." They actually sounded creepy (though for all I know they could have been Latin for 'fabric softener'). They weren't referencing something else, they were just words in a creepy, creepy book. Mission accomplished.
.... Except the ending. Good luck explaining all the dead bodies to the authorities, (character or characters who survive).
PART THE SECOND
Go to the library or bookstore right now and buy a copy of "John Dies at the End" by David Wong. It's horror comedy in the best way, one moment you're in awe of the creepy or disgusting images you've just read on, the next moment you're laughing at the next dick joke. It's a great read: fun, creative, original.
Go to the library or bookstore right now and buy a copy of "John Dies at the End" by David Wong. It's horror comedy in the best way, one moment you're in awe of the creepy or disgusting images you've just read on, the next moment you're laughing at the next dick joke. It's a great read: fun, creative, original.
"John Dies at the End" the movie, directed by Don Coscarelli (Phantasm, The Beastmaster, Bubba Ho-Tep) is a waste of time.
It starts off fine enough, a little rushed, but the voice of the author is there, and the humor, and the randomness. It gets iffy from there almost immediately, as the "creepy Jamaican" from the book is now just a really good looking dude with dreadlocks. You know, someone who would NOT be out of place at a party of 20-somethings. No thought put into THAT sequence, but maybe they'll pick it up again after--
Nope. The entire fun of the book is the interactions between Dave (your narrator) and John (his best friend who constantly gets him in trouble / can always be counted on to save the day). That interaction was completely gone from the movie. John was barely in it, becoming a plot device instead of an actual character. Characters who weren't these two, got even less development. Every single female character is a pale white girl with long straight black hair, making them difficult to tell apart. In fact, John and Dave are the same body type, making them ANOTHER two nondescript white guys... now, these two actors ARE quite good, and very nearly save the movie, but they can't overcome (1) a director who hasn't read the book, and (2) a movie that blows all its money in the first half.
Look, the zombie and monster effects were great for the first bit, but the movie goes off the rails when whatsisname (a white guy named Justin, which is unimportant), the gangster wannabe, gets possessed (is a word I'll use for simplicity's sake) and kidnaps everyone. In the book, there's a reason for this: He takes them all to Vegas for his own nefarious purposes. In the movie, they driving five minutes to the mall, at which point no explanation is given why he needed to bring all these people to the mall. One of them, yes, but how did this possessed guy know THAT was the right person? Okay, even if he did have powers to know this, why the fuck did he bring everyone else, INCLUDING JOHN'S DEAD BODY (spoilers: he's not dead for long). This makes no sense, and jumps over about 200 pages in the book, neutering all the best lines, and failing to execute the lines that DID make it in. In fact, the opening narration ("The terrible secret of the universe") is explained later in the book, as to WHY this is the terrible secret of the universe.... in the movie, it's never referenced again. It's a non sequitir. Sure, these few pages in the book are funny, and the director wanted to leave it in, but the director hasn't actually read the book so has no idea of the context or what's going to make sense.
The thing is, I could pass all this off as the low-budget director of "Phantasm" simply not knowing (or caring) how to make a mainstream movie. He can experiment with his cute little low-budget effects, but at a certain point you have to start playing with the big kids and make a movie people WANT to see, or you're going to get your toys taken away. He flirted with mainstream-ness with "Phantasm II" and "Beastmaster," but then stubbornly refused to do anything anyone wanted to see, casting the same sorta-good actors in "Phantasm III" which was never even released theatrically. Thing is, it was actually pretty good (Phantasm IV is unwatchable), but nobody gave a fuck because he cast the entire movie with his friends. That was the end of his career, until....
"Bubba Ho-Tep" WAS incredible. It had great actors (Bruce Campbell and the late, great Ossie Davis), an explained plot, a beginning + middle + end. The effects were cheap, but when wielded by a director who knows how to hide that, and build tension, the whole thing can still work. How the director of THAT movie directed "John Dies at the End" is beyond me. Lines are delivered wrong, random scenes from the book are cobbled together into a nonsensical series of events, and then I think there's a big explosion (which is telegraphed so clearly you'll be like "no way is that plan going to work," and then it happens exactly the way the minor character explicitly stated it would).... then the movie peters out. The book also explains how the title relates to the ending. The movie doesn't even know what its title is.
The short version is this: You knew the "Last Airbender" movie had problems when the director of THAT piece of shit swapped nationalities of the entire cast before the movie even went into production. There was no reason to do this, he just did it because he wanted to make a terrible movie, and make a change just to be an egotistical douchebag.
In "JDATE," the director swaps genders of the dog. Why did he do this? Why is the dog now male instead of female? Does it contribute to, or enhance the plot or events in any way?
No it does not. It's just an arrogant, douchebag of a director jealous of a writer who is more talented than he is. He wants to put his own stamp on the material (which has exactly one legit scare, all the rest from the book are simply left out), and in doing so, has made a movie not interesting or watchable. I had the luck of seeing the DVD, so I can tell you that the deleted scenes are actually the best ones in the entire movie. A few of them are actually very funny, one of them is straight-up creepy, and the last is just a character monologuing, but at least is helps advance the plot in some way. All cut. For no reason. (and don't say "for pacing." What pacing? I watched the movie. WHAT FUCKING PACING?!).
Because Don Coscarelli is incompetent, and "Bubba Ho-Tep" was an anomaly. Which, by the way, is also based on a story, written by someone more talented than Don. Note to authors: When at all possible, write your own screenplay. Or at least be in the room.
On a 1-4 star rating:
Evil Dead: 3.5 stars (would watch again)
JDATE: Zero stars (was going to set fire to my copy, but Netflix gets touchy about that).
