Evil Dead (2013)

WARNING: Contains Spoilers

The Book of the Dead rises again when a brother and sister visit their family cabin, their friends and them becoming subjects to possession. Mia, a dissipating drug addict, invites her brother, his girlfriend and their two childhood friends to stay a weekend up at their old family cabin to help her come clean of drugs. Agitation heads early on when Mia's temperament is a rising slope, escalating with every irritation from withdrawal. Its Mia's heavy complaint of a fowl smell coming from the basement though when the friends uncover a collection of dead animals and none other than the Book of the Dead. Eventual curiosity on one of their parts leads to the book being read from and soon enough Mia becomes possessed, her weakened state and soul an attractant to the entity. Violent, vulgar, and lethal her new attitude lands her a spot in the cellar where she tempts and tries to over take each friend. According to the book it needs five souls to collect in order to let the skies rain red with blood and raise the Abomination. And as the book begins taking the friends one by one it's up to Mia's brother David to purify his sister's soul and stop the Abomination from ascending.

Evil Dead isn't a remake nor is it quite a sequel, as such should it be treated. On its own the film is a little dull with a refreshing change in location motive (no underage parties here, this weekend vacation is strictly for emotional purposes) but with run of the mill characters, maybe the exception of Mia. As a sequel most Evil Dead fans will likely hate it, however as I'm not really a die hard Evil Dead fan I'm not here to hold it accountable for it's off centered placement in the franchise. Oddly though as a remake I believe it works the best. The film
has mastered that ability to play homage to the prior films without direct ripping off, as is my general irk with remakes. Instead of copy and pasting iconic scenes from the first film they take the essence of the scene and alter it to be original but yet still apparent as to what they are referencing too. Original writing credits attribute to Diablo Cody and despite that she didn't get credited in the film I believe her original script served as sturdy backbone to the film; without it wouldn't be able to stand on its own. There's humor in the film, but its no horror comedy, and despite it being an fair homage to the first don't think Raimi's roguery or homemade scares are in here, its a far different film.

Initially I was excited to see Shiloh Fernandez as a lead character as I loved him in Deadgirl, but he actually disappointed me a little. There was no bad acting but overall uninspired, as was Fernandez's David. He didn't embrace that last man standing like in the first film, but rather took the very typical approach of being a skeptic and then went about stumbling through the rest. Jane Levy is at the top of the pack with her performance of Mia but its also a given with her character being the only one with an arch. Again, as I said none of these young actors are bad, by any means, but their characters lacked depth and they didn't bring any further dimension on their own. Therefore leaving Mia with the most back story and more meat to her character. Levy was steady as the withdrawing drug addict but delightfully wicked as demon Mia, another testament to Raimi's original piece. Before the films release the filmmakers made an adamant statement that there will be no CGI in the film, and it pays off as it looks absolutely stunning. Between the special effects, relying on old school makeup, and the dense mood lighting the production of the film alone is worth seeing.

It's a fair statement to say that if it hadn't been for the second go at the ending I would not have cared for the film as much. The initial hour is entertaining, the blood and antics being the only glue to hold you to the film, but it's pallid and offers little else. It's SPOILER Mia's Resurrection or exorcism, what have you, and her final face off towards the Abomination that actually puts this into Evil Dead category. The final sequence is immensely gory, offers the only real suspense moment in the film, and has the style of Bruce Campbell. From that I really liked the ending and wished the rest of the film had been in more of that style than the approach they decided to take. However, I don't want to hate on the filmmakers, as I do believe they tired to make an original concept and a high production horror film. There's no illusions that this was partially made to make profit off a very successful horror series, but in that they didn't just throw away craft to produce a film. They actually tried and that's what counts. Don't take it for anything other than what it is as Evil Dead isn't a masterpiece but it's fabulously entertaining and I'd say see it. In theaters or at home.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

The remake of the Wes Craven classic of the same name follows Nancy and Quintin, two sleep deprived teenagers who are being haunted by a man in their dreams. The man, dressed in a dirty Christmas sweater, burnt head to toe, and downing a glove with knives for fingernails, is killing off Nancy and Quintin's friends in their dreams. Now as the two of them struggle to stay awake in what are called (or I believe) micro-dreams they try to figure out what he wants, knowing there's a larger connection to all of this. The look and feel to this is modern horror but I don't know it just doesn't work. Warning, some spoiler alerts.

The film doesn't go with out effort, the opening title sequence is a nice visual piece and new concepts to the series add an interesting touch, like the micro-dreams, or as I said in the first paragraph I believe that's what they called them. In all honesty I had a hard time following the dialog as it was less than intelligent at times. After the first forty five minutes I consciously made an effort to take in only about forty five percent of what people were saying to each other as it was just unrealistic and quite frankly stupid. Also another thing that added a different dynamic was that the current victims were the previous victims. However; that also serves as a down point for the film, they showcase the child molester element quite a bit, and when I mean that I mean when Nancy says: "Fuck you!" Freddy replies: "That sounds like fun." It's a little bit tough to take in. It didn't find a balance between casual and disturbing, at points in the film like when the kids found out they were molested as children from their parents (who also disclosed it in such a bizarre way) they had basically no reaction. But then there's a scene where Freddy comes close to raping Nancy.

Acting is decently awful. I couldn't stand Katie Cassidy and I was counting off the minutes until Freddy killed her, she also looked twenty five not seventeen. Kellan Lutz also got it pretty earlier as well and I was thankful for that. Roony Mara was fairly awful, I understand that Nancy is suppose to be a tortured misfit teen in this but reading all your lines in monotone doesn't help the audience like you. Her character doesn't compare with old Nancy and you can understand why they have another character in the end helping her try and kill Freddy. It isn't believable that she can do it on her own. I like Kyle Gallner from Jennifer's Body and A Haunting In Connecticut, so I know he can act, and while I'm glad he was there to counter Mara's acting he was also a little less than impressionable. Now Jackie Earle Harley is probably the only person I can see playing Freddy and he did alright, I guess. It's not as iconic as Robert England's but he's creepy, they made him look like a real burnt victim which did make it more horrifying and hard to look at. How he acted was a little odd but I don't know, it could have been worse.

The film would have gotten a solid two stars (out of five)  from me for the new ideas and the added creepiness of Freddy but the last ten seconds were so awful that it pushed it into the category that this is just another really shitty remake. They try to replicate the iconic scenes and it's obvious that they were hesitant about it, knowing that copying it exactly or dis-including it would piss off fans. But that dilemma speaks for itself; you can't do either without pissing people off so why bother remaking this? This just doesn't work, the undying bogeyman of the seventies and eighties who spawns sequels into the nineties doesn't work in the new millennium (unfortunately). I actually went to the theater (rare for me) and saw Scream 4, which isn't exactly scary but was a great movie as it did what the first did, paid homage to the genre while parodying it. You're wondering what relevance this has well I'm just saying Craven understands how horror has moved from the decades, current Hollywood producers don't. Freddy belongs in the eighties, this generation should stick to what it knows, torture porn and Facebook killers. Or maybe I'm asking to much here but...I don't know...how but something new and creative we've never seen.

Halloween II (2009)

I'm curious if it even matters since I have no followers but yes I haven't posted in two months now due to school and detached interest. Seeing as no one reads my reviews I'm more or less talking to myself but oh well. I'm in a current state of boredom so I've decided to post a review or two.

I'm a fan of the original Halloween II, though John Carpenter himself doesn't really care for it I find it to be in par with the first and fairly decent for a sequel, which is saying a lot considering the reputation horror movies have for their sequels and remakes. But I'm not reviewing John Carpenter's film, I reviewing Rob Zombie's. What's my verdict? I assure you, I'm surprised that I'm actually going to put this but...it really wasn't all that bad. Maybe its because I read the reviews for it before I watched it and had such low expectations that it turned out better than expected, or maybe I've seen too many horror movies and I no longer can decipher any more what is shit and what is good. Either way, yeah I liked it.

Don't let that suggest that the film is flawless, far from actually. There's...several issues with the film, first and foremost the biggest in hardcore fans eyes is Michael as a character. He grunts now, if you must know, making him feel not so much like the original Michael Myers. Following him is Dr. Loomis (who, by the way, I was for in casting Malcolm McDowell) who's become the world's biggest Diva; as he he's out promoting his new book which, in traditional Gail Weathers fashion, exploits the murder's in the first movie. Then there is Scout Taylor Compton and her...ugh...I don't know if I can call it a performance it's so bizzarely  (not a word) awful. Her alone probably put me over the edge in hating the second half of the first film, so in short I've never really like her as Laurie. If anything I'll give her that she was a bit more tolerable this time around. And finally there is is the Ghost Mom. That side story shouldn't have even seen the light of day it was so pointless. Not to mention the ending of the film just plain sucked.

If your not discouraged yet by that last paragraph, remember that I did say I enjoyed the film. In my opinion the good Zombie gives to the film out weighs the bad. Rob Zombie may not be the best writer out in Hollywood but this is the most original Halloween to date, which is refreshing since slasher films are as cliche as they come. There's a lot of moments in the film between Annie's and Laurie's characters that demonstrated the strain on their friendship, and unlike a lot of people I don't think the plot of Laurie becoming a more darker human being is that much of a stretch, considering she survived a horrifying incident (AKA I'm not going to throw a hissy fit because she has a poster of Marilyn Manson on her wall). What has been an appeal about this film and the first is Zombie's homage to horror films by casting icons (Dee Wallace, Malcolm McDowell, Danny Trejo) but I'm most enthusiastic at giving Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif) a larger role. Besides the plot the cinematography is flat out gorgeous. His use of darks in contrast with lights is stunning and several shots are alone memorable solely on the cinematography part.




More than anything it was better than his 2007 rendition of Halloween, which I enjoyed only in part. Hell, I'd probably watch it again if there was nothing else on TV, I honestly didn't find it as bad as some did. If you detach yourself from the original series and then view it as a film you could see that maybe if Zombie had made this with different characters and not in the Halloween franchise it'd be a fairly decent bloody horror movie. Not for die hard fans but maybe for those who are a bit more open minded.