Army of Darkness.

Review #2141: Army of Darkness.

Cast: 

Bruce Campbell (Ash Williams / "Evil Ash"), Embeth Davidtz (Sheila), Marcus Gilbert (Lord Arthur), Ian Abercrombie (Wise Man), Richard Grove (Duke Henry the Red), Timothy Patrick Quill (Blacksmith), Michael Earl Reid (Gold Tooth), Bridget Fonda (Linda), Bill Moseley (Deadite captain), Patricia Tallman (Possessed witch), and Ted Raimi (Cowardly warrior/Second supportive villager/Anthony, the S-Mart clerk/Skeleton voices) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2, and #1779 - Spider-Man 3, and #1840 - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness)

Review: 

Sure, it is easy to say that the third film of a series just can't compare to the first two films. And you would be right in a variety of those scenarios, even with something as curious as the Evil Dead series, which retained the same director in Sam Raimi and lead presence in Bruce Campbell for each of them that had a sense of evolution from film to film. The gory mayhem of the original film (1981) that was shot for a low budget in a cabin in Tennessee, combined with the efforts of producer Irvin Shapiro, resulted in a cult classic. Six years later, Evil Dead II, basically a "re-quel", came under the hands of Dino De Laurentiis to a cult hit that may or may not be better than the previous film within its comedy-horror aspects. Now, in 1992, here we have a medieval-themed film that actually was proposed and rejected for the second film due to cost. There were various influences that came into the script as done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, such as A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and Jason and the Argonauts. The film was made in a deal that saw De Laurentiis fund the film while Universal Pictures serve as distributor.  This is the kind of film that somehow has more than two versions: the original theatrical cut runs at 81 minutes (those studio yokels actually thought they could get a cut for PG-13 and failed anyway), while Raimi's preferred version, with the original intended ending, runs at 96. Other versions were done to go with International audiences and television viewers that each went 88 minutes. The four-disc Blu-ray I purchased included three of these versions, but I went with the director's cut for the sole reason that edits are no fun. A "re-imagining" feature of the series that shared the name of the original came out in 2013 before a continuation series of the third film came out with Ash vs. Evil Dead in 2015.

Sure, it's easy to say that the first two films shine more than this one when it comes to horror. But so what? I actually found this one to be a pretty good movie on its own goal of injecting action comedy into the mix to make a distinct venture that is quite entertaining. We are talking about a film following the lead of the last one in a lead character who had a chainsaw for a right hand, nothing surprises me here. Why would I be mad that the film goes in its own direction with Ash when it is evident the filmmakers want to go this way? (okay, maybe the theatrical cut might not have been coherently focused but screw the editor). This is basically the Return of the Jedi of the series, are you surprised by this? Of course, it's such a funny time with this oddball lead character that has to run the gamut of growth as a hero even when confronting the horrors of being stuck in the Dark Ages (with Deadites and other odd things, no less). When it comes to quips and goofy humor, I think Campbell handles it with good gusto that is interesting for those who like some slapstick humor. The lines of parody and spectacle are enjoyable in his hands because, well, that is what I am here for, particularly with the little Ashes sequence. Having to do cues and fight beings that would be added in as stop motion is no small feat. The other actors play it mostly to form (you've got some Deadite goofiness, of course), but again, the films are lifted mostly with Campbell up there first. If one is to go out with a bang, going out with stop motion and gusto is ideal. Personally, I'm fine with either ending of the film (after checking the obvious choice of the director's cut, I looked over the other disc for a moment). You either get a darkly amusing punchline or a heroically amusing punchline, it really is up to you. As a whole, the last two Evil Dead films are like sides of the same coin in horror misery that would've made it hard for any follow-up to top, but Army of Darkness, now with the passage of time and the availability of a director's cut, proves that even a third-best effort can still be a really good time anyway.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

This ends Halloween The Week After, Year Five. Over the course of October 1 to today, a grand total of 48 horror films (and one other exception) were covered by Movie Night. It only seemed funny to close November 7th the same way that I ended the first of the Week Afters with an Evil Dead film, much in the same way that a Ring film has been there the last three years. There were a handful of films that just missed the cut for timing or other reasons, such as: I Know What You Did Last Summer, The Return of the Vampire, Trog, The Old Dark House (1963), Color Out of Space, The Student of Prague (1926), The Monster, Quartermass 2, Frankenstein 1970, Misery, Beau is Afraid, The Fog, The Fly II, you get the idea. Next year probably won't be all-out like this year, but one never knows where the Month of Horror takes you. Now then, onto other things.

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

Review #1840: Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

Cast: 

Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Stephen Strange), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Karl Mordo), Benedict Wong (Wong), Xochitl Gomez (America Chavez), Michael Stuhlbarg (Nicodemus West), and Rachel McAdams (Christine Palmer) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2, and #1779 - Spider-Man 3)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember the film Doctor Strange (#874), since it was only released...six years ago? To reiterate from long ago, this is based off the character of the same name that was co-created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko that first appeared in comics in July of 1963. What I remember about the original film was that it seemed to dazzle my younger self with its effects and cast that had generated a bit of amazement and surprise in its sequences (whether an indictment of myself or perhaps the series, I haven't seen the film since the only time I saw it). That film was part of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, which is still kicking around after fourteen years after having gone through various phases (the 2016 film was one of the first of the "third" phase while this one is smack dab in the middle of the ongoing "fourth" phase). That film was written and directed by Scott Derrickson, who was known for films such as Sinister (2012) and The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2014), and Derrickson was slated to return for the film before stepping down in 2020; Raimi was signed on not long afterwards, and this is his first film as director since Oz the Great and Powerful (2013). This film was written by Michael Waldron, his first film credit. Times have changed a bit since then, since I guess one also needed to see superheroes appear in "miniseries" television as well (as opposed to their previous attempts at TV productions), with this film for example serving as a follow-up to WandaVision (2021). Of course, I will provide exactly one statement to the idea of trying to play catch-up to miniseries: movies are the ideal to engage my interest, so it seems too much like "homework" for my taste, but it is what it is. 

So, what does one think of a movie with a title long enough to abbreviate as "Doctor Strange in the M.O.M.?" Come to think of it, I haven't exactly been dutiful in actually seeing each of these Marvel movies in a few years. It isn't because they have degraded in quality, it just seems that the ones that look interesting are sequels rather than trying to introduce a hero (of course, if one stopped watching after Avengers: Endgame, I don't blame you). But hey, here we are with a supposedly "scarier" Marvel movie with a semi-interesting idea with an adversary quite familiar to viewers in going from "they are in that shot and sometimes talk" to "presence". Besides, anything that gives the character of Doctor Strange something better to do than what he did in Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) should work out, but this is the rambling of a man who just thinks a hero seems more interesting to view without being just a supporting presence. The best thing I can say is that for all the cynical rambling and thoughts I had going into the film, it at least covers some of the expectations it has for itself with useful thrilling imagery with a game cast and director. It isn't exactly a good result, in part because there is a far better movie out now involving a "multiverse", but admirers of Raimi will still find it worth their time as a minor messy work. Cumberbatch walks through the film handily with the confidence one expects from his sense of knowing and timing that handles the demands thrust upon him with worthwhile patience. Of course, Olsen is the one who ends up stealing the show a bit, since her single-minded desire makes for compelling engagement when with Cumberbatch, one who does manage to draw a slight shred of curiosity for the simple desire of wanting to shape the world to have their children with them (no matter how inevitable it ends up being); in that sense, one can say that there is a semi-compelling threat in a Marvel movie. Gomez turns out okay, but in the attempt at trying to mold a young hero, one seems that she is used more for exposition that means one finds more insight in other movies involving the dimensions of being a hero than this (see, I did find a way to reference Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse properly). Ejiofor and Wong are only fleetingly involved in the general action, which results in a fraction of interest when either person banters with Cumberbatch. It is nice to see McAdams, even if her quiet patience is only there to show the apparent differences that have come from six years of comic book movie mythmaking. Yes, there are a few appearances that may or may not be a surprise to you, depending on how much one is invested into the subject material. While it did draw a slight smile, it really seems more of a "coming and going" kind of appearance built to build a boost (and possibly used just to dump exposition) before inevitability sets in. Besides, it does help setup the defining interest that the movie gets for me: setting up moments of horror, or at least the idea of it. There are plenty of decent effects shots that one would probably expect for a movie that just manages to stick its welcome at 126 minutes without pacing itself for too long. I don't think it particularly improves on the original film, but it does at least maintain some of the interest that made the original work without turning into an excuse for reference mumbo-jumbo. At any rate, an average modern movie is probably better than having no movie experience at all, so that might be the best thing I can say for it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man 3.

Review #1779: Spider-Man 3.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn / New Goblin), Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman), Topher Grace (Edward "Eddie" Brock Jr. / Venom), Bryce Dallas Howard (Gwen Stacy), James Cromwell (Captain George Stacy), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), with Theresa Russell (Emma Marko), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Joseph 'Robbie' Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Miss Brant), Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, and #1495 - Darkman)

Review: 

"Where’s Peter Parker again in the second picture as a human being? He’s a kid in all these stories. They’re kind of coming of age stories and he learns aspects of growing up. Different life lessons in each of these films and often times, the comic books."

You know, it is entirely possible to make a third film of a trilogy that closes the narrative of its story with the right kind of balance and entertainment value that doesn't seem quite cluttered. Of course, doing so for a superhero trilogy is especially interesting to consider, if not for the fact that the expectations can sometimes reach grand heights. With this film, Sam Raimi was the first director to have helmed an entire superhero film trilogy. Spider-Man (2002), if you remember, was pretty well-made for the time and effort it took to get it on the screen, complete with a director that obviously had reverence for the source material that managed (for the most part) to generate warmly interesting entertainment. Spider-Man 2 (2004) continued that path while managing to be even better than its predecessor, both in its hero and villain story, and a third feature was immediately set for 2007. The story was done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, while Alvin Sargent (one of the writers of the second film) did the screenplay with the Raimis. Of course, it seems every sequel superhero film needs more than just one villain. With this one, there are three of them, distinct from the previous film (well, at least, if you count Harry as a villain in the second film). Raimi intended on just a story that was focused on the primary three folks from the first two films (Maguire, Dunst, Franco) and the Sandman (as played by Church). One of the producers suggested adding the character of Gwen Stacy, while Avi Arad (former president of Marvel and a fellow producer) suggested adding the character of Venom (introduced to the comics in 1984), with his argument being that the character had a strong appeal to fans (particularly since Raimi had made two features with his favorite villains); of course, before that happened, there had been plans to have the Vulture as one of the villains, so there is that. The film, while a hit with audiences, was the last Spider-Man film for five years, as plans for a fourth feature stalled because of Raimi's doubt over the viability of maintaining an intended release date of 2011 with a suitable script.

At the time of its release, it was actually the most expensive movie ever made, having been made for $258 million. It also was the longest of the three films at 139 minutes. I'm sure it goes without saying that this isn't a great movie to close the series down by any means. But hey, it has nearly been fifteen years since this film has come out, and six (five live-action) further Spider-Man movies have followed in its wake. Honestly, the movie is okay (besides, making a third feature involving an inverted hero already happened once with Superman III (1983), which was worse). Sure, it has a few little moments that could be made fun of (scrutiny, mockery, or whatever), but as a whole it at least manages to have some entertaining moments along with perspective on redemption that at least makes for a solid average movie. But of course, a movie that had considerable hype just can't be average now, can it? Undeniably, the big problem is that it has just one too many villains to go along with not being able to land all of its sticking points by the time it all ends. It is a messy movie, one that tries to fill itself on spectacle and drama that try to maintain the balance set by the previous two features that makes a good case for why it was good to just cap the series with three films. Maguire and Dunst maintain the sincerity in their chemistry that made for two curious (and interesting) features, but it probably doesn't help that their fragmented story here is the only one among all the other loose webbing that sticks out. Seeing their web tangle and untangle itself is the endearing aspect of the series, pure and simple. In that sense, Maguire does what he can, moving onto the next step that comes in the full-fledged stages of being an adult: finding forgiveness along with dealing with the pitfalls of pride (i.e. normal Peter Parker and symbiote Peter). He is earnest enough to make things such as "dancing" work where it could have been really silly to sit through. Dunst does just as well with matching up with withered patience (since her next step is not so much ego as it is "having a life"), doing what is needed as everything basically comes full circle with these two to useful effect. 

Franco has the weird dilemma of being a key side of the villainous triangle while having a segmented part of his time spent with "amnesia"; besides, one of the resolutions presented (i.e. next time check the wounds) is incredibly convenient in all the weird ways. Haden Church (who by virtue of graduating from Harlingen High School gets "Valley credits" from me) seems to be drawing his character from films such as The Wolf Man (1941), which works to a degree. While I understand the changes made to the character from the original origin (one that I remember because I actually did read one of those stories distinctly as a kid), I think it basically ties the story (and to an extent, Haden Church) in a knot that is way, way too convenient. Grace, best known for his role on That 70s Show, which I freely admit to watching too much of for years...does not exactly fare as well. While he does make an interesting reflection upon Maguire, it is hard to escape the inevitable "Yes, but Venom..." when it comes to actually seeing him on screen. I'm not saying the role needs a "bodybuilder" type, but it just never clicks together all the way with Grace, who almost seems a step away from making a quip more than anything (the less said about the actual lead-in to Venom, the better). Besides, having another costumed character present that likes to put on and then take off their mask is a step too far (keep it on!). Howard and Cromwell are there for segments that work right until you start to remember they disappear by the time of the climax (Harris has what she needs in the usual patience expected from her role anyway, while Simmons is sorely lacking in time). 

The contrivances that come with trying to tie it all together aren't swayed so easily with its climax (which is fine). Simply put, the dilemma of figuring out what it means to be a hero suddenly with sins that only thought in black-and-white is an interesting one, but the movie seems too mired in trying to pack in as much as possible in its frenzied focusing that it nearly loses sight of what the films meant in the first place. They were interesting movies with earnest charm and atmosphere (case in point this film seems lacking with the folks in the actual city that the film sets its action) that made it the first important group of superhero films of the new 21st century. While it may not be a great closing film by any means, it pulls off just enough tricks that keep one's interest on the level without churning into a pit. In other words: being just okay might not be the best thing to say about a highly anticipated movie but time generally shows that a movie being fine works out in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012). Must be a coincidence.

Spider-Man 2.

Review #1695: Spider-Man 2.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn), Alfred Molina (Otto Octavius / Doctor Octopus), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Donna Murphy (Rosalie Octavius), Daniel Gillies (John Jameson), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Robbie Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Betty Brant), Elya Baskin (Mr. Ditkovitch), Mageina Tovah (Ursula), Ted Raimi (Hoffman), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, and #1495 - Darkman)

Review: 

“I just tried to get even more in touch with the things that I loved about Stan Lee’s great character Spider-Man, and a lot of writers throughout the 40 years at Marvel have contributed to Spider-Man. All the things that I loved about all of their stories, I tried to really get deeper into and connect on a deeper level with the actors, and make it more about the characters and their interaction with one another. I tried to get to the core of what I loved even more.”

It must be amazing to think of an era where superhero movies did not in fact rule the Earth, really. But the dawn of the 21st century shows that they merely lurking in the shadows of entertainment, when you think about it. There is not a long line to get from something like this film to Iron Man (2008) when it comes to adaptation of something from the world of Marvel Comics, much less when it comes to movies beyond just an one-off. Spider-Man (2002) was the sixth feature film adapted from a Marvel character (as created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1962), coming off the heels of previous works such as Blade (1998) and X-Men (2000), which like this film came from years and years of development (among quite a few scripts); naturally, this film follows along the sequel line among those aforementioned movies (Blade II, X2), and it likely stands as one of the best superhero sequels of its time. It is interesting to note that the first film actually had the character of Doctor Octopus as a secondary villain before Raimi dropped him in order to focus more on the dynamic between the title character and the villain. At the helm for the screenplay was Alvin Sargent (near the end of a lengthy career of writing, which included un-credited work on the first film) while the story came from Michael Chabon, Alfred Gough, and Miles Millar (the latter two are mostly known for their development of the show Smallville; obviously, the movie is a hodgepodge of ideas from each writer - Chabon's proposed script apparently had a love triangle involving Doctor Octopus). 

Most superhero sequels generally tend to raise the stakes by adding villains to the pile for the hero to fight that make the challenge seem tighter (i.e. more than one villain, which was present in more than a few superhero films beyond the Marvel line, such as with the Batman series). And yet, here we are with a movie that has quite a controlled focus with consistent stakes and drama that improves on the original without being as hamstrung by the little things as had been the case with the original Spider-Man (which was a pretty decent effort from a director who clearly appreciates the material). It carries itself with enough weight in responsibility to deliver entertainment with meaningful power and meaningful moments to see and hear. Of course it isn't just an effects show, even though one can be impressed by the crew of John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara and John Frazier (among others) when it comes to the tentacles for its villain that prove a blend of computer effects with puppetry (alongside a harness of course) that definitely serves an improvement when compared to the sequences involving the Green Goblin from before. Maguire (who was nearly replaced by Jake Gyllenhaal because of a near-serious back injury) leads the cast with worthy presence once again, maintaining the sincerity and vulnerability depicted before without seeming generic in his charm or being overshadowed by others too much (heroes get overshadowed by the villain in a handful of films anyway). Dunst matches well with snappy chemistry that balances scenes spent either with Maguire or Gillies.  Franco works with the gradual moments with bitter righteousness that still seems like a worried child when it comes to obsession and taking the mantle his father held (which I guess works pretty well in its little imitation of Hamlet, but seeing Dafoe again is a worthy bonus). Molina proves a worthy adversary, one struck by fate that is quite sardonic in his menace that draws you in from the very first moment with him on screen (at least if you compare him with his scenes spent with Murphy with his time with the AI arms); in other words, he makes for a fun villain that improves upon the dynamic seen between the lead and the adversary from before in terms of showing the nature of power and responsibility. Closing out the cast is a few brief-scene wonders from before with the bright nurturer in Harris and the wonderful blustering comic relief in Simmons. At any rate, the film proves efficient at 127 minutes in balancing its spectacle with effective characterization that draws upon the comics without being beholden to too much cheese or being a show for overdrawn spectacle - Raimi honed his craft with the hero film in Darkman and he has merely improved upon the human aspects of what makes a thrilling and poignant movie that happens to have folks in costumes that builds on the curiosity left by its predecessor while setting its own stage for another adventure without too much trouble.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Darkman.

Review #1495: Darkman.

Cast:
Liam Neeson (Peyton Westlake / Darkman), Frances McDormand (Julie Hastings), Colin Friels (Louis Strack Jr), Larry Drake (Robert G. Durant), Ted Raimi (Ricky), Nicholas Worth (Pauly), Dan Hicks (Skip), and Jessie Lawrence Ferguson (Eddie Black) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, and #1483 - Evil Dead II)

Review: 
"Some mornings you wake up and think, "Gee, I look handsome today." Other days I think, "What am I doing in the movies? I wanna go back to Ireland and drive a forklift".

There is a distinct difference to the superhero film from decade to decade that is particularly interesting to note, whether involving the era before Superman (1978, which namely involved serials), or the years that followed after the release of Batman in 1989. There were a group of heroes of comic and comic strip form that found their way into being turned into a film, for better or worse. However one thinks of the superhero genre as a whole, it is nice to see the stark differences between 1990 and 2020, and you can compare the pickings of what came from the former: Dick Tracy, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Captain America, and this film. It came about due to Raimi's desire to make a film based on The Shadow (which found itself adapted into a film four years later), with the failure to obtain the rights leading him to make a hero film of his own, which would be inspired by his love of the classic Universal horror films of the 1930s to have a man who lost his face that found a way to take on other faces. This was Raimi's next film after Evil Dead II along with his first studio film (fittingly with Universal Pictures), and it would go through numerous drafts that resulted in five credited writers: him (who also did the story), his brother Ivan, Daniel and Joshua Goldin, and Chuck Pfarrer (with twelve drafts reportedly being written before a script to shoot came about).

With a darker outlook toward the nature of what it means to wear a mask and fight for some sort of justice, Darkman is a fascinating film of the superhero genre, intense with frenzied ambition that makes a capable thriller. At the helm of its mix of horror and action is Northern Irish actor Liam Neeson, who had worked for several years in theatre and gradually-rising roles in film that liked the turmoil of the title role that mixed with Raimi's desire for an actor that could do acting within plenty of makeup (done by Tony Gardner) and charisma. Neeson delivers a well-done performance here, one with plenty of emotive charm that runs the gamut from sensitive to self-hatred with touches of The Phantom of the Opera that make it all work with finesse. McDormand follows along with fine sensitivity and focused grace that makes a solid performance that resonates with Neeson just fine. Friels proves adquately slimy, but it is Drake (known mostly for his work on L.A. Law) who proves the most adept at disturbing excellence, a quiet but gruesome intensity to appreciate. The atmosphere of the film is captured well in darkness with its designs and music from Danny Elfman without seeming schlocky or too familiar to other films. The film has a kinetic and pulpy feel to it with its pace of 96 minutes that does good with making an involving story of a troubled soul come across with some depth and believability (the effects do their part as well) that lend for some interesting moments that go with a servicable climax and bitersweet ending. On the whole, this is a fine achievement that pierces at the dark with solid performances and a carefully done style that blends thrills and horror capably enough to stand as its own kind of superhero story.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Evil Dead II.

Review #1483: Evil Dead II.

Cast:
Bruce Campbell (Ash Williams), Sarah Berry (Annie Knowby), Dan Hicks (Jake), Kassie Wesley (Bobby Joe), Denise Bixler (Linda), Snowy Winters (Dancing demon Linda), Richard Domeier (Professor Ed Getley), John Peaks (Professor Knowby), Lou Hancock (Henrietta Knowby), Ted Raimi (Possessed Henrietta), and William Preston Robertson (Voice of the Evil Dead) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man and #1296 - The Evil Dead)

Review:
"It seemed that my lot in life was to either have big parts in small films or small parts in big films."

This film came about because of the failure of Crimewave (1985), Sam Raimi's follow-up film to The Evil Dead that he wrote with Ethan and Joel Coen (the latter of whom had helped with the editing of that film). Plagued by budget trouble and producer interference, Crimewave nearly wrecked Raimi's career into oblivion. The idea for a sequel had actually been thought of during the first film's production by publicist Irvin Shapiro, and Raimi made a concept involving a Middle Ages setting for more deadite action. When it came for funding, Dino De Laurentiis would serve as producer (after having Stephen King give them a recommendation to help fund the film), and he suggested for a film similiar to the first film (the medieval concept was used for the next film five years later in Army of Darkness), with a budget that would be over three million more than before (while keeping the same effects man in Tom Sullivan). Raimi would write it with Scott Spiegel, which would move its focus from straight horror to horror-comedy, influenced by slapstick work like The Three Stooges. Technically speaking this is a sequel to the first film, although its events depicted in the opening are different from the climax of the original. One thing that isn't different from before is the gore levels: the original film had an X rating, while fears over an X for the second led to no submission to the MPAA and a separate company distributing the film for release.

What a marvelous sequel this is. Energetic, violent, and quick to the punch in delivering a punishing tale of horror and comedy with a charismatic lead once again, it proves no surprise to see this regarded as one of the best horror sequels, particularly when compared to a film that already had done pretty well for itself in creeping terror. This excels just as well in gruesome charm, doing so with confidence expected of filmmakers who seem more in control of what is necessary to make a quality tale brimmed with reasonable foundation that makes enough sense in the right places to drive one up the wall for 84 minutes. There are plenty of moments one could probably highlight, some of which being ones with easily quotable moments from Campbell ("groovy" indeed), but the biggest one for me proves to be a fit of laughter with Campbell that proves creepier if one finds themselves with a fit of the giggles as well. He has a distinct quality to him in enjoyability that fits the edge of someone destined for B-movies but without the wooden feet to stay completely on that level. He leads the way as a cult classic actor among disposable others (let's face it, no one is exactly thinking really hard about the others that happen to come across the madness) that make a worthy time. It retains focus on the cabin (with filming being done in North Carolina, with a junior high school being an interior set) without finding itself going through the exact same beats as before, with plenty of good costumes and effects to showcase. It goes for the throat without knocking you completely senseless with anything unnecessary in gore or in humor that detract from the energetic fun deserving of a sequel that raises the level for cult classic enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Evil Dead.

Review #1296: The Evil Dead.

Cast: 
Bruce Campbell (Ash Williams), Ellen Sandweiss (Cheryl Williams), Hal Delrich (Scott), Betsy Baker (Linda), and Theresa Tilly (Shelly) Written and Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man)

Review: 
"[Sam Raimi] has made the most ferociously original horror film of 1982" - Stephen King.

What can really be said about this film that hasn't already been said by better writers? Originally filmed as "Book of the Dead", The Evil Dead is a grand achievement in film-making, reaching plenty of highs in horror on a humble budget racked with high ambition from its director. Sam Raimi had become fascinated with the idea of making films as a teenager, doing so with fellow Royal Oak, Michigan native Bruce Campbell on a Super 8mm camera, with his feature debut being It's Murder! (1977). The following year, he was inspired to make a prototype horror film, one that would soon take the lesson of featuring plenty of gore (blood). Raimi's result was Within the Woods, made on a $1,600 budget in 1978 that took inspiration from numerous horror such as H. P. Lovecraft's writing that would feature both Campbell and Sandweiss. It proved to be a minor hit when it premiered in a Detroit theater alongside The Rocky Horror Picture Show. In order to make a feature film, Raimi (who wasn't even 21 when production started) would need around (or over) $100,000, for which he and Campbell raised slightly below that amount through asking for donations (which they would need to do again in order to try and finish it after completing half the film by late 1980). It certainly was a film engaging in terror to make for the actors and crew, where certain scenes required thick contact lenses that could only be utilized for 15 minutes at a time. The cabin they used in Tennessee was an abandoned one that needed renovation such as putting in electricity and a telephone, but it did not spur having to deal with cold temperatures that led to frozen camera and wires along with them burning furniture prior to finishing production to stay warm. There is plenty more that really could be said about how this is an achievement in thriving over a low budget with plenty of shock value to go around that can be gruesome alongside thrilling in its 85 minute run-time while leaving the audience curious for more. The way that the demons speak, combined with the intricate filming and certain shots make for a disturbing time that I readily enjoy, where its cast manages to keep the horror trappings on full display without succumbing to cliches, starting with Campbell. When it comes to dealing with terror and the madness, he just happens to have the right kind of entrancing quality where one can just watch him with no hesitation that proves key in what makes the best horror films tick, whether one has fake blood down the face or not. The rest of the cast do fine jobs with what they are given (especially when having to wear makeup), with Sandweiss proving the finest of the bunch in that regard. You could point to nearly any scene when it aims for spooks, really, but the slow-moving sequence at the end, coupled with the tracking shot for the finish, is likely the one that seals the deal just right. When you want a sincere horror film that means what it wants that rides high on suspense with a few effects and other aspects (such as some interesting music from Joseph LoDuca), this is a pretty good example of one that does everything near perfectly. The film eventually found footing in distribution (in part because of such glowing recommendations such as King), and it inspired two sequels (1987, 1992) along with a reboot/remake in 2013 and even a television series. You really can't go wrong with a film like this, as it oozes in terror that clicks to your senses and stays with you after its last shot - just what the best horror films do, after all.

Next Review: One more for the road for Halloween - The Week After. It's a bit of a surprise, but it's coming...Tonight.

... ..... ..... ... ........

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Spider-Man.

Review #611: Spider-Man.

Cast
Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker/Spider-Man), Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn/Green Goblin), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn), Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), and J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson) Directed by Sam Raimi.

Review
No matter the weather wherever you are, today's going to be a beautiful Independence Day, so I'm going to review something that's been on the waiting list for a long time, the (can't believe I'm saying this) original Spider-Man film. Speaking of which, how is the film? It's pretty good. For all of its quirks, the movie does a good job at putting Spider-Man onto the screen and be entertaining for the most part. The cast is well rounded, it's even fun to see J. K. Simmons as Jameson because his bombastic nature to everyone is just fun to watch, even if it's brief. Maguire and Dafoe have a good dynamic together, and while Dafoe may have some odd scenes (though I guess talking to a mask is normal if you go insane), he is pretty menacing. Maguire is a good hero, I think my favorite scene is when he's being introduced to the ring against a guy named Buzzsaw (played by the late great Randy "Macho Man" Savage), and he asks to be called "The Human Spider". I don't know why, but there is something funny about trying to make your own name and come up with something a 1950's b-movie would reject as a title. The dialogue is okay, though Robertson's line about "with great power comes great responsibility" is a defining line for the film. Is it a great movie? No, but it at least is a good flick for anyone curious on how the first movie about Spider-Man is. Happy 4th, everyone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.