Evil Dead (“When Horror Met Funny”)

Synopsis: “Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods. The evil presence possesses them until only one is left to fight for survival.” (Rated R; 1 hour, 31 minutes)

There are so many different types of horror movies, it’s actually become challenging to track them all. Between supernatural horror, exorcism movies, slasher films, torture porn, even Japanese horror has become its own genre (think of The Ring or the equally terrifying original Ringu as one of many movies with pale, disturbing ghosts staring at the victims, and literally scaring the life from their bodies). Some use humor as their characters get picked off one by one (Scream was an extreme example of this, while the later Final Destination movies were gruesomely hilarious). Others go via a humorless route, hoping that where they fall short in making their audience laugh they’ll make up for it by scaring the bejesus out of you (Insidious and the aforementioned The Ring were prime examples of this).

In this piece I’m interested in discussing the humorous variety. Anyone who hates being scared would understandably ask how a horror movie could ever be funny. Allow me to describe the different ways:

Horror Spoofs – This is the most obvious kind, as movies such as the Scary Movie franchise are anything but frightening. They take the scary ideas, and use humor so silly that even if there is gore it’s absolutely absurd. These flicks are not intended to scare, chill or make their audience jump, and their genre would more aptly be considered comedy – not horror. (Examples of this include a couple of movies I reviewed this year, such as Scary MoVie and the less awful A Haunted House.)

Horror Satires – This is where the lines start to get blurred between comedy and horror. Half the people leaving these films will refer to them as horror, others laugh at the description and claim they are simply comedies with gore. They ideally are clever satires that take the genre and try to flip it on its head. It’s an interesting device because some of these movies have no intention of actually scaring you, but will have as much gore as you can imagine (Tucker And Dale Vs Evil) and others truly want to scare you, but the humor is not merely comic relief, it is central to their core (Scream).  Some of my favorite horror movies fall into this category. (Other examples: Shaun Of The Dead and Cabin In The Woods.)

Horror Camp – No, I’m not referring to the countless horror movies that take place in a summer camp, though those will often also apply to this category. I’m referring to campy horror flicks, both intentional and also marvelously unintentional. I refer to the many horror movies where the acting is so terrible and the dialogue is so lame, that when they say “I’ll be right back” you’re not wondering what will happen, but rather how the person will soon die. It’s the movies where one teenager (always played by older actors of course) goes to the forest to have sex (let’s just ignore the fact that they always seem comfortable on the twigs, bugs and rocks for a moment) and you get those fun moments of gratuitous nudity followed by a (hopefully) creative death. Bonus points for the movies that enjoy combining those two elements and include gratuitous nudity and death in the same image (use your own imagination, this is supposed to be a semi-clean blog!) Countless movies fall into this category, from some of the later Friday The 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street sequels, to the more recent Final Destination movies. Each of these started as serious horror movies, but at a certain point the mystery of WHO the killer was revealed, and the fun became more about HOW each person would be, ahem, dispatched. I used to watch these movies with my childhood friend Josh, and we’d laugh hysterically as each person would be killed in a ridiculous way, and rewind and re-watch some of the better scenes. And by better, I mean over-the-top cheesy-bad special effects, where you could see the person clearly become a mannequin as they’re killed due to lousy editing. And for any of my parents reading this blog, no we wouldn’t rewind and re-watch the nudity over and over again cracking up, of coooooourse not…Speaking of Josh, if you haven’t already read about him in my Blockbuster Video story, check it out here, trust me.

There are many other categories of horror as mentioned earlier, but those are generally not comedic. Very few people will be laughing at or with The Ring or Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and they have a strong place in the horror medium, but not really anywhere in the horror comedy spectrum. Although I will note that there is some laughter that sometimes emanates from the audience even in the scariest of movies immediately after a scare has been truly effective. This is less a statement of the audiences’ sadistic pleasures, and more a catharsis of relief after the scene ends, as it generally gives you a breather until the next scary part builds up.

The Evil Dead has always been a franchise that interestingly mixed comedy with horror. Directed by the brilliantly inventive Sam Raimi, there were three movies made that would each fit into my different categories. The original was probably “Horror Camp”, since it was predominately intended to scare, and although people find it hilarious now, that is in large part due to its extremely low budget production quality, as well as the cult phenomenon that has come from it. (Think of how people laugh throughout The Rocky Horror Picture Show now, it’s in line with that same idea of cult-classic camp.) Its sequel, Evil Dead II, was more of a “Horror Satire”. It took the same ideas and story of the original, and somewhat recreated it in an intentionally hilarious way, while still maintaining the gruesome factor. The third and (until now) final one was called Army Of Darkness, and I suppose it fit into the “Horror Spoof” category, since it was really nothing but a cartoonish comedy that still had a bit of a horror theme. I actually discussed these films in a previous post you can read here, in the paragraph about Sam Raimi.

As a quick tangent, I would like to point out that the Gremlins franchise also drastically changed horror genres. The original 1984 movie was a cleverly funny horror film, and the much-maligned (but quite underrated in my opinion) 1990 sequel transformed into a comedy with only slight horror elements. The idea of a movie sequel creating a noticeable tonal shift is a discussion I will leave for another day.

For years the fans of the Evil Dead franchise had been hoping that Raimi would return to create another sequel, but he simply wasn’t ready to do so. Along came Fede Álvarez from left field (aka his house in Uruguay), and he won over the studio, as well as Sam Raimi’s blessing to make the fourth movie without him. How did this happen? It’s quite the Cinderella story…

Álvarez spent a whopping total of $300 to make a 5 minute short called Panic Attack. Let me clarify that, not 300 million dollars like the budget to huge blockbuster movies, not 300 thousand dollars like the budget of a tiny independent film, not even 3000 dollars like the budget of a little student film. No, he spent the same amount of money to make his special effects-riddled short, as it costs to buy an Xbox. He wrote, directed and edited the movie, and then created the special effects using his computer. Before you continue this article, sit back, turn off the lights, and watch the short here. (Fear not scaredy cats, it’s tense and exciting, but not scary or gruesome).

Finished yet? Now imagine watching that, realizing this man managed to make it for next to nothing, and seeing it go viral within days of being put online (in large part thanks to Kanye West tweeting it when it was first released). It definitely got him immediate attention, meetings, and a deal that eventually resulted with him directing this newest Evil Dead. Although it’s somewhat ironic that the special effects he cobbled together in the short were computer generated, considering the movie was almost exclusively not. It turns out that Álvarez finds much of CGI to be cheap and lazy (a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly) and went out of his way to make all of the special effects old school. Nice! And there were some impressive effects here ladies and gentlemen. Hands sawed off, things flying in the air, and even the infamous nod to the original – yes, there was a tree-rape scene. In fact, thanks to my friend Shani (who went with Adi and myself to see the movie), I got tons of great information about the movie itself. Here is a great link for anyone who’s already seen it (because it CONTAINS MANY SPOILERS). If you’ve seen the movie, it will show many of the many respectful nods to the original that Álvarez included.

How did I like it? Quite a lot. It was definitely meant to be great fun to watch, but not necessarily funny like the originals. Of course Álvarez knew that he would be providing funny moments simply by association, but as a whole the movie was tense, had great timing, and a consistently awesome visual setting. He also provided a clever context to justify the typical idiocy of a bunch of guys and gals staying in the woods who clearly should get the hell out of there. The main character quickly starts doing crazy things and has clearly been taken over by some sort of evil demon spirit, and in lucid moments she begs everyone else to leave. Álvarez had to think up a way to most creatively keep them there, and he came up with a doozy. The entire plot of why they’re isolated the woods is that they’re all trying to dry her up from her recurrent drug addiction. They know she’ll lie and do anything to get out of it, so it becomes a hilarious and convincing reason to not believe anything she says or does, because she’s a lying junkie. So clearly when she’s covered in wounds and looks like a ghost and making things fly in the air, it’s all part of drug withdrawal. Awesome. That reminded me of one of the truly hilarious moments of the horror classic The Exorcist. After Linda Blair first levitates her bed and speaks in tongues, her doctor describes that this is all explained by ADHD, and prescribes her this miracle drug called Ritalin. AMAZING.

Unfortunately, my horror-loving fiancée didn’t enjoy it much, because it was simply too gruesome and gory for her. As much as she loves the genre, she can’t handle explicit (fake) imagery, which made this movie a bit of a losing battle for her. But as for Shani and myself, we loved it. A now somewhat-typical horror story, with a hefty offering of great scenes and visuals, along with some nifty film-making and editing, made for a fun night out at this rebirth of the horror franchise.

And if you’re a fan of the series, be sure to stay until the end of the credits, you’ll see…

The movie was better than Tucker & Dale Vs Evil, which was a funny “cabin in the woods” riff. But it wasn’t as amazing as THE ultimate “cabin in the woods” riff, you know, The Cabin In The Woods!

Quality Rating: A-

Boaz Rating: A

The Last Exorcism Part II (“My Interview With The Director Of The Original”)

Synopsis: “As Nell Sweetzer tries to build a new life after the events of the first movie, the evil force that once possessed her returns with an even more horrific plan.” (Rated PG-13; 1 hour 28 minutes)

The thing with horror movies is that you either like them or you don’t. Does that sound like a “master of the obvious” statement? Well think about it, is there another mainstream genre that people either like or don’t like? Certainly not comedies: some people like lowbrow humor starring Rob Schneider (I do!), others enjoy clever and witty satires, such as In The Loop (me too!), but everyone likes some form of comedy.  Some people are picky about dramas and find many of them too slow-paced to watch, but everyone enjoys some of them. Even action movies and cartoons to some degree can appeal to anyone. Sure, many women will tell me that they find action movies dumb, and my father will claim he doesn’t care for cartoons, but show those ladies Die Hard and force my father to watch Wall-E and you’ll hear about how great those movies are for the next year.

This brings me back to horror movies. The same can NOT be said for them, because horror movies are not made primarily for the storytelling, nor for the development of the plot, but in large part for the visceral reaction that they give of fear and dread in the pit of your stomach. It’s as if every horror movie filmmaker is equally qualified to design a Halloween horror maze, because that’s what the movies are like: guiding the protagonist (and the viewer) through a zigzag of escalating tension (slowly creeping through house) followed by scares (ghost/slasher/monster attacks!) followed by false scares (cat screams and jumps out at the hero – a disgustingly cheap scare tactic at this point) followed by more scares again. Does this sound like something that everyone will enjoy depending on the story? Of course not!  Because whether it’s a good or bad horror movie, this visceral reaction  is simply a turnoff for many people who will quickly proclaim, “I do NOT like horror movies!” As for myself, although it’s far from my favorite movie genre, I’ve always liked haunted houses, so I have a fun time watching these movies and filtering through the good and bad ones. And it doesn’t hurt that my fiancée wants to see absolutely every one of them! And honestly, when they’re good, they often go underrated because so many people don’t like the genre; that’s a damn shame since watching a great one like Insidious or this movie’s predecessor The Last Exorcism allows you to see how the cleverness that went into them deserves just as much credit as the creation of a great comedy or drama.

This review is an especially unusual one for me, because the director of the The Last Exorcism – but NOT this sequel – is the warm and wonderful Daniel Stamm, a dear friend of mine. As such, this blog entry not only includes some glowing personal bias, but some fun tidbits of my conversation with Daniel himself that he is generously allowing me to report. As he sweetly embellished when texting with me yesterday, “I love that you are a journalist now!”

Before discussing this sequel, let me first describe the original. I would like to clarify my intentional choice of wording, because it really WAS incredibly original. The marketing made it look like a hand-held fake “found footage” documentary (or is it real?!) about a terrifying possession and as the title suggests, its scary exorcism. But really the marketing was quite misleading, and it was so much more clever and funny than you’d imagine. Yes it was “found footage”, and it followed a reverend who performs exorcisms, but the twist is that he’s actually trying to show the camera how fake all of it really is, and most of the scares that the previews showed were in fact hilarious scenes in the movie where he’s pulling back the curtain on the fraud that is demonic possessions and exorcisms, showing how none of it is real…until things start to happen, and a real possession seems to occur.  It was done with great humor, very natural acting, and although I was prepared to congratulate Daniel on the movie regardless of how bad it was, I was thrilled to tell him that I really DID like it! In fact Adi and Cindy spent the rest of the night talking about it and poring over the details and raving how great they thought it was; so this isn’t simply a scenario of fake Hollywood flattery.

Cut to the movie in question, the sequel, and it starts exactly where the first one left off. I find this technique in movies to be immediately captivating, because it rewards audiences who have seen the first one by not pandering to new crowds as most tend to do. So often you read a TV or Movie producer claim, “This season/movie is a great place for new viewers to come in even if they’ve never seen it before”, and when you watch it so much time is spent recapping things, or meeting new characters, that you feel like you aren’t watching a sequel/continuation of the story, instead you’re watching a remake. It can work, but there is no feeling of  loyalty given to those of us who have been following the story from the beginning. (Earlier this year I reviewed the newest movie in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre series, and touched on this point. Feel free to click here to check out that short review.)

Immediately this sequel thrusts you into the world of the supposedly possessed girl from the original (played by Ashley Bell again) but follows it from HER point of view as she tries to adjust to normal life after the craziness that had previously ensued. The filmmakers made a fascinating decision that this movie would continue as a normal scripted horror movie, and not a “documentary” style one like the original. It both clashes with the original and melds beautifully at the same time, like how I felt watching From Dusk to Dawn when the first half of the movie’s gritty Tarantino-esque style suddenly becomes a campy horror movie. It’s refreshing to see things shaken up a bit every now and then, and it felt that way from the minute this movie began. (Imagine if your favorite reality TV show was suddenly a scripted show the next season…though some critics would argue that reality TV already IS scripted so that may be an ironic example.)

The rest of the sequel was entertaining enough for horror fans, but unfortunately lacking any of the clever originality of the first one. Without getting into it, the ending was so over-the-top campy that I still haven’t decided if it was an awful finish, or a risky, brilliant move that would make Brian De Palma proud. Ashley Bell is great in a more fleshed out role as the film’s tortured protagonist, and I really enjoyed the understated performance of a caring Muse Watson (who must somehow be related to Kris Kristofferson because they look so darn alike). The scares are average, the plot deviates into a bit of hokey territory as it gets further along, but the direction by Ed Gass-Donnelly was always crisp and effective, and with a sharper plot and story this director may be someone to watch.

But now the moment I’m most excited to share: interesting tidbits from my conversation with my friend Daniel Stamm, who had written and directed the first one, as well as some interesting insight into the politics of the film industry. And yes he did see the sequel:

Boaz – Did they ask you to return to make the second one? If so why didn’t you return? If not, are you offended?

Daniel – It’s a fascinating, political thing in the film industry…if producers have a project and they offer it to a director, and that director declines and it gets out that he turned it down, it can be the end of the project. The value of the project immediately diminishes. No producer wants to say, “Hey, I have a project that wasn’t good enough for ________, but do YOU want to do it?” And no filmmaker wants to be the producers’ second choice. So they don’t actually formally ask the question.

Boaz – What happened in your specific case?

Daniel – We had an informal meeting where they told me the idea for the sequel and what they wanted to do with it. “Gauging interest” I think you’d call it. I liked the overall idea but I had another movie I had already been offered (Angry Little God, currently in post-production), and I felt I had said everything I wanted to say about Nell’s story (Nell is the main character of The Last Exorcism II, played by Ashley Bell).

The conventional wisdom is that you can only win by NOT doing a sequel to your own movie. I wanted to try to widen my horizon beyond horror, so I said I didn’t want to do it. But again, they never ASKED me to do it, and I honestly have no idea if they would have wanted me to do it if I had said that I wanted to direct the sequel.

Boaz – Fascinating politics! What did you think of this sequel when you saw it?

Daniel – I LOVED the sequel. I really did. It was just the biggest “trip” to see Nell continuing her journey (that we started). It was such a thrill. They could have sent her to Mars to grow magic broccoli and I would have loved every second of it. Ashley (Bell) is SO good! And I honestly think the director (Ed Gass-Donnelly) is pretty goddamn talented himself. All that Polanski-esque dread he built up…I am in awe of him. I couldn’t have done that. 

If only Daniel could be connected to every movie I watch, my reviews could be even more fun to write!

The movie was better than The Devil Inside, an exorcism movie from last year which was completely average and unoriginal, and lacked this film’s crisp direction and fascinating predecessor. It was worse than…The Last Exorcism. Lazy choice? Sure, but how could I NOT go with it, it’s true!

Quality Rating: B- (Good acting, crisp direction and continuing where the first left off in an innovative way bumped this from C-grade territory)

Boaz Rating: B+ (Tons of extra fun was had by watching Daniel’s movie, and looking forward to discussing it with him)

Texas Chainsaw (3D)

Synopsis: “A young woman travels to Texas to collect an inheritance; little does she know that an encounter with a chainsaw-wielding killer is part of the reward.” (Rated R; 1 hour 32 minutes)

I have a confession to make: I’ve never seen the original classic horror movie from the 70’s, it’s one of a few big ones from that genre that I’ve missed (others include Rosemary’s Baby and The Omen). It’s surprising since I’ve seen so many ripoffs (The Hills Have Eyes etc) so how was this “sequel”?
Actually, in spite of ridiculous plot points and predictable moments, it was surprisingly decent. (Assuming you like horror movies of course, if you don’t, then it could be the greatest thing ever made and you’d hate every minute of it!) The movie starts in a very cool way, showing pieces of the original disturbing footage of what clearly was a very effectively sinister movie. In spite of it being filmed and taking place back in the 70’s, it continues immediately where the original left off, in a very effective way, first in the 70’s and then jumping to present day.

The acting was slightly better than your usual terrible horror movie acting. The sheriff was actually portrayed in a way that you’d think you were watching a good drama instead of a dumb horror flick (not campy, and quite subtle), and the gore was pretty damn R-rated, let’s put it that way. Don’t see this movie if you can’t handle pretty gruesome violence.

I won’t give away the direction the movie takes you, because it would be a bit of a spoiler, but it was both ridiculous and unbelievable, but at the same time kind of interesting and different from most horror flicks, and I appreciate any time a movie decides to do something surprising.

Like I said, plenty of flaws in the plot and it wasn’t anything too memorable, but it was a pretty good, totally humorless horror movie that made me want to go and finally watch the original, and stay far away from chainsaws.

The movie was better than The Hills Have Eyes but worse than 2010’s best horror movie, Insidious.

Quality Rating: C+

Boaz Rating: B