"The Evil Dead" discussion -- 10/20 - 10/26/02

[slade]

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of The Evil Dead. Also, feel free to discuss it's sequels.

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either Morticia or I will post the film in this forum in advance, and lock the topic until the first day of discussion.

Thanks everyone. Ideas for running this forum are always welcome.

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

[newt]

I think the first is the best! I think part 2 was a competent remake, but just didn't equal the first film. I've never been a big fan of the 3rd one. What do you think?

[lymang]

I think I saw ED1 back in college. I thought it was a good horror movie at the time. I don't think I thought very long or hard about it - probably due to the fact that I was watching VHS and probably on a crappy TV and an old copy of the movie. Some years later, a friend told me if I liked that one, I'd better watch ED2, which I did. I remember liking it even better, mostly because it was funnier than the first, and I must have been in the mood for that. My friend set me up for the line "Groovy!" and I was the first mark - I remember laughing my butt off when Bruce utters the line. Sometime after that I saw Army of Darkness. I've only seen it once, but I remember being thoroughly unimpressed. I have not given it another chance. But recently I purchased ED1: Book of the Dead and ED2 and rewatched both of them, and got to think more about them.
I think that while they are both very alike in some ways, they are also very different in others. An analogy I've used before when describing the first two is that they are like the difference between Metallica's first album "Kill Em All" and say... "Master of Puppets." Both albums are by the same band. Both are good music. But the first one is much rougher. Much more "real" and far less of a finished product. I think it's the same. You can see trademark Sam Raimi elements in Evil Dead (that camera view rushing over the ground, and the interesting angles he uses are examples) that are more fully developed and polished in ED2 (and Army of Darkness). Heck, that even applies to Bruce Campbell! He's obviously got the "schtick" down by the time ED2 is released. That trademark chin, the delivery of lines...

I like both movies. If I was going to say which was a better horror movie, I fall on the side of Evil Dead 1. Though it has campy elements and such, it was clearly an attempt to be a scary movie. Evil Dead 2 was (IMO) much more of an attempt at a classic campy-slapstick horror movie. Fountains of gushing blood and all.. :-)

Lyman

[misfit13b]

Originally posted by newt
I think part 2 was a competent remake...

Remake. Yes, thank you. I hate hearing people (including Sam and Bruce) saying how Evil Dead 2 is supposed to be some kind of sequel that happens after the original Evil Dead.

God, Ash is stupid, but he's not THAT stupid.

from imdb.com :
Often considered to be a remake of the first Evil Dead, however this is not accurate. The rights to show scenes from the original could not be obtained to re-cap what happened, so they recreated the beginning to explain how Ash got to the cabin, a headless Linda, etc.

*groan*

[tic-tac]

Hmmmm, I never knew that about the remake business...

I remember seeing the trailer to ED2 in the theater, and when they show the whole eyeball popping out and flying across the room, I almost hit the floor... I was just starting to really pay attention to how films were made and that shot to me was sort of amazing at the time, not in terms of technique, but just in terms of choosing to put it in there at all.

Hey Misfit -- nice avatar! That's from the end, right?

[MooglePorn]

Remake. Yes, thank you. I hate hearing people (including Sam and Bruce) saying how Evil Dead 2 is supposed to be some kind of sequel that happens after the original Evil Dead.

If Sam and Bruce say it's a sequel, and that he went back to the cabin, then it's a sequel and he went back to the cabin. Period.

[marc0702]

Evil Dead 2 is a sequel, but he doesn't go back to the cabin, the first 20 minutes is sort of a retelling of the first movie, although changes significantly, and the sequel really starts when the evil gets into him the first time, and throws him across the forest.

just like the beginning of army of darkness is slightly different than the end of evil dead 2

[MooglePorn]

Evil Dead 2 is a sequel, but he doesn't go back to the cabin, the first 20 minutes is sort of a retelling of the first movie, although changes significantly, and the sequel really starts when the evil gets into him the first time, and throws him across the forest.

In the commentary, Sam and Bruce state that Ash is indeed "dumb enough to go back to the same cabin again". That finishes the arguement IMO, as they are the writer, director, and star.

[Morticia]

Hey, all this debate about whether EDII is a sequel or not is getting us nowhere here. Let's agree to disagree, since even the source material doesn't know!

Could we please get back to discussing the movies? (That means all of them, doesn't matter.)

[Morticia]

I watched "The Evil Dead" on Halloween. Great night for a scare-fest.

Sequel or No? Well, just to put my .02 in, I noticed that ED ends with Ash burning the Book of the Dead. It's gone, burnt, that's part of why he got out alive. EDII doesn't address this. That's what makes the 'sequel' thing not work so well for me. But as there are contradictory reports as to what EDII is and isn't, let's all look at the title: "The Evil Dead II"

Back to "The Evil Dead" -- themes? How about Good vs. Evil? Pretty basic, huh? Ash starts off as a scaredy cat and ends up a gore-streaked, eyeball-thumbing slasher in his own right, just to survive. He was too sentimental to take the chainsaw to his girlfriend, even though he tried, but once she came back again, he snapped and took her out. Man Vs. Nature becomes Man Vs. the Unnatural.

The use of sound adds to the creepy atmosphere. The wind is a character of its own, the woods, an evil force. The shots of the "force" moving through the woods, knocking down trees, are well-done to establish a foreboding mood. Personally, I think the first half of the movie works best as it shows the "force" moving around the cabin and shutting in the hapless vacationers. Once the characters become Deadites, it falls apart for me. The evil is personified and actually is more pathetic than scary. Maybe it's the low budget FX, but I think some of it has to do with the evil being put into a body. It can be contained and even destroyed that way. How can you destroy wind? See, to me, it's a lot more scary when the "force" is unseen.

It's been a while since I've seen the sequels, but I know that once they got to Army of Darkness that the seriousness had given way to one-liners and self-parody. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the evil "force" was missing, and it was a lot less scary.

[tqpix]

When I first saw all three movies in the franchise, Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn was my favorite. But now, my favorite is The Evil Dead, because it is way more scarier.

The Pluses: The camera movements are wonderful.

The Minuses: The CGI at the end, and the annoying screaming from Ash's sister and girlfriend.

[aintnosin]

Originally posted by tqpix
The Minuses: The CGI at the end, and the annoying screaming from Ash's sister and girlfriend.

This was a low-low-low budget horror movie from 1981. I don't think it had any CGI effects.

[tqpix]

Then maybe it was stop-motion photography. I'm talking about the part where Ash throws the book of the dead into the fire place and the Deadites melt.

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by tqpix

Then maybe it was stop-motion photography. I'm talking about the part where Ash throws the book of the dead into the fire place and the Deadites melt.

That's actually claymation I believe, and it doesn't hold up very well I agree. I still find it scary though, and I have to say I've seen some ugly CGI that ain't much better.

[Notoriousaurus]

I find it amazing that this film. Which I believe is Raimi's first full-length feature out of college, has the camera work that it does.

He was (is?) such a pioneer to the craft, and definitely key to the genre films inspired by what was once considered a "video nasty."

When I first heard he was directing Spider-Man I knew it would have camera angles that would impress me and on that merit, it did.

-----------------

I agree with the people that say Part II is a sequel, Just as Army was a sequel to EDII, they all had inconsistincies. But in the end, I think it is part of the charm of the series.

The Evil Dead - Great classic horror film... with kayosyrup
Evil Dead II - Decent higher budgeted follow-up
Army of Darkness - Balls on the Wall Fun... the "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back" of the series