"The Trees Didn't Attack You!" Revisiting "The Evil Dead"



This picture is all I needed to see to start believing in the remake.



There will obviously be SPOILERS for the original film, but there might also be spoilers for the new version, too.  I haven't seen the new one yet, but if it's faithful at all, then some of this stuff will most likely spoil it.

*A note regarding remakes, reimaginings, reboots, and whatnot.  I don't take a side in the debate over these kinds of films.  I like and I hate some of these movies.  I don't think you can give a blanket response to all re- films.  It's just unfair.  So I might complain about the new Spider-Man movie being pointless while I praise Batman Begins.  If the film doesn't do anything new and interesting, in my opinion, I will trash it.  But I judge things from a movie to movie basis.  Therefore, I am excited to see the new Evil Dead film, even if it is considered to be a remake of sorts.  Plus, Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell are both very positive about this film.  How can you argue about an Evil Dead film with those two guys?

The new Evil Dead is getting some serious promotion, and it honestly looks pretty awesome, so I decided to check out the original film before I venture out to see the new film this weekend.  It had been over ten years since I had last (and first) seen the classic Sam Raimi film.  Aside from the most memorable portions (*COUGH* tree rape *COUGH*), I had forgotten most of the movie. 

What I do remember about The Evil Dead was the infamous "tree rape" scene.  In fact, I considered titling this article "Tree Rape," but that seemed somewhat offensive and gimmicky.  Regardless, that scene, in which a woman is held down by weeds and raped by a tree, stuck with me more than anything.  To be honest, my first response was stunned laughter.  Is that bad?  I don't care.  If you want to join a debate about it, click here.  The laughter may be a result of how I watched the film.  It was with a group of friends back in high school.  Most of us had seen Army of Darkness and I had seen Evil Dead 2, but we had not watched the original.  Assuming it would be a goofy film, we rented it.  The tree scene definitely threw us for a loop.  Thankfully, a few of us got called into work very soon after that scene, so no one (especially the girls in the group) could start to analyze my laughter.  So I went to work and eventually watched the rest of the film.  I remember dismissing the film as the lesser of the three, but that tree scene stuck with me through the years.



This is all I dare present from the "tree rape" scene.  Google it more at your own risk.  (This is actually from a similar, tamer version of a nature attack in Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn.)



Cut to last night.  I go down to my basement to get on the treadmill and watch The Evil Dead on Netflix.  Why is this important?  I think I may have found the perfect viewing experience for this, or any other, horror film.  First, I was in a basement alone.  My basement isn't like the cellar in the film or anything, but a basement is a basement.  Second, when I am on the treadmill the TV gets my complete attention so I don't think about the fact that I am jogging like a hamster on a wheel.  Third, you are running in place as you watch people run from demons.  It's a very empathetic way to view the film.  Anyway, I was involved with the film this time, to say the least. 

I may have come away from my initial viewing less than enthralled because of how I watched it: as a teenager and broken into separate viewings.  Paying close attention to it, I truly appreciated the film for the first time.  It was genuinely scary at times, funny here and there, gross often, and flat out annoying for a minute or two (that shrieking demon death scene...).  All of that equals a unique and enjoyable viewing experience.  I also noticed that despite the limited budget, there is some style to this film.  I love the camera movements and angles, and the homemade gore is disgusting in the best kind of way.  Plus, it does have that low-budget charm that ultimately leaves younger or uninitiated viewers with a very negative opinion of the film, while it leaves people like me with an overly positive reaction. 

That low-budget appeal is the basis of an argument Bruce Campbell makes for the new version in Entertainment Weekly.  To paraphrase, he writes about how great it will be to see a version of the story done with an actual budget.  I get that, and I am excited to see that as well, but I don't imagine a lot of money for better production values can replace the charm of this gross, cheap movie.  Campbell brings up another point that I have contention with: he thinks it's great that a version of Evil Dead will be widely available rather than seen intermittently by people who have a "weird uncle" who shows them the film.  While I didn't have a "weird uncle" who showed the film to me, I do like how I came across the movie.  Sure, I didn't love the film and didn't even watch it in one sitting, but it felt more special than just going to the theater on opening night.  We found the film in the old VHS section.  The movie was older than us.  A tree does something unspeakable to a woman in the first half hour.  It was weird.  It was memorable. 

Back to the movie itself.  The first time I saw the film, I was disappointed with how much Ash wasn't like the Ash that I knew.  This is my own fault, since I saw Army of Darkness before either Evil Dead film.  This also explains why I still consider Army the best of the three; first impressions and whathaveyou...  I was less than thrilled to see Ash as a lame boyfriend who only reluctantly uses his trademark weapons.  And he doesn't really mouth off to the demons at all.  Watching it now, I see the shades of future Ash in Campbell's performance.  He doesn't spout off catch phrases, but when he yells, "Shut up!" to his demon girlfriend, it makes me smile a bit.  You can hear in his tone that hero that will one day be very fed up with the undead.  It's in the physicality of the role, as well.  As Ash wildly throws haymakers at his demonfriend's head, you can't help but find a little humor there.  Is his reluctance to commit what is essentially domestic violence some kind of parable?  I hope not, because  I just find it all amusing.  His friend, near death, is sitting on the couch urging him on, and Ash is wild-eyed and pummeling away to no avail.  It's so frustrating and hopeless that you have to laugh.  Or maybe I just have to laugh. 



A hero is born...



It all boils down to Cambell's delivery, though.  While the first film isn't in-your-face and comic like the other two, there is still something there.  It's interesting to watch the origin of the character and the actor at the same time.  Still, I found myself expecting Ash to say, "It's a trick.  Get an axe," when the zombie was playing dead.  Of course it would make no sense for him to know that, but that's beside the point.  Also, "zombie playing dead" would be a great band name; feel free to steal that.

Even though the character of Ash and all his goofy adventures are my favorite parts of this franchise, none of it would exist without Sam Raimi.  His work on this film created a style that has led him to the heights of Hollywood.  I would argue that that is bad thing, but I'm starting to accept that Raimi might need to stay with the big event pictures for a while.  I'm not sure it's possible for him to replicate what he's done here.  He still values real sets and things as much as possible, but it seems like every film he's choosing to make is impossible to make without vast amounts of CG.  Here, he had no choice but to make things messy, and the film benefits from that.  The blood, the demon makeup, that milk-blood stuff they puke up, the over-the-top violence; it's all so much more fun, and at times, frightening, to see because you know that it had to be done onscreen, not on a computer months later. 

All of this leads to the remake, directed by newcomer Fede Alvarez, who wowed Raimi, and others, with his short films.  Raimi also made plenty of short films before he made The Evil Dead, so it's fitting that Alvarez would get to make his version of it.  From what I've seen in pictures and previews, it appears that Alvarez has made a worthy film.  The most important aspect of the film is the fact that there is no Ash character.  This is good for two reasons.  1. No one should try to be the new Bruce Campbell, especially since Bruce Campbell is still alive and well.  2.  More importantly, Campbell has suggested that eventually the two separate Evil Dead versions could merge.  Alvarez is already talking about a sequel, and the plan involves another Army of Darkness followed by a seventh Dead film that would tie it all together.  That sounds pretty great to me.

Even if the new version disappoints me, it has at least given me a reason to revisit this great film.  The tree rape is still effective (though I didn't laugh this time), but the rest of the film works so much more for me now.  Would a younger audience appreciate it?  Probably not.  Not yet, anyway.  But based on a picture I found during my research for this article, I think they might get the same experience from the remake that I got from the original anyway...

Uh-oh...



An Uneven Trip to Oz Is Still Fun, Even If It Does Feel a Decade Too Late

Oz the Great and Powerful - Directed by Sam Raimi, written by Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire, starring James Franco, Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, and Zach Braff - Rated PG

I really should not have watched Oz.  It kind of represents the very films I've been condemning lately.  My most recent post involved asking, or demanding, that Hollywood stop making this movies that straddle the age line in an attempt to make a film truly for everyone.  I also complained about the fact that they seem to all be in 3D and come across as cash grabs.  Despite all of that, I still went to see Oz the Great and Powerful, and, worse yet, I actually liked it.  In my defense, I did point out that Oz was more prequel than revision of a classic story.   

I must stress that I only "liked" it.  I didn't love this film and odds are I'll never watch it again.  But I enjoyed the experience of the film (in IMAX 3D) and found myself lost in it a time or two.  It is not an amazing film or anything, though.  It is confusing in tone at times, parts of it did rely too heavily on CG, and some major roles are miscast.  More often than not, however, the film entertained me. 

The story is basically the origin of the wizard from the original 1939 film (even though this cannot be considered an official prequel because of rights issues between two different studios).  The wizard (played somewhat successfully by James Franco) is two-bit circus performer who aspires to be a great man, but succeeds only at conning gullible women into sleeping with him.  When this leads to problems within the circus, he escapes, only to be sucked into the vortex of a tornado a la Dorothy.  The wizard wakes up in Oz and begins a quest to save the land from a wicked witch. 

As far as storylines go, the film is pretty childlike and lame.  But who's watching this for a story?  All people need to know is that this is not a remake of the original, so don't expect to see the Tin Man or anyone like that. 

Oz is first and foremost a visual film and in that regard it succeeds.  I watched this in IMAX 3D, and I have to admit that I am a sucker for that format.  For one thing, the inflated ticket price makes me want to like it to justify the expense.  Secondly, when done right, it can look amazing.  Oz is certainly not a home run as far as visuals go, but there are enough moments to justify spending the extra money if IMAX is an option.  Honestly, if I had watched this in regular 2D, I would be much more harsh in my judgment. 

The greatest trick Franco ever pulled was convincing Sam Raimi that he looks like he's from 1905.

The visual and the action suffice, but the acting falls short at times.  Franco plays a swindler with a heart just fine and is believable at times, but he still seemed completely out of place, both in Oz and in the real world of the opening.  Look at Franco, does he look like someone from 1905?  I really wish one of the first two actors considered for the role, Robert Downey, Jr. and Johnny Depp, would have taken the part.  Mila Kunis plays one of three witches that could become the wicked witch (Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams are the other two), and she seems out of place, as well.  The rest of the cast is fine, with Zach Braff being the only standout, in my opinion. 

It's hard to get behind this film because it just seems like director Sam Raimi is trying to one-up Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.  To be fair, he does just that, as this film is much more enjoyable.  It's just that Raimi, who is already pretty similar to Burton, should not be doing the same safe, lame work that Burton has relegated himself to.  Raimi would be better suited to stick with film's like his last effort, the sickeningly fun Drag Me to Hell.  On an uplifting note, he has said that he doesn't plan on directing the already green-lit sequel.  And on an even more uplifting note, Raimi has said that he is working on a script for Evil Dead 4, later clarified to actually be Army of Darkness 2.  In fact, many people have noted, and I agree, that Oz is very similar in structure to Army of Darkness.

Which brings me to the biggest source of contention for a film like this: what is it?  Is it a children's movie, a teen movie, or a family film.  I guess I would say it's a family film above all, but it contains elements of everything.  Is it too intense for little kids?  Maybe.  I think the original Wizard of Oz film is more disturbing than this film, though.  (CG flying monkeys have nothing on the 1939 version of a flying monkey...)    Sam Raimi did toss in a screaming witch scene (which seems to be a requirement for each of his films) that could bother some children.  This complaint applies to the humor, also.  Some of the gags are childish, but then there are multiple jokes about the wizard being promiscuous.  Sure, most of it will go over younger heads, but it still felt uneven.

Sure, this flying monkey might look goofy, but I'd still freak out if I saw this thing in person.  CG monkeys don't scare me...

Perhaps the largest part of the audience wasn't looking for any type of film other than a new Oz movie.  Let's face it, it's not like the franchise has been utilized with any regularity (although now I'm sure it is about to be exhausted).  I must admit that childhood nostalgia for that classic film was the biggest reason I bought a ticket.  But this leads me to my potential biggest problem.  I always enjoyed the original because of how each character was a physical representation of elements from Dorothy's real life.  That's fine because she wakes up back in Kansas, having learned a lesson.  So Oz is a place of her imagination.  After a little research, I found out that the film made it all a dream while the books by L. Frank Baum considered Oz to be a real place.  This film claims to be an adaptation of the books rather than a prequel to the film, so it is not beholden to that dream concept.  Okay, but then why are so many characters obviously figments of the wizard's subconscious if Oz is a real place?  The China doll with the broken legs is the wheelchair bound girl the wizard couldn't cure in the real world.  His flying chimp helper shares the same DNA as his real world helper.  There are more examples and each one is played by the same actor in each world.  Kids might not have issues with that, but that question stuck with me more than anything else in the film.  I just find it cheap for the film to cherry pick elements from both sources. 

These problems didn't really occur to me while I watched the movie.  That is the most important thing, I suppose.  Oz the Great and Powerful kept me entertained, and I didn't think of most of these negative things until later on.  Sure, a good movie should hold up under scrutiny, but I still consider it a success if it provided entertainment in the moment...and all in 3D!  I know, I know, the 3D thing is getting old, both the element itself and the complaints about it.  I must admit that this is the perfect film to utilize 3D.  The original film ushered in color in an interesting way, so it only makes sense for this film to begin as a square, black-and-white film only to expand in color and dimension when Oz is reached.  This should have been one of the first new 3D movies.  Maybe that's the problem.  This film should have been released five or six years ago.  Then maybe it would just be considered a fun time at the movies.  Instead, it's a fun time, but the scent of cash grab is still in the air.