Evil Dead - Ranked

Evil Dead Rise is streaming on Max right now, so I decided to revisit the entire series. This is a series that I love, but I don’t know exactly what I want from it. As you’ll see with the rankings, I dig both the horror and comedic elements, but other elements factor into my overall enjoyment. One thing is for sure, nothing will ever top the Rami/Campbell entries. The two newer entries are both solid, but due to nostalgia or whatever, there’s nothing there that can touch what Raimi and Campbell did with the original trilogy. But here’s my ranking anyway.

1.  The Evil Dead  

This is the most straight-up horror entry that Raimi made, and it always surprises me how much more I like this one compared to the more comedic films. I consider myself mainly a fan of the series for Campbell’s goofy performance in the second and third film, so this one, in which he’s only funny because he’s so cowardly, surprises me every time I watch it. I chalk it up to the low budget aesthetics of it all. I love the slow drive up to the best cabin in cinematic horror history. When it comes to horror, a lower budget always works for me. It just makes it all feel that much more real. Raimi is still doing amazing things with the camera and special effects despite the low budget, but it all feels real. And that’s what keeps this at the top of my list after every rewatch. Much like the characters stumbling across the Necronomicon, this film at times feels like found footage, which is what sets it apart for me.

2. Army of Darkness

This was the first film in the series I watched years ago, which is probably why I like goofy Ash so much. It’s crazy that this film went from a cabin in the woods to Medieval times, but the film went from horror to straight up slapstick comedy, so why not? Bruce Campbell is at his career best here, and it really sucks that this is the end of his run in the films (sorry, but I just couldn’t get into Ash vs Evil Dead). It would have been great if he and Raimi could have come back every couple of years and sent Ash into a different time period. Oh well. We at least got this wonderful nonsense. I’ll never get tired of hearing “It’s a trick; get an ax,” or seeing a skeleton army storming a castle.  

3. Evil Dead II

This should be my favorite entry in the series because it’s the perfect blend of horror and comedy. It’s the bridge that made Army of Darkness possible. But I just like the other two movies a little bit more. That’s it. This is simply about personal preference because if this is about the most solid, well-made film of the original trilogy, then it’s this one, hands down. But when I go to revisit this series, which I tend to do every year, I always watch The Evil Dead and Army of Darkness before I watch this one. 

4. Evil Dead Rise

The latest entry in the series is a lot of gory fun, though it’s still too focused on horror for my taste. The laughs here come not from a wise-cracking hero, but from reactions to the gross shit happening throughout (eyeball popping, cheese grater, glass chewing, etc.). There’s plenty to enjoy here, and I like how it mentions three books existing making it possible for another completely separate story to take place. I had a lot of fun with it, but it’s lacking two things that keep it from being great: Sam Raimi directing and Bruce Campbell starring.

5. Evil Dead

This one decided to almost completely cut out the comedy (aside from laughing at how fucking brutal it can get at times) and went hard with the horror. It worked, as this is easily the hardest film in the series to watch (licking the fucking box cutter, anyone?). Because of that, it’s my least favorite. I like revisiting these movies, and I don’t want to watch this one again. That makes it a good horror film, but it also makes it my least favorite Evil Dead movie.

Spider-Man 2 - "He's Just a Kid."

I’m listening to the Sam Raimi series on the Blank Check podcast, so I decided to write about Spider-Man 2 and 3. I don’t know why, but I didn’t have much to say about the first film, even though I like it quite a bit. But that’s how I’m doing things these days: if I don’t have anything to say, I’m not going to force it. So here are some thoughts on 2.

Sam Raimi’s involvement with comic book movies both interests me and bums me out. On the one hand, you get a unique director presenting their take on a comic book property. But on the other hand, the massive franchise keeps him from doing the type of movies that built his film nerd fan base in the first place. 

Because of this, the overt Raimi moments in these films are my favorite parts. For whatever reason, I didn’t appreciate this as much when I first watched Spider-Man 2. But with this rewatch, I was blown away by one scene in particular that was so fucking Raimi it felt like it was from a different movie. 

The scene is when Doc Ock is being operated on after his mishap. There’s a bit of a Universal monster vibe since a villain is being born, but more than that, this is an Evil Dead scene. As Doc Ock’s mechanical arms begin to act on their own, a true horror scene begins.

There’s wind, snap zooms, and a lot of screaming. One is reminded of the tree attack in The Evil Dead. It’s two minutes of Raimi awesomeness. The stylistic choices alone make it one of my favorite scenes in the trilogy, but the appearance of a chainsaw is the icing on the cake. The close up on the doctor’s face followed by the snap zoom on the chainsaw is nearly identical to Ash finding the chainsaw (or any other tool or weapon, for that matter) in the Evil Dead series. It’s just an amazing sequence that feels like it’s there just for the Raimi fans. 

Beyond the Raimi stuff, I still enjoy this trilogy on a pure comic book level. One of my least favorite tropes of the comic book movie world is the reluctant hero…when it doesn’t make sense. Typically, a reluctant hero like Wolverine or the Hulk is presented as someone who hates their abilities and wants a regular life. But when no regular life is presented or even seems possible, I don’t give a fuck. Quit your fucking whining, Logan, and use those goddamn indestructible claws and carve up some bad guys. And do it without being a bitch about it! 

Peter Parker, on the other hand, has a life that is being ruined by his heroic obligations. I feel for him in a way that I don’t for the “normal” versions of other superheroes like Logan and Bruce Banner. Parker’s life completely sucks, and it’s all Spider-Man’s fault. Of course, he would be reluctant to the point of giving up. 

This isn’t to say that I want to see a Peter Parker movie. I always want superheroes to be superheroes. I just don’t like that the writers get lazy and just make the majority of them reluctant because they need to add another dimension to their character and can’t think of anything else aside from, “What if they didn’t want to be a hero?” If it’s earned, as it is here, then it does make the character more interesting. And it makes the heroic moments more powerful because you know the sacrifice Parker is making every time he puts on the mask. 

We all know that Parker is going to choose to be Spider-Man, but we also know what he would be doing if he gave it up. He could have a chance with Mary Jane, and his education could lead to a fulfilling career. What have we seen of Wolverine when he’s not part of the X-Men? A cage fighter. A depressed, alcoholic limo driver. Yeah, it really makes sense that you’d want to give up your room in Xavier’s mansion to live a “normal” life, you sad, almost immortal bastard. And what about Bruce Banner? Hiding out in a soda factory in South America until he gets pissed off enough to destroy the place? Just keep your big green ass in the Avengers lab and accept your fate.

Normies like me watch these movies to see something amazing and wonder what we would be like with special powers. If you’re going to try to make me feel sorry for one of these heroic fucks for having powers, then you better make a damn good case for why their lives would be better without the power. Spider-Man 2 does that, and that’s what makes it an upper tier comic book movie.

Random Thoughts 

Peter Parker and Norm MacDonald in Dirty Work both start their hero journeys the same way: losing a pizza delivery job because a boss can't let go of the antiquated "thirty (or twenty-nine in this case) minutes or less" gimmick. Who ends up being the bigger hero of the two? That's up to you.

Holy shit, this movie has a lot of screaming.

That is some piss poor placement of the inhibitor chip, Doc. That thing looks like it would break if he just happened to look up too quickly. It had no chance holding up during an ill-advised scientific presentation.

Joey Coco Diaz comes to Spider-Man's defense in this. 

Why do the fights in this look better than the new Spider-Man movies?

Mary Jane is the most distressed damsel in cinema history.

I really wish Doc Ock would have put on a shirt before he went to kidnap Mary Jane.

Ah, the good old days of the Stan Lee cameo when it really was just a cameo and not a fourth-wall-breaking distraction.

You're Hating It Wrong. An "Evil Dead" Review/Defense

*Disclaimer: There will be SPOILERS for the Evil Dead series in this review.  Also, I refer to a "young" audience quite often.  I only use the word "young" because "people who watched the movie but had not seen any of the original films before they watched the remake" is a pain to type over and over again.  I watched the original three films while I was a high school student, so I know that young people can and sometimes do have good taste in movies.

The Evil Kurgan would've had no problems at all in the cabin.







Remakes can be a tough pill for a movie fan to swallow. I take issue with several remakes/reboots/reimaginings for being “pointless.” Last year, I was particularly unimpressed with the new Spider-Man movie. I just didn’t think it offered anything new, and it was too similar to the recent films to justify its existence. Sam Raimi directed the first Spider-Man film, and he also directed The Evil Dead, which has just been remade as simply Evil Dead. This time, I think the remake (which is what I’ll call it for lack of a better word) is justified.

No it isn't, but I still liked it.

I’m a big fan of the Evil Dead series. The over-the-top gore coupled with comedic elements, not to mention a terrific Bruce Campbell, really work for me. A remake of the ultra low budget first film could have been a disaster (and some will tell you that it, in fact, is). The first sign that it was going to be okay was the fact that there is not an Ash character. No one is attempting, nor should they, to be the next Bruce Campbell. On top of that, both Raimi and Campbell have been very vocal about their approval of the film, which is very rare in the remake world (Raimi initially claimed he would not watch the new Spider-Man film at all). Armed with that knowledge and a love of the original films, I went into Evil Dead with an open mind, and I was pleased with the results. I might be in the minority on this, however.

I watched Evil Dead in a packed theatre on opening night. It was the single most annoying film-going experience of my life, but I still liked the movie. It was the audience that bothered me. They were all obnoxious, loud, and idiotic. I wondered why these people were even interested in the movie. I noticed a few people who were obviously fans of the series (we have a certain look…), but by and large this was an audience used to the crappy, banal horror films that get churned out each year. This was a product of the marketing for the film. Billed as “The most terrifying film you will ever experience,” Evil Dead was almost certain to disappoint most general audience members. First, it’s not that scary. Second, it’s an Evil Dead movie, and this series is not meant to be taken completely serious.

 

Evil Dead is one of those rare remakes that is meant for the fans. This film didn’t come across as a movie that was trying to introduce Evil Dead to a new generation. In fact, there is a possibility that this is not a remake at all, because Raimi and Campbell have mentioned possible plans for a crossover film linking this new series to the old one. Younger audiences most likely will not have seen the original, so any connections will be lost on them. And if they are told to expect a terrifying film, then when confronted with the idiotic, and hilarious, decisions by the characters in the film, they will dismiss the film as “stupid.” As a teacher, I get to talk about new movies with students. Only a handful have seen the film, and the most favorable comment was, “It was okay,” and the least favorable comments consisted of words like “horrible,” “stupid,” and “terrible.” They did not get to see the movie they were promised.

The young audience, to their credit, dislike the movie for logical reasons.  They found character actions extremely idiotic.  They are the type to scream, "You idiot!  She's still a demon! Kill her!" and "Why are you going back into the cellar, you moron!"  These are horror fans who are sick of seeing characters act stupidly as they try to avoid death.  They know that what these characters are doing is not realistic.  This audience also does not care for unrealistic survivors.  When a person is stabbed or, say, shot multiple times with a nail gun, (or both) they think that person should die or at least become ineffective for the rest of the film.  Or when a character comes across a book bound in human skin filled with demonic illustrations and cryptic warnings, they expect that character to know that reading from the book will only cause problems.  I agree with all of these issues as a member of a modern movie-going public.  I would consider these weaknesses as well...if this were anything but an Evil Dead movie.  You see, this stuff is simply what happens in this series.  The filmmakers know it's crazy and ridiculous.  The fans know it, too, which is why we enjoy it so much. 

 

Hopefully some of these young fans will look past the deceptive marketing and come to love the film for what it is, and not condemn it for what it wasn't.  But I don't have a problem with the people who hate this movie for not scaring them.  In fact, that vocal portion of the audience who hated the film probably make up a lion's share of the gross thus far.  So the movie wasn't necessarily made with them in mind, but their money will serve the interests of the fans and a sequel can be ordered.  That movie will hopefully please the franchise fans even more.

 

In my opinion, fans of the series get the movie they want to see. Despite that, at my screening I heard a fan angrily say that the remake “only had three things in common with the original.” And fans abound on the internet are freaking out, as well (but don’t they always?). As for the guy at my screening, I didn’t ask him to elaborate because his complaint made no sense to me. How can a fan of the original be upset that a remake wasn’t a carbon copy of the original?  Did this type of fan want to see someone do a Bruce Campbell impression?  What would be the point of that?  Remakes are usually hated because they lack originality.  Evil Dead is certainly not original (but it's not like demonic possession was some new found concept when the original came out, either), but it is at least a different take on a similar story.  If you want to see The Evil Dead, just watch it again.  Plus, the original film was a bit of a remake of an earlier Sam Raimi movie called Within the Woods.  Double plus, Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn essentially remakes the first film during the opening minutes.  The point is that we've seen Ash and his battles at the cabin; we don't need them recreated shot for shot. 

I am not criticizing any fan for disliking Evil Dead.  I will never be one of those people who claim complete strangers are not "true" fans of something just because they didn't love an entry in the series.  I only take issue with those who wanted a complete copy of the original. 

Most complaints I've seen around the movie sites consists of stuff about too many jump scares, plot holes, bad acting, weak character development, etc.  I don't want to recreate the same arguments that can be found on IMDb's message boards or the Slashfilm comment section, but I will side with the people who argue that these issues are all abound in the original.  Some argue that a remake should fix these problems, not just copy them.  Yeah, but these are the qualities that I do want a remake to copy because it adds to the feel of an Evil Dead movie.  Still, some fans hate this movie.  Fine.  You're not wrong.  You hated it, I enjoyed it. 

All of that said, I do have issues with the movie.  I didn't care for the back story opening because it led to too many unanswered questions.  Such as, if the brother and sister spent so much time there as children, why didn't they notice there was a cellar?  And how exactly did they keep the entire cabin from burning down after they set the demon on fire?  What happened to the strange, mutant hillbilly folk?  I'm sure there are explanations implied or something, but I hope there's more of an answer in a sequel.  It rubbed me the wrong way because the original series tended to explain things blatantly to the audience (not that we're idiots, we just want a straight forward funny demon-fighting movie).  I also did not care for how much the music was used to create mood.  I remember the lengthy silent moments of the original and they are much creepier than anything featuring standard "scary movie" music.  Hmm...what else?  I'm still not sure if I like that they included the chainsaw and had Mia lose her hand.  It felt a little too much like fan service to me, when the gore, the cabin, and the book were all I needed.  Though it was nice to see the car behind the cabin...but shouldn't that car be in the 1300s?  Finally, the addiction subplot bothered me because it seems like you could take this whole film as a metaphor for battling addiction.  One could argue that by the end of the film, none of that stuff actually happened, it was just how her withdrawal-induced mind perceived it.  Nothing against the use of metaphors, but I never considered Evil Dead to be a series that even allows theories to be applied to it.  It doesn't help that battling addiction is often referred to as fighting one's demons.  Thankfully, I haven't seen anyone try to posit that theory (crap, maybe I shouldn't have even mentioned it...), but that it even occurred to me is a little annoying. 

Yeah, this is an Evil Dead movie.

More importantly than all of that, I loved the majority of this movie.  Blood spraying all over the place, demon puke in faces, severed limbs, a chainsaw to the face...it was fantastic.  I found the atmosphere of the film to be sufficiently creepy, but it's just impossible for them to recreate the cheap, and kind of realistic, tone of the original films.  Overall, what sold me on this movie was the dark humor.  The gore was hilariously over-the-top, but the actions and responses of the characters really cracked me up.  David's constant affirmation that "Everything is going to be all right" had me laughing aloud every time.  It reminded me of Ash pouring water down Scott's dead face in the original and talking about how they would all make it out of there.  And, finally, there was a tree, or should I say root, rape scene.  Not that the scene was all that shocking or anything, but it was fun to spot the fans from the non-fans in the theatre.  Plenty of laughter from the fans and confused, unbelieving comments from the non-fans. 

Evil Dead was the experience I was expecting and hoping for.  If you're a fan of the series and you were left disappointed, that's unfortunate.  But if you have never seen the original trilogy and you hated this remake for any of the reasons mentioned above, like bad marketing, then I strongly suggest you give this one another chance.  But only after you've seen the originals.  After watching those, there's no way you'd buy into the misleading marketing.  No series featuring the line, "This is my BOOMstick!" could ever be considered terrifying.  Creepy and also funny?  Absolutely.  The most terrifying movie you will ever experience?  Hardly, and that's a good thing.




*Random final comment: I took particular enjoyment from the fact that a teacher named Eric brought all of this about by reading a book.  As an English teacher named Eric, I got a kick out of that.

 

"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.

"Drag Me to Hell" / "Fanboys" / "Valkyrie"

Drag Me to Hell - Directed by Sam Raimi, starring Alison Lohman, Justin Long, and Dileep Rao - Rated PG-13


The Kurgan would thoroughly enjoy this one.



Why did Sam Raimi do this to us? Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the Spider Man movies (even the third one, which is crapped on constantly, though it is my least favorite), but if Raimi could’ve been making movies like this for that last eight years then I would have much rather had someone like Brett Ratner taking over Spider Man so Raimi could embrace his roots. Drag Me to Hell is an example of what Sam Raimi does best: a freaky, goofy horror film that is as fun as anything I’ve seen in the last five years.

Let me get into the story before I explain the whole “fun” statement. The story is about loan officer Christine (Alison Lohman), who forecloses a creepy gypsy lady’s house to prove that she’s worthy for a promotion. Obviously the creepy gypsy lady is not pleased, so she curses Christine with a demon that will torment her for a few days, then…drag her to hell. Along for the ride is her devoted boyfriend Clay (Justin Long) and a psychic (Dileep Rao, who does a very good job). That’s the short and skinny of it, now let’s get to why this is enjoyable.

First off, if you see this in the theater, then the audience is key. I saw it in a packed theater with tons of girls screaming at every scary part (of which there are many). Now, this was kind of annoying at first, but it really amplified the experience of the movie. I’m usually not one to jump at a cheap scare, but Raimi piles so many of them into each scene it’s hard not to be tricked by him once in a while. And the screams from audience members around you add to the jump factor. The point is: this movie is an experience with an audience.

But it’s not all cheap scares. If you’ve seen Raimi’s earlier works, such as the Evil Dead series, then you know what’s coming. You get the rattling doors, the screeching demons, and the comedic scares. Any fan of the Evil Dead series will be all smiles during a séance sequence featuring voice work reminiscent of Raimi’s earlier films. The comedy doesn’t cheapen the horror quality, though. It simply adds to the overall enjoyment of the film.

This is a movie willing to do things that other movies would only imply. There are plot elements that would normally have you thinking: there’s no way they are actually going to do that. But as soon as you think that, they follow through with it. I would love to give examples of this, but I don’t want to spoil it. But for those who have seen it, here’s the main SPOILER that I’m talking about: I was not expecting Christine to sacrifice the cat at all. I just thought it was a funny scene when she considered it. When it cut to her burying the cat, I could hardly contain my laughter.

Let’s not get out of hand here, though. This movie is not a masterpiece or anything. It’s just an example of what Sam Raimi is capable of (and a damn good example at that). There are some very goofy things that happen in this movie, like talking animals, spraying blood, over the top gross out elements, etc. The ridiculous factor is way up for this, but would you expect anything else from the man who blessed us with Army of Darkness? I got exactly what I wanted from this. The only thing I want now is more of the same.



Fanboys - Directed by Kyle Newman, starring Sam Huntington, Jay Baruchel, Seth Rogen, Dan Fogler, and Kristen Bell - Rated PG-13


Breaking the rules here a bit since this is not a perfect film, but I can't pass up the chance to award a Vader to a Star Wars fanboy movie.



Fanboys is a movie for Star Wars fans, plain and simple. I believe there could some enjoyment from a regular audience, but only Star Wars fans will really get into this one.

The story takes place in 1998, a year before The Phantom Menace is released. Four friends, one of whom has cancer, decide to go to Skywalker Ranch (home base of George Lucas) to watch the rough cut of the movie before it's released and before their friend dies. This might sound like a bit of a downer of a story (a factor which pushed back the release date of this film about a hundred times), but it really adds emotion to an otherwise outright comedy.

This is basically a road movie filled with Star Wars references. Hutch (Dan Fogler) drives a van filled with memorabilia (complete with an R2-D2 replica sticking out of the top) featuring sound effects comparable to the Millenium Falcon at times, not to mention the Chewbacca roar for a horn. The references, along with the cameos (Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, Kevin Smith, William Shatner) make this an extremely enjoyable experience for the fans. Oh, and for those of you who don't care for Episode I (I like it, myself) or Jar Jar Binks in particular (not a fan, really, but I don't hate the character or anything), there some great jokes dealing with the expectations of that movie compared to subsequent critical beat down the movie took upon release.

Adding to the fan service is a subplot about the battle between fanboys and trekkies. The absurdity of the idea of Star Wars and Star Trek fans engaging in physical combat is quite hilarious, and it helps that the trekkies are led by a nerded out Seth Rogen (one of three roles for him in this film).

Now about the delay for the release of this film. I can remember seeing previews for this almost three years ago. What happened was that there was a positive buzz going for this film, so the Weinsteins decided to throw some money at it and re-shoot some scenes to make it friendlier for mass audiences. At one point a new director was even brought in to change the scenes dealing with the cancer plot (apparently mainstream audiences would have refused to watch this movie if the word cancer was involved). Some of the footage that director (Steven Brill, Without a Paddle) shot is still in the finished film actually, but I only know that from doing a little research, so it didn't ruin the film or anything. If you're wondering, the scene I'm talking about is when Danny McBride is interrogating the group. So the battle over the cancer plot waged on, with the original story remaining intact. But by then, the studio didn't want to put much support behind it, so it was released in a handful of theaters and finally released on DVD a couple weeks ago. So that's the behind the scenes story about the movie made for Star Wars fans. It's ridiculous that it took this long to release this film, but thankfully the long wait is over because this is a very entertaining comedy.


Valkyrie - Directed by Bryan Singer, starring Tom Cruise, Bill Nighy, and Kenneth Branagh - Rated PG-13

The Kurgan knew how it was going to end, but he was still pulled in by the suspense.




This will be my one-paragraph review for this week. This movie, about a failed assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler, had an uphill battle. First off, it's about a failed assassination attempt on a very famous historical figure, so everyone watching knows that it isn't going to work, which means everyone already knows the ending. Secondly, it has Tom Cruise in it. I am a Tom Cruise fan and I could care less about his religion as long as he doesn't start forcing aspects of into his movies. So far, he hasn't done that and I've enjoyed his recent work. Other people, however, are dead set against him from the start based on his personality. I can look past that and if other viewers can as well, then they'll find that his performance here is very good. Cruise is backed up admirably by his British co-stars and the script actually creates suspense even though the outcome is already known. I would sometimes forget that all the planning and strategy would end up being almost pointless. But the real point of the movie is that people tried to stop Hitler, I suppose. Either way, it's entertaining to see all the stages of a well laid plan and watch as things go wrong and characters are forced to adapt. Just try to forget that you know what's going to happen and enjoy.





Next: I'm going to skip the article this Wednesday and write a few reviews instead. I'll also have a new Crappy Classic for Wednesday as well.