Tag Archives: sam raimi

The Evil Dead (1981) vs The Thing (1982)

This post first appeared as part of the Fortnight of Terror over at the excellent Not Now I’m Drinking a Beer and Watching a Movie, but now I’m sharing it for everyone else’s delectation. Enjoy and happy Halloween!

I first watched The Thing quite a few years ago. Since then I have watched the original Evil Dead for the first time and, having watched The Thing again, it shocked me just how similar the two are; sure, a lot of horror films stick by certain rules and display particular tropes, but the comparison between these two films seemed more similar than most others. The Evil Dead might be more supernatural horror compared to the alien/monster horror of The Thing, but the parallels are definitely there. Spoilers ahead, naturally…

Lead men

Both The Evil Dead and The Thing have pretty strong male leads who have become somewhat iconic in the horror genre. The Evil Dead has Ash, played by the legendary Bruce Campbell, who although doesn’t really stand out for the first third or so of the film, by the end is undoubtedly the hero of the group, stepping up to take care of business when needed. Campbell then become the central figure for both Evil Dead sequels, cementing his role as a cult figure.

evil-dead

The Thing has a similarly strong male lead in Kurt Russell’s Mac. Like Ash in The Evil Dead, Mac takes charge of the situation and has to do the unpleasant thing of putting people out of their misery. This is still one of Russell’s most iconic roles and arguably rivals Campbell’s Ash as one of the most recognisable leading men in horror films.

Isolated location

The Evil Dead’s fabled cabin in the woods is one of the most referenced and copied features of the film. It virtually invented the trope and it has rarely been used to such great effect. The cabin’s location is a forest in the Tennessee hills and, thanks to Sam Raimi’s direction, manages to create a simultaneous feeling of isolation and claustrophobia. It really feels like there is nothing for miles around, nowhere to escape from the evil forces within the cabin.

The Thing is set in the Antarctic at an American research station. Just like the cabin it feels truly isolated; there’s little to no chance anyone could escape without dying in some way, yet the inside of the research station feels scarily confined. The darkness of the Antarctic stretches on forever and the research station might as well be the last place left on Earth.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What Dya Mean You Haven’t Seen… The Evil Dead?

The Evil Dead

As I have mentioned before on here and on others’ blogs in the past, I’m not the biggest fan of horror films. I like them in theory as I’m fascinated by the paranormal, myths & legends, and psychological nutcases. However, when it comes down to actually watching a horror film, I’ll quite often want to weep within the first 15 minutes. Even horror films that everyone apparently thinks are awful will quite often reduce me to a quivering wreck. And yet I’m still somehow drawn to them.

I had seen the trailer for the remake of The Evil Dead and thought it looked fantastic, even though after just a two-minute clip I still wanted a massive cuddle afterwards. This intrigued me to check out the original, a film I know is loved amongst cult horror fans and is apparently the inspiration for many horror films that followed. So I turned the lights off (I like to do things properly) and booted it up.

Plot: A group college students take a holiday to a cabin in the woods where they find a creepy old book and an audio tape. When they play the audio tape it is a series of incantations of writings from the book which releases evil demons that one-by-one possess the hapless students.

The Evil Dead was made way back in 1981 and was director Sam Raimi’s first feature film. He had made several short films prior, including Within the Woods which would serve as a trial run of sorts to drum up investment for The Evil Dead.

Bruce Campbell as AshAs shown above, the plot of The Evil Dead is incredibly simple but that’s no bad thing at all; it’s the films simplicity that is it’s strongest element. We don’t need deep back stories or complicated love triangles; instead, we’re thrown straight into the story, essentially just being told to accept what’s happening without giving it a thought. The whole thing pretty much takes place in and around the solitary cabin which gives it a very claustrophobic feel, amplifying the horror.

And it is scary. Despite the fact that it’s obviously become dated and hasn’t aged particularly well, it still remains a lesson in how to do low-budget horror. There are a few jump scares, but the film mixes it up and there are plenty of other techniques used to get under your skin. The camerawork, for instance, is very clever; one scene sees Ash (Bruce Campbell) try to drive his girlfriend away from the cabin but stops the car to get out. It appears that the car is parked on flat ground but was actually parked on a slope and the camera tilted to correct the slope. This adds an eerie disorientation to the shot as Ash walks away from the car at a seemingly strange angle.

As I mentioned, the film hasn’t aged particularly well, which could well be why Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell are revisiting it for the remake. The acting is pretty atrocious, although that’s what you often get with low budget films. You could argue that it’s part of the film’s charm, but there’s no denying that the acting is somewhat laughable at times. Some of the effects are also dated, but on the whole they don’t really take anything away from the film. The OTT effects are a hark back to the B movies that influenced the film and are what gives it some personality.

RaaaarMany cite The Evil Dead has an example of horror/comedy, albeit very dark comedy, but there’s something about that that doesn’t really sit right with me. I believe that this was never intended as a piece of comedy but as a proper, straight-up horror film. However, various things (largely due to the budget) led it to become slightly amusing in places. The bad acting, the over-the-top gore and make-up, etc, now seem worse than they did back then and any comedy drawn from them is likely accidental. Recognising this, Raimi maybe thought he would embrace it with the sequels (of which I haven’t seen but am aware). I could be wrong but I doubt Raimi would have made the film as it was if he had a larger budget, which could well have eliminated much of what added a level of comedy. I have a feeling that people may be laughing at it slightly more than with it.

What is very interesting is the obvious effect The Evil Dead has had on horror films that followed it. I doubt it was the first to feature an isolated cabin in the woods or a cursed book that released the dead, but it’s certainly one of the most influential. It’s hard to think that any filmmaker incorporating anything like that into a horror film doesn’t have The Evil Dead at least somewhere in their mind as they do so. It’s even spawned a number of comedy horrors, such as The Cabin in the Woods and Tucker & Dale vs Evilwhich use The Evil Dead as such an obvious point of reference that they don’t even attempt to hide it.

The film also gained a lot of its cult popularity from the fact that several attempts were made to censor it. Many countries, in fact, banned it for some time. It was labelled as a ‘video nasty’, a title reserved for only the nastiest and most disturbing films. This definitely adds to the film and gives it a certain level of expectation going into it. This could well explain why I was left feeling ever so slightly disappointed by it. It was entertaining enough but it didn’t really enthrall me as much as I was expecting. Perhaps if I had seen this when it first came out I would have a higher opinion of it. I appreciate and respect The Evil Dead’s significance and what it achieved with the resources available but I’m not sure it belongs in the higher echelons of cinematic greatness.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Film review: The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-ManWith this reboot of the Spider-Man film franchise coming a mere ten years after Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man, it was always going to be under huge scrutiny. When it was confirmed that Spider-Man 4 was dead in the water and Sony were going to start afresh, thousands of Spidey fanatics swamped message boards to give their opinions. There were those who were outraged at a reboot and another origin story happening so soon, whilst others were hoping that this time they would finally “get it right”.

In The Amazing Spider-Man we get the same origin story we got a decade ago, and the first act feels a little too familiar – geeky outsider Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) gets bitten by a radioactive spider giving him all sorts of arachnid-like abilities. He then learns to come to terms and use them before his not-long-for-this-world Uncle Ben gives him some spiel about ‘responsibility’. However, the film does have its own identity, and this time we get more a focus on Peter’s parents and how he ended up living with his Aunt and Uncle, as well as a new romantic interest in the form of Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone).

There’s also a new villain in the form of Dr Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), an Oscorp scientist with one arm obsessed with learning the secrets of regenerative lizard DNA to help grow back his missing apendage. In true super villain style his experiments go awry and he transforms into the imaginitively named Lizard. Of course it’s Spidey’s job to put a stop to his evil plans.

For those concerned whether this reboot was actually needed, the good news is it feels fresh enough to stand alongside Raimi’s trilogy. Spider-Man 3 marked a considerable downturn in the series after the high of número deux, and with the studio and writers and director and actors all at odds about the direction of the next film, a reboot wasn’t actually the stupid decision that it first seemed.

Dr Curt Connors So out goes Tobey Maguire and in comes Andrew Garfield. Despite clocking in at 28 years of age, Garfield has the youthful looks and gangly physique perfectly suited to a high school Peter Parker. One problem some had with Tobey Maguire was that they just couldn’t see him as Peter Parker, but they should feel a lot happier with the Garfield in the role (complete with mechanical web shooters).

Garfield brings just the right amount of athleticism, vulnerability and comedy to the role of Spider-Man, although he does seem a little too cool at times for the supposedly outcast Parker. The rest of the casting is also pretty spot on. Emma Stone is very good as love interest Gwen Stacey, replacing Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane, and Martin Sheen and Sally Fields are a class above the previous incarnation of Uncle Ben and Aunt May.

As previously mentioned, chunks of the story are still a little too fresh in the memory, but it does just enough to stand alone as the start of its own franchise. The dialogue is wittier and the whole thing feels much more like a comic book brought to life; again Garfield has to take a lot of the credit for this. However, the action set pieces are a mixed bag. The pick of the bunch is arguably smaller scale bridge rescue which has a lot more emotional punch than the somewhat disappointing climactic showdown with the Lizard. The film is also a little on the long side, although that can be an ailment of origin stories, having to cram so much information into a relatively short period.

For those who would no longer consider themselves ‘young’, ten years between origin stories probably seems like no time at all. However, for anyone under the age of 25 or so, it probably seems a lot longer. There is most definitely a place for The Amazing Spider-Man, although it won’t be until the sequel roles around in a couple of years’ time will we really see whether the reboot decision is vindicated. A slightly lengthy running time, patchy set pieces and the worst use of a Coldplay song in the history of film don’t hold The Amazing Spider-Man back from being a solid comic book adaptation that will no doubt inspire a whole new generation of wannabe web-slingers.

Words: Chris Thomson

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,