By Josh Crooks
Sam Raimi is a film-maker with what some would call a varied career; personally, I would call it a chequered past. The name Raimi once stood tall as a true pioneer in the world of indie film-making in the same way that Linklater and Smith already do, as the three paved the way for a new movement of cinema in the eighties and early nineties. Linklater proved himself with Slacker (1991), Smith proved himself with Clerks (1994) and Raimi did it with The Evil Dead (1981). Following British controversies such as that of A Clockwork Orange upon its original release, The Evil Dead was classified by the Maggie Thatcher (rest in pieces) as a Video Nasty; joining the likes of I Spit on your Grave (1978) as a film that was deemed too graphic for public consumption, and was released straight to VHS, skipping the cinema entirely. This alone has given it a cult status among geeks the world over as to this day the gore is still brazen and bold, and still holds up as a horror classic.
Sam Raimi is a film-maker with what some would call a varied career; personally, I would call it a chequered past. The name Raimi once stood tall as a true pioneer in the world of indie film-making in the same way that Linklater and Smith already do, as the three paved the way for a new movement of cinema in the eighties and early nineties. Linklater proved himself with Slacker (1991), Smith proved himself with Clerks (1994) and Raimi did it with The Evil Dead (1981). Following British controversies such as that of A Clockwork Orange upon its original release, The Evil Dead was classified by the Maggie Thatcher (rest in pieces) as a Video Nasty; joining the likes of I Spit on your Grave (1978) as a film that was deemed too graphic for public consumption, and was released straight to VHS, skipping the cinema entirely. This alone has given it a cult status among geeks the world over as to this day the gore is still brazen and bold, and still holds up as a horror classic.
Unlike his recent efforts (The Spider-man Trilogy and Oz the Great and the Powerful), Raimi's first foray into the world of cinema defined many of the horror staples that have since become tired and tested; all of which were recently drawn upon in the wonderfully bold The Cabin in the Woods (2012) early last year. In the same way that films such as Halloween (1978) and Alien (1979) still hold the same scares they did back then, The Evil Dead will shock you, make you laugh and certainly make you wince once or twice despite the shoe-string budget the film was made on as the practical effects here match the best of today's standard and more. The fact that the recent remake takes these strands and perfects them is a true testament to the power of the original: updating the original principles with added flair, love and a little money has produced a film that at times is even more intense than the film that proceeded it, despite it not having the same impact.
For me, the sequels are where Raimi started to go wrong: adding upon the comedic elements of the first and mixing genres, a move that has often led to him being referred to as bold. I agree with the statement, but the fact of the matter is that it led to Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn (1987), and Army of Darkness (1992), films that any fan of the series would struggle to debate were better than the first, especially when discussing the latter. Much like The Godfather, the director peaked with the story's first outing but for reasons unbeknown to me the first sequel has a much bigger following. Evil Dead 2 has the same quirks as the original, and (like all of his films) Raimi is ever prevalent behind the camera, creating shots that must have, at times, been uncomfortable for himself and/or his actors. The problem is that it feels watered down as it chooses to lose its initial intensity on moments of slapstick and comedy and has fewer moments of awe inspiring gore. The mix here isn't even, nor is it clever, its odd and not necessarily in a good way. The moments of comedy from the original film tend to come from moments of gore so magnificent that it becomes funny, or moments of dialogue that are so brazen it has the same effect. I will contest that this might not have been the intention of the filmmakers, but when the material they produce is at its funniest when they aren't adding gore to a three stooges sketch, they should learn to leave comedy to the comedians.
For me, the sequels are where Raimi started to go wrong: adding upon the comedic elements of the first and mixing genres, a move that has often led to him being referred to as bold. I agree with the statement, but the fact of the matter is that it led to Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn (1987), and Army of Darkness (1992), films that any fan of the series would struggle to debate were better than the first, especially when discussing the latter. Much like The Godfather, the director peaked with the story's first outing but for reasons unbeknown to me the first sequel has a much bigger following. Evil Dead 2 has the same quirks as the original, and (like all of his films) Raimi is ever prevalent behind the camera, creating shots that must have, at times, been uncomfortable for himself and/or his actors. The problem is that it feels watered down as it chooses to lose its initial intensity on moments of slapstick and comedy and has fewer moments of awe inspiring gore. The mix here isn't even, nor is it clever, its odd and not necessarily in a good way. The moments of comedy from the original film tend to come from moments of gore so magnificent that it becomes funny, or moments of dialogue that are so brazen it has the same effect. I will contest that this might not have been the intention of the filmmakers, but when the material they produce is at its funniest when they aren't adding gore to a three stooges sketch, they should learn to leave comedy to the comedians.
This brings us the scare free Army of Darkness; a film that doesn't carry the Evil Dead name thanks to the film's financiers, who didn't believe the brand carried weight with American audiences back in 1992. The main selling point of Evil Dead 2 was its ending, which, not to give too much away, will pull the rug out of the audiences feet in a memorable way, but building upon that for a whole other film has led its power to become lost in translation. Its no secret that the film had a troubled production (as hinted in the title change) which will have inevitably led to the film becoming more of one genre than the other, and whilst many hold it as a sour point in the trilogy, I would argue that knowing its genre (comedy) led to many more memorable moments. Seeing Bruce Campbell scream 'THIS IS MY BOOMSTICK' shows personality and character that were never present in either the original or sequel, and he deserves to be a break out star because of it. Also opting for clay-mation techniques similar to that of Jason and the Argonauts to animate an undead army is a wonderfully novel idea, especially when you consider the CGI generation we currently live in. These might be small points of what is ultimately a poor film but I personally enjoyed it more... Sorry? I can hear the film buffs in the corner baying for my blood as type but in my books Evil Dead 2 can ride in a cart marked 'highly regarded rubbish' along with The Godfather Part 2.
The point here is that if you want see the best of what the series has to offer: rent the original, pay to see the remake.
The point here is that if you want see the best of what the series has to offer: rent the original, pay to see the remake.
RSS Feed
