THE EVIL DEAD Series and Why It Rocks

In 1978, a young filmmaker named Sam Raimi and his friends made a short horror film called Within the Woods. They made the film for around $1000 to show to investors to fund a larger budget project called Book of the Dead.

VHS Bootleg Cover

Well movie history would change forever, because apparently the investors (actually a group of dentists and doctors) saw merit in this film and decided to fund Raimi's movie. And for a budget of around $400,000, Raimi went on to shoot Book of the Dead, using the stars (and school friends) of Within the Woods, Bruce Campbell and Ellen Sandweiss.

The film was about five college students going to spend their spring vacation in an old cabin in the woods. Unbeknownst to them, however, a tape recording of a professors translations unleashes an ancient evil in the woods. And its hungry for new blood.

Campbell will tell you without hesitation that filming Book of the Dead was no picnic. Actors dropped out midway through the extensive three year shoot, many injuries and illnesses were sustained, and gallons of karo syrup blood were constantly being drenched on him. They went over budget, and had to release the film unrated due to the graphic content of the film, meaning lost advertisement and therefore lost sales. But Raimi had his film completed by 1981 nonetheless, where it had its initial release under its current title The Evil Dead. And no one quite expected the phenomenon it would cause.


The film was rereleased twice after its initial release, in 1982 and '83 consecutively, and its success increased over the time span. Famed horror author Stephen King called it "The most ferociously original horror film of the year," a quote which would be proudly displayed on some versions of the poster. It didn't take long before The Evil Dead became recognized as a cult classic. The film found immense praise in Europe, as it was initially banned and fans of the genre were curious as to what they were missing. It looked like Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell would have promising roles in the film industry. The film is chock full of suspense, great atmosphere and music, and appalling special effects.

After The Evil Dead, Campbell and Raimi went on to make a film called Crimewave, which was written by the then unknown Coen Brothers. Unfortunately, the film wasn't very successful. So, Raimi decided to cheat the ending of his original film a tad, and went on to service his fans by making Evil Dead 2.

Evil Dead 2 picks up right where its predecessor left off, with Bruce Campbell forced to spend another night in the cursed cabin. However, the daughter of the professor who owns the cabin is coming back. Little does she know that her home is now a death trap.

Evil Dead 2 (sometimes displayed with the subtitle Dead by Dawn) is an interesting film, as its part sequel part remake. Not only that, but it's essentially a satire of the original film, substituting high suspense for screwball comedy, with visual gags and physical gags galore. Ridiculous moments like Campbell's character Ash being attacked by his own hand and the furniture in the cabin den coming to life and laughing at him are highlights of the film. Evil Dead 2 was a big success for Raimi and is now an even bigger cult classic and fan favorite, with some of the best camera work and gore gags in horror history. This one also happens to be my favorite in the series and is the perfect spooky-comedy to watch around Halloween. And the film once again ends on a doozy of a cliffhanger, leaving Ash stranded in 1300 A.D.

Sam Raimi said that the idea of Ash being left in 1300 A.D. was always a part of his Evil Dead mythos, but his lack of money to fund the idea always left it in the cold. However, with his newfound success in Evil Dead 2 and his 1991 superhero flick, Darkman, Ash would get his chainsaw revving up again in Evil Dead 3, later called Army of Darkness.

Army of Darkness (stylized on screen as Bruce Campbell vs. Army of Darkness and also known as Army of Darkness: The Medieval Dead and Evil Dead 3: Army of Darkness) has Ash upheld as a savior of the Castle Candar from the Deadites, as he is the man predicted in the Book of the Dead. Our intrepid hero steps up to help himself and the kingdom, but will his inept and selfish ways doom the world forever?

If The Evil Dead was Raimi's way of saying the film industry should pay attention to him, Army of Darkness was him saying, "Now that I have your attention, I'm gonna make the movie I wanna make." Army of Darkness is the perfect epic comedy, upping the screwball humor of Evil Dead 2 to infinite proportions. There are countless one liners from Ash alone in this film, and the gags are memorable and entertaining. Bruce Campbell takes Ash to a new level, making him a bad ass hero and a bit of a jerk. The cinematography is truly excellent, giving it that classic Evil Dead style. A lot of people don't like this movie because it's so different from the original film, but you have to go in with the mindset that it is a different movie. Instead of trying to make an equally dark or scary sequel to The Evil Dead, Raimi took the series in a completely different direction, and it works more than it doesn't. Army of Darkness may be my least favorite in the series, but that doesn't mean I don't absolutely adore it.

Now, of course there is the matter of the 2013 reboot of the series, produced by Raimi and Campbell and features new characters in a cabin that may or may not be the same. I have quite a bit to say about it, but I already did a YouTube review of it, so you can see that if you're interested in my full opinion.

So, why does The Evil Dead series rock? In all honesty, I don't know. There's just something addicting about the story, the environment, the gags, the quotes, and of course, the hero. I love The Evil Dead franchise so much I could do a whole blog based around it and I still may not be able to cover the why. Bruce Campbell says, "The difference between a mainstream movie and cult movie is that with a mainstream movie 1000 people see it once, and with a cult movie one guy sees a movie 1000 times." Well, I'm certainly working on it.

The "Bad" Stallone Movies Really Aren't That Bad

Ah, Sylvester Stallone. You may not know the name, but you'll probably know him as Rocky, Rambo, or that macho Italian guy that can't stop slurring. He was at the top of the world when he made Rocky in 1976 and his fame continued well into the 80s. But around the mid-80s and into the 90s, Stallone's fame started to wane, and he released movie after movie that was critically panned. But let's be honest...they're really not that bad.

 Now, these movies are in no way prime examples of art in cinema, but they're still a lot of fun. Stallone movies are always what you'd expect: cheesy awesome popcorn flicks that substitute a solid story for solid action. Now granted that's not always the case. Cliffhanger was released during Stallone's lul and it's a fantastic film, both action and storywise.

Tango & Cash is almost universally panned by critics but, come on! It's a good movie! Kurt Russell is awesome as Stallone's partner and the action and dialogue is good ol' fashioned 80s entertainment. No, the story isn't perfect but it's still an enjoyable action comedy relic. Better than most make it out to be.

D-Tox (also known as Eye See You in its re-release) is actually a much later example of the 90s Stallone formula (released in 2002). I legitimately think this film is truly underrated. The story and mystery is intriguing, the characters are memorable, the mood is dark and the setting is claustrophobic, Stallone actually does drama very well, and the villain and one liners are epic. You may not have even heard of this movie due to a troubled release, but I recommend giving this one a watch.

Now, The Specialist. I'll admit this movie is crap. The action is cool, Stallone's bad-ass, and James Woods' over the top villain is enjoyable, but even that can't mask a sloppy story and script with numerous plot holes and a terrible performance by Sharon Stone. Give this a miss.

Cobra is the prime example of the Stallone formula. Larger than life villain, rock-em sock-em action, memorable one liners, awesome soundtrack, and Stallone shooting many, many people. I truly love Cobra. It holds a very special place in my heart. Yeah, it can be cheesy and it's not very subtle, but isn't that what you look for when you watch an action movie? Seriously, give Cobra a shot.

Well, I may not have done a very good job backing my argument and some of you still may stand by your opinions that these films aren't good. And that's okay! These films work for me and that's what makes the world interesting. Everyone has their own taste, and I won't force mine on yours.

DIE HARD Is Probably The Best Action Movie Ever

Time to celebrate the season by analyzing my favorite Christmas movie, Die Hard. It counts, it counts!

Released in 1988, John McTiernan's masterpiece Die Hard is actually loosely based off the novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp (Die Hard should be viewed instead of reading the novel, believe me). Bruce Willis plays New York cop John McClane, visiting his estranged wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) at her job's Christmas party in L.A. However, during the festivities, the building is seized by twelve armed men led by the sinister Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman). McClane sneaked by, and now armed with only his wits and his service pistol he needs to take back the building and save his wife.

Die Hard is probably the best action movie ever. And I'm not alone in saying this so this is more than just my opinion. Everything about this movie is perfect. Willis is likable and bad-ass as McClane, spouting quotable profane lines ("Yippeekiyay mother....") and pushing himself to the limit to save himself and the hostages. Alan Rickman's Gruber is one of the best movie villains ever. His character just oozes charm and slime, making you love to hate him. Also, Reginald Veljohnson as a cop down in the streets is a fantastic partner to McClane, aiding him with reports and company via Walkie Talkie. The cinematography is fantastic and Michael Kamen's score just racks up the tension.

"Come out to the coast, we'll get together, have a few laughs..."

But the reason why Die Hard is so fantastic is the premise. Here we have one man, out of his jurisdiction, jet-lagged, and bare foot running through a 40 story building because the LAPD is too bumbling to know what will help and what won't. In this way you automatically start rooting for McClane, not only to get his wife back, but because the actual authorities are far from aiding the situation, and usually make it worse. Also, McClane isn't like Rambo or any Schwarzenegger role. McClane gets shot, his feet get mutilated, and his bones are probably saw dust by the end of the film. McClane is a vulnerable man, and we can relate to and sympathize with him all the more.

And even though there is some Hollywood ridiculousness, Die Hard is believable. The action sequences are intense, and you realize that something like this could actually happen. Hostile takeovers happen all the time, and frankly, this is what we want to happen every time we read about one. And even the stuff that isn't believable, you have to admit....it's pretty friggin' awesome.

Dat firehouse scene...

Die Hard had four sequels, and they were all good (the fifth not so much...), but in each film following they pushed the envelope on realism until it fell out of the mailbox and into the road. So if you haven't seen Die Hard, stop reading this and go watch it. I guarantee you won't regret it. It's probably the best action film ever made, after all.

Why is SCROOGED So Hated?

'Tis the season once again, and everywhere you go you're sure to find countless film adaptations of Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol. Everyone has their own personal favorite, mine a tie between the 1984 TV movie starring George C. Scott and the 1993 Muppet version. But the one adaptation that I think gets the most bad press is 1988's Scrooged, starring Bill Murray.

The story is a modern retelling of the tale starring Murray as Frank Cross, a cold tyrant of a TV exec making preparations for the live broadcast of A Christmas Carol on his station. And you know the drill, three spirits come and show him his Christmas past, present, and future if he continues his unfeeling ways.

Now despite being a more comedic take on the story, Scrooged is actually a fairly faithful and very unique adaptation. The events leading up to Cross's present are treated seriously and once again you can sympathize that this guy would hate Christmas. Bill Murray is excellent as the bitter Cross, portraying him as utterly unfeeling and cynical. Other highlights are Karen Allen as Cross's heart broken ex and Carol Kane as the Ghost of Christmas Present, almost like an abusive version of Glinda the Good Witch (from which most of the film's funniest moments occur).

However, to this day Scrooged remains one of the most hated adaptations of the story. In fact, a book on Christmas Carol trivia calls it "The Worst Adaptation" and the film didn't put the critics in '88 in a very holly jolly mood. It has a strong fanbase today, but why is this film still a humbug for others?

I think that this film is just far too dark for a lot of people, and I can understand that. Scrooge in the original story was always a mean old man, but Frank Cross is just plain cruel in this movie. It's like he has absolutely no feelings towards other human beings, including his brother, his overworked secretary, and the woman he once loved. Bill Murray is always great at playing the eccentric jerk, but this character is downright despicable in most of the movie, probably making him the coldest Scrooge adaptation ever. Not only that, but just a lot of the film's tone in general is very dark. The Jacob Marley-surrogate and Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come are downright disturbing, as are most of the events that will take place in Cross's future if he doesn't wise up. The dark comedy takes a nose dive and becomes depressing when we see Karen Allen's character become just as cruel as Cross and the Tiny Tim-surrogate being placed in a mental asylum.

However, I think the greatest turn-off for most of the people that hate this movie is the ending. When Cross announces that he has finally realized the wonders of Christmas and love for his fellow man it seems kind of....faked. In the original tale, Scrooge promises the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come that he will change his ways. Cross comes into his live broadcast and starts yelling it like a lunatic, making you question whether he's really changed or petrified as to not have something like this happen again. I just caught the end of Scrooged on TV the other night and I realized why this might not click with some people.

So, that is my diagnosis as to why Scrooged is so hated. If you have a different reason, let the Doctor know. I can understand why some people wouldn't like this movie, but I'm going to keep enjoying its dark humor and Christmas lunacy. And Bill Murray.

Why 2012 Is Still A Terrible Movie

Good ol' Roland Emmerich (director of Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and White House Down). You either love his movies, or you loathe 'em. His staggeringly low critical averages from RottenTomatoes and Metacritic almost put him in the same realm as the infamous Uwe Boll. All of his movies look similar in some way (almost always involving destruction of the White House), and are sure to rake in boatloads of cash whether the film's good or not. And never was this more clear with his cinematic atrocity 2012.

Everything about this movie is awful. The otherwise fine actor John Cusack is terrible (along with everyone else), the story is riddled with more holes than the moon, and it's attempt to bank off of a lame conspiracy theory is down right laughable. The film is a painful 158 minutes long and the only thing interesting is the special effects (which to the film's credit are impressive). Yet somehow this film managed to garner over $700 million dollars at the box office, obliterating its budget of $200 million. Well, four years have passed since the film's release and...it's still terrible. But now for an entirely new reason.

Imagine if in the late 1990s they made a film all about the world collapsing after Y2K (further research is needed to prove they haven't...). What if they made a film about the devil himself rising on June 6, 2006? (no, The Omen remake doesn't count) That's the glaring problem with this movie now. Granted, the terrible writing, acting, and all around storytelling doesn't help aid this problem any but nevertheless, this is a big problem. 2012 is almost an ode to how stupid we were four years ago.

This film glorifies the sheer panic, hysteria, and conspiracizing that occurred around the supposed Mayan predicted apocalypse of December 21, 2012. Well it's 2013 now. This film shows that certain human beings actually believed in that theory. Even though I never took any stock in it, I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed of the theory, I'm ashamed of the hype, and I'm ashamed of this movie.

So, this is why 2012 is still a terrible movie. Do you like this movie? If so, tell the Doctor why. I'm genuinely interested. But for me, I still can't overlook the catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions this movie is. That is my diagnosis.

Why HALLOWEEN Works

In 1978, John Carpenter released a title wave of fear in the film Halloween. Ever since its initial release, critics and fans of the horror genre regard it as a classic and the frontrunner for the ever popular slasher sub-genre. It inspired Sean S. Cunningham and Victor Miller to make their direct rip-off Friday the 13th, and it launched the careers of Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Myers respectively. But when the casual viewer watches the original Halloween without prior knowledge of its cinematic significance, they might see it as a typical, old-school slasher movie, with ditzy teenagers, pointless breast shots, and a relatively predictable cliffhanger. So why is it that this movie still works for so many?

First off, the characters work a lot better than you'd expect in a horror movie. The better portion of the first act let's the viewer get to know Laurie Strode (Curtis) and her friends, and while the other two may be a lot flatter than Laurie, they're still believable teenaged girls. In other horror movies such as the Friday the 13th series and later Nightmare on Elm Street sequels, we're given a dozen characters for the sole purpose of unique kills and a high body count and are less likely to be interesting characters you can invest in. Halloween gives the time to let you identify the characters and grow attached to them.

A portion of the characters in the original Friday the 13th,
all of which are set up to be butchered.

Second, Michael Myers as a villain (at least in the first film) is actually terrifying. Knowing that poor Laurie is essentially battling evil incarnate is a scary thought. At the start of the film when 6 year old Michael murders his older sister for no apparent is an intense high point of the film. Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence), Michael's psychiatrist, a man of logic, is even convinced that there is nothing else motivating Michael than pure evil. That's all you need to know to make him a truly scary force of supernatural proportions! The sequels try to destroy that, but, that's for another time...

One of the most memorable parts of the film and there
is NO gore.

And the final, and perhaps most important, reason is that the original Halloween is not super gory. There's only a little blood throughout the entire picture. The film relies on crafty cinematography and a tense mood to create a truly haunting movie. The mood of the film really puts you in the perspective of being in a small town on Halloween night being chased by a murderer. Accompany that with one of the most simplistic, yet memorable horror movie scores and you have a recipe for nail-biting suspense.

For these reasons (for me at least), Halloween is more than a dumb slasher movie. It's a very intelligent, dark, and genuinely scary horror movie that may have some faults, but indeed shines out as a classic. Watch the movie and judge for yourself, but no matter what you think, you'll find you're having a great Halloween night.

Why is the "Here's Johnny" Scene in THE SHINING So Memorable?

Debatably one of the most famous horror movie scenes, the "Here's Johnny" scene in Stanley Kubrick's 1980 horror masterpiece The Shining is notorious for scaring the pants off of people. Now granted, the whole movie is intense, memorable, and creepy, but something about this scene leads it to be what the movie is most always assimilated with. It's even the screenshot that makes it on the majority of the DVD and Blu-Ray covers! And chances are you're more likely to associate this line with The Shining than with Johnny Carson, who the line was actually coined for. So, my question is why is this scene so famous?

Let me be perfectly honest: I don't think the line is scary. It's a bizarre pop culture reference that comes out of no where and frankly has no purpose in the movie. Jack Nicholson's character isn't named Johnny and I don't think the axe's name is Johnny so the line is useless. It's very dated and, frankly, kind of stupid.

But it's not like this entire scene isn't scary. It's well paced, well shot, intense, and unnerving. Plus Jack does have some other creepy lines during the scene, such as "Wendy, I'm home!" and his impression of the Big Bad Wolf. But why is it that "Here's Johnny" get's the attention and scares? Well here's my theory:

1. It's not so much the line, but the way he says it. I mean just look at his face when he says it. The guy's freaking nuts!
2. He finally has Wendy pinned down, and it'll only take a little more effort before he has her.
3. The soundtrack is phenomenal, and accompany that with the swinging of the camera in step with the swinging of the axe and you have a grotesquely beautiful scene.

It's for these reasons that I feel the "Here's Johnny" scene is so memorable. Not necessarily because of the line, but because of the context and the scene built around it. Maybe the line works for you. It just doesn't cut it for me (no pun intended).