REVIEW: “Evil Dead” (2013)

EVIL DEAD POSTER

It was 32 years ago that childhood friends Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell introduced a small, low budget horror film that would influence the genre for decades and become one of the biggest cult classics in film history. That movie was “The Evil Dead”. With little money and a cast and crew made up mostly of family and friends, Raimi and Campbell still managed to craft a visceral, gory, and frightening gem that remains one of my very favorite horror pictures of all time.

In keeping with Hollywood’s current remake fetish and creative brain freeze it seems only logical that we would get “Evil Dead”, an update on the 1981 classic. When I first heard about this project red flags went up everywhere. How dare they mess which such a cult favorite and one that I personally hold as sacred. I was instantly skeptical and uninterested. That was until I heard some very interesting details. Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell would be producing the movie. Game on! From that moment on I’ve been anxious to see this film. My anticipation grew after seeing the first trailer and after hearing Campbell and Raimi’s enthusiasm. But I still had a deep burning question – could they even come close to capturing what made the original so great?

They certainly weren’t afraid to set the bar high. The movie poster features the line “The most terrifying film you will ever experience”. While I wouldn’t go that far, “Evil Dead” is still a creepy, gore-soaked, step back in time that’s sure to entertain old-school horror fans and shock newer viewers who are more accustomed to the popular PG-13 ghost stories of today. Raimi and Campbell hand over the directing keys to Fede Alvarez but their bloody fingerprints are all over this picture. And while there are question marks and a few plot holes, I still found this to be satisfying horror ride and a perfectly acceptable reimagining.

EVIL DEAD1

There are several noticeable story changes in this film. Instead of it being five friends taking a fun filled vacation in the Tennessee hills, these five folks come together for a much more serious purpose. Mia (Jane Levy) has struggled with a drug problem and after a serious overdose her friends Olivia (Jessica Lewis) and Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) decide to take her away to her family’s remote rundown cabin to help her quit cold turkey. Mia’s brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) and his girlfriend Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore) meet them there to help. After making a grisly discovery in the basement, the group uncover a book bound in human skin and filled with disturbing text and images.

Now fans of the original know this is the Necronomicon (The Book of the Dead) and that by quoting a specific set of words from the book, you would awaken an evil presence in the woods. Well that’s what happens and quite literally all Hell breaks loose. One demon possession later and the creepiness shoots through the roof and the blood starts to flow. Now you should know this going in but in case you don’t let me emphasize that this is an extremely graphic film. A crowbar, an electric knife, a machete, a box cutter – these are just some of the instruments of defense of death and this film isn’t shy about using them.

The spectacular special effects only makes the eeriness more pronounced and the gore more vivid. This is worth mentioning because Alvarez was emphatic that no CGI be used. What you see is the real deal – old school visual effects with some clever illusions and slick camera tricks. I loved this decision. It’s a clear reminder that great effects can be done without the cheaper and often times more obvious CGI. The visuals work hand-in-hand with the brilliant use of sound. Every creak from the cabin, every flick of a switch, and every chord from the score help in giving the movie an eerie and intense feel. This is a very technically impressive film and I can just see Raimi wanting to play with all the visual toys that weren’t available to him in 1981.

EVIL DEAD2

Now perhaps the biggest question that will be asked by many centers around the horror. Is “Evil Dead” scary? This is almost impossible for me to gauge because movies never really scare me. For me effective horror pictures are one the creep me out, not necessarily scare me. While not on the same level as its inspiration, this film definitely has its creepy and disturbing moments. But it certainly scared some people during my screening so if that’s what your looking for, you should find it here.

But you won’t find the same sly and subtle humor that’s in the original. Everything here is dead serious (pun intended) and I honestly missed those lighter moments. There were also a few minor things that didn’t quite work as the movie intended. There’s an opening scene showing a disturbing past event that had happened in the cabin’s basement. The trouble is the entire scene felt completely disconnected from the rest of the movie. I had so many unanswered questions about it and I just don’t understand why it’s there. Then there is a scene close to the big finale featuring a bit of creative (and utterly preposterous) engineering. I’m not going to give anything away but it and its subsequent scene was just too ridiculous to buy into. Thankfully the movie doesn’t waste any time moving past it and making its way to its entertaining, blood-soaked ending. It too is different from the original but it worked for me.

Even though this is a remake of a true classic horror picture, for me it was important to not judge this movie strictly by the 1981 film or to go to far in comparing them. This movie stands on its own and it does it well. But it never forgets its roots and that’s the main reason I found it to be a success. It follows the pattern set forth by the earlier film and then amps things up 110%. It’s gruesome, it’s gory, it’s relentless, and it all fits perfectly with the films frightening tone. Fans of the classic will love the various tips of the hat to the original and new fans will be rocked by their visceral dose of old-school horror. I see it appealing to both groups. “Evil Dead” worked for me not only as a solid modern-day remake but as one of the better horror pictures to come around in years. It looks like Raimi and Campbell’s tried and true formula still works today.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Duck Soup”

Classic Movie Spotlight

duck_soup posterI think it would be safe to say that the Marx Brothers had a brand of humor that was uniquely their own. In a variety of ways Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Zeppo Marx influenced the comedy genre like no others. Their chaotic and anarchic comedy is centered around rapid-fire quips and ingenious slapstick that’s as well choreographed as any fine dance or ballet. Some of today’s audiences haven’t had the same appreciation for the Marx Brothers and many moviegoers raised by modern cinema may be tempted to dismiss their style of humor. But I stand with the many who believe that the brothers were some of the greatest comic geniuses ever to grace the big screen.

Many believe “Duck Soup” to be the Marx Brothers’ greatest film. While my affection for several of their other movies keeps me from emphatically agreeing, I don’t mind saying that “Duck Soup” is right there in the conversation. The movie features two significant finales for the brothers. This was their last movie to include Zeppo Marx and it was their last production for Paramount Pictures. Many consider the Paramount days to be the best for Marx Brothers movies. But serious contract disputes sunk the relationship between the two sides and after “Duck Soup”, the final movie of a five picture contract, the brothers moved to MGM.

As with most of the Marx Brothers movies, summarizing the plot of “Duck Soup” can be an exercise in futility. There’s no dense or intricate narrative in the film. It’s simply a basic story that allows Groucho, Harpo, and Chico to showcase their comedic chaos. Groucho plays Rufus T. Firefly, the appointed leader of a small country named Freedonia. Freedonia is in a vulnerable position due to economic hardships and poor leadership. Why anyone would expect things to change with Firefly in charge is beyond me! Groucho is exactly as you would expect. He hurls sarcasm and insults at Mach 5 speed and his idiocy when it comes to running a country only makes things worse for Freedonia. But what’s worse for them is hilarious for the audience. Groucho is in top form and its a challenge just to keep up with his humor.

DUCK SOUP 1

The neighboring rival country of Sylvania sees blood in water and they believe the time to take control of Freedonia has come. Their ambassador Trentino (Louis Calhern) sends two spies Chicolini (Chico) and Pinky (Harpo) to infiltrate Firefly’s regime. Another dumb move. Obviously the two numbskulls botch the operation and turn things upside down. Before long the two countries have declared war and things go completely insane. In other words, its exactly what you would expect from an effective Marx Brothers picture.

Zeppo appears as Firefly’s secretary chief, Bob Roland. After playing his usual straight man role in the first five Marx Brothers films, he would quit acting after “Duck Soup” to make his fortune in engineering. Also a Marx Brothers favorite Margaret Dumont plays her familiar wealthy, aristocratic widow role. As always she plays the straight face in the middle of the brothers’ madness and she takes the brunt of Groucho’s jabs and insults. Dumont is certainly a supporting character but her roles are always vital to making much of the comedy work. That’s definitely the case in “Duck Soup”.

The film has several signature scenes none more well known than the mirror sequence. In it Harpo, decked out as Groucho, pretends to be his reflection in a busted out mirror. He matches Groucho’s every movement and expression in a scene featuring some mind-blowing choreography. There’s also a fantastic sequence where Chico and Harpo fight it out with a lemonade vendor battling them for sidewalk business. It’s a sequence that could be construed as Marx Brothers cruelty. In fact I’ve heard that argument but I think that’s taking the scene way to seriously. It’s a hysterical part of the film. Then there is Harpo’s penchant for clipping things with his scissors. Whether it’s tuxedo tales or feathered pens, he clips anything he gets a chance to.

I could go on and on about the numerous funny lines and hilarious gags. “Duck Soup” may have more Marx Brothers zaniness than any of their other pictures. For anyone not familiar with these early comic legends this is a great entry point. Just be prepared. The humor is relentless but it keeps me laughing from the opening to the closing credits. The boys made some fantastic films after “Duck Soup” but here they’re at their peak. And for me this 1933 comedy succeeds where the vast majority of modern attempts fail. It’s incredibly funny and it carves out for itself a spot as a true classic.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5 STARSs

5STAR K&M

REVIEW: “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”

GIPOSTER

One of my great joys growing up was reading the G.I. Joe comic book series. The action figures, the vehicles, the cartoon series – G.I. Joe equaled big money in the late 80s and early 90s. But my favorite remained the comic book. I read it for around 100 issues and I loved the way it treated its characters, their relationships, and their storylines. So imagine my frustration when “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” hit the big screen in 2009. It was a movie ripe with potential but full of crap. The shoddy acting, the overt political correctness, and the ridiculous story supplied enough reasons to dislike the film. But for me its biggest vice was the butchering of the characters that I’ve loved since my childhood. Whether it was poor research or poor creative decisions, I don’t know. But I do know I despised that movie.

Four years have passed and now Paramount Studios have given us a sequel, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”. This time around they dangle Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Bruce Willis like a carrot in front of a horse, trying to convince us that this movie aims to be better. Well, actually it is better but I’m not sure that’s saying much. One thing that stood out was that it did attempt to be a little more faithful to the comic book source material than the previous movie. There are several tips of the hat and even a side story straight from the pages of the print series. Unfortunately the side story will make absolutely no sense to anyone who hasn’t read it and this leads to the biggest problem with this entire project – the lame and often times amateurish writing.

GIPOST1GIPOST2GIPOST3

The movie picks up shortly after the events of the first film. Zartan is masquerading as the President of the United States while Cobra Commander and Destro are in some sort of cryogenic stasis in an underground government prison. But Cobra has a bigger plan at work that of course includes world domination and extinguishing the G.I. Joe team. Meanwhile, the Joes are out doing what they do, thwarting terrorist attacks, retrieving stolen nuclear warheads – you know, standard Joe stuff.

Duke (Channing Tatum) is back and he’s the man in charge. He shares a bromance with his best friend and team heavy machine gunner Roadblock (Johnson). We also get the seemingly loose cannon Flint (D.J. Cotrona) although they completely abandon his loose cannon angle. Then there’s the gorgeous but able Lady Jaye (played by the gorgeous and occasionally able Adrianne Palicki). And of course there’s the super cool and personal favorite Joe of mine Snake-Eyes (Ray Park). After the team is decimated by a Cobra attack sanctioned by the bogus president, the few surviving Joes are forced underground where they must put together a plan to expose Cobra and avenge the death of their comrades.

The movie is really just a series of action set pieces linked together by a few strands of plot. But did anyone honestly go into a G.I. Joe movie expecting anything deep? The story is adequate enough to move this action-oriented film along. It’s when the story tries to branch out into side stories that things begin to get messy. The most obvious example is a side story dealing with Snake-Eyes, Storm Shadow, and the events of their connected pasts. As a fan of the comic series I smiled as I remembered reading this story from the books. But in terms of this movie, its incorporation into the main story is horribly done. It comes completely out of the blue and instead of gelling with the main narrative, it violently collides with it. There’s no sense of place and there’s no real connection at all.

GI JOE2

The poor writing also shows itself in some of the character’s underwritten subplots and in some of the corniest dialogue you’ll hear all year. Some of the jokes and attempts at humor are nothing short of cringe-worthy. There were times, particularly in the first half of the film, where these lines felt so awkward and disingenuous. Then there was the macho military banter, again mostly in the first half of the film, that was so incredibly silly and fake. It’s hard to imagine anyone putting this on paper and thinking it sounds good. It’s also hard to take any of these characters seriously while you’re constantly face palming due to the goofy dialogue! Thankfully a lot of this subsides as the movie goes on.

As with many of this year’s movies we’ve seen so far and that are on the way, the action is the big focus. It’s pretty relentless so be prepared to be bombarded with bullets, blades, and explosions. For me, this was the film’s strong point. I thought the action sequences in the first film did nothing to save it from its serious flaws. The action sequences in this film are actually pretty good and they did help me get past some of this movie’s shortcomings. They also translated well in 3D, something that was a pleasant surprise considering my usual dislike for the technology. But like other movies with such heavy dependence on CGI, things sometimes feel too synthetic. There’s a wildly entertaining ninja showdown on the face of a huge mountain. But as fun as it is, it’s still hurt by its absurdity and obvious computer generated visuals. The action is also helped and sometimes hurt by Jon Chu’s direction. Now I was happy to see a new director on board after the first debacle. But I’m hard-pressed to believe that a director known for the “Step Up” series and “Justin Bieber: Never Say Never” was the best choice.

GI JOE

The Rock is intended to be the big draw here and while he’s big on charisma, he’s not when it comes to emotion. But is that just something that comes with casting him or was he handcuffed by the material he’s given? Another draw was Bruce Willis but this is clearly a check cashing role for him. His short screen time adds a few mild snickers and he serves as a plot hole filler (kind of) but that’s about it. Tatum is as forgettable as usual but again the material does him no favors. I think Jonathan Pryce may be the most fun actor to watch in the film. He plays around and has fun as both the president and Zartan posing as the president.

So after all of that what’s my conclusion on “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”? Is it as awful as I anticipated? Nope, not even close. Is at a good movie? I don’t think I can go there either. Let me just say it’s a better movie than its predecessor and at times can be entertaining. I enjoyed the attempt to add a pinch of realism to the story and I liked some of the money moments such as Snake-Eyes vs Storm Shadow. But in the end “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” seems content to be a better movie rather than a really good one. Granted it’s aimed at an audience made up of teen boys and nostalgic men and it’ll score some points there. But nostalgia only carries me so far.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

“Say Anything…” – 4 STARS

SAY ANYTHING POSTERBack in 1989 Cameron Crowe wrote and made his directorial debut with “Say Anything…”, a teen romantic comedy that still stands out from the bulk of the teen flicks we still get today. So many teen films adhere to the annoying formula of vulgarity mixed with immaturity and they treat their characters as shallow and stupid stereotypes. “Say Anything…” does none of that instead choosing to give us genuine characters who feel grounded in reality. These are the types of characters you can relate to and care about which makes for a much more authentic experience.

Crowe clearly has no interest in creating another portrait of teen debauchery. This film features real characters struggling with real problems and sharing real emotions. But Crowe’s writing also allows for a fair share of humor which always comes at just the right time. For all its sweet romance and well conceived drama there are some really funny moments as well. But perhaps what I’m the most thankful for is that Crowe actually gives us well developed and layered characters. He opens these people up for us and allows us to see what’s inside. That’s a key ingredient to getting the audience to latch onto the characters and their stories.

The story starts on graduation day at a small Seattle, Wasington high school. John Cusack plays Lloyd Dobler, an average, everyday student with no clear vision for what he wants to do with his life. He’s a very honest and forthright guy who finds himself attracted to Diane Court (Ione Skye), the class valedictorian. On paper this doesn’t look like the perfect match, something Lloyd’s best friend Corey (Lili Taylor) is happy to point out. But Lloyd and Diane are two characters that we’re happy to invest in and their unlikely romance makes for good cinema.

Say ANything 2

Both Lloyd and Diane have struggles in there individual lives that Crowe takes time explore. I mentioned Lloyd’s uncertainty about his future and with graduation day behind him time is running out to decide what he’s going to do. His parents are overseas leaving him to live with his sister and her son. I couldn’t help but feel he was a kid needing his parents presence and love. Yet Lloyd is still a good guy even though he’s unsure. Diana is the smartest girl in school which has socially distanced her from her entire class. She doesn’t appear to have any close friends and her one confidant is her father Jim (John Mahoney). She chose to live with him during her parents’ divorce and the two have a very close and open relationship. But outside of her father, Diane has no one else she can truly call a friend.

Crowe stays away from the standard teen movie cliches and formulas when bringing these two together. Their emotions feel so authentic and their problems complicate things in ways people are sure to relate to. There’s a lot of talk about honesty in “Say Anything…”. Lloyd is a honest and sincere young man and that plays a big part in his relationship with Diane. Her relationship with her father is built entirely on honesty and trust. Honesty is such a big part of the film and when it’s broken, just like in real life, it can often times carry heavy consequences.

SAY ANYTHING

Cusack is pitch perfect for this role. I’m not the biggest fan of his but I have admired some of his work. Here he relays that teen enthusiasm and nervousness surrounding new found love. But there’s also a innocence and vulnerability that he brings which I really responded to. Skye has her moments as well. At times her performance can be very convincing as she moves between heavy, emotional scenes and others where she conveys an almost childlike exuberance. But there are some times where she plays things a tad to big and she ends up standing out for the wrong reasons. Mahoney is brilliant as Diane’s father. He gives us such a likable character and several times we feel as if he’s going to go down the conventional road that most of these teen movie fathers travel. Mahoney is so believable and his performance really shines later in the film.

“Say Anything…” is over 20 years old now but it still maintains its freshness in a genre thats grown repetitive and stale. It’s a film that treats teens as sensible human beings with real world feelings and issues. Cameron Crowe’s writing is crisp and his direction is sharp. He gives us a film that feels like an 80’s movie with a new decade’s vibe bursting out of it. But regardless of its age and imperfections, “Say Anything…” still stands out today. But that’s no surprise. Good movies always seem to.

5 Phenomenal Movie Ideas Gone Wrong

PHENOM 5

If you look throughout the history of cinema you’ll find a lot of movies centered around what seemed like good ideas. But what makes some of these films so good is that the ideas go terribly wrong. Today I’m looking at five phenomenal examples of that. Now this is a list that could easily be a top 100. There’s just so many ideas that instantly filled my mind. But in order to narrow it down, I decided to focus on bad ideas that drive the entire story. These examples of poor judgement are what these movies are centered around. Still, there are tons of options to choose from so I’m not going to call this the definitive list. But in my mind there’s no doubting that these are 5 phenomenal movie ideas that go terribly wrong. (WARNING: Spoilers below)

#5 – “127 HOURS” – Always leave a note.

127 HOURS

In director Danny Boyle’s 2010 Oscar nominated “127 Hours”, James Franco plays a free-spirited adventurer who decides to spend the day canyon hopping deep into Utah. Now there’s nothing wrong with taking off to explore the great outdoors. But when you take off deep into canyon country without telling a single soul where you’re going, well lets just say you’re asking for trouble. That’s just what Franco’s character Aron Ralston does and things go really bad. He ends up losing his footing and sliding down into a deep narrow crevice where his arm is crushed and trapped under a boulder. With no phone service and no one knowing where he is, Aron has no way to escape and no chance of getting help. His horrible decision to not share his whereabouts before leaving has severe consequences and he’ll have to muster ever ounce of the human spirit if he wants to live.

#4 – “RAISING ARIZONA” – The baby snatchers.

RAISING AR

H.I. McDunnough and his wife Ed had the best of intentions. Unfortunately they are both simple-minded idiots. In the Coen Brothers’ classic comedy “Raising Arizona”, H.I. (Nic Cage) and Ed (Holly Hunter) read about quints being born to a wealthy unpainted furniture mogul. Unable to have children of their own and basing their plan on the idea that “they got more than they can handle”, the couple kidnaps one of the quints to complete their “family unit”. Sounds just like a Coen Brothers flick doesn’t it. Well, anyone with half a brain knows this idea isn’t going to go very far and it certainly doesn’t. They end up with a bounty hunter on their heels as well as two of H.I.’s escaped convict buddies who think there’s money to be made with the baby. This stupid idea couldn’t have gone any worse.

#3 – “THE APARTMENT” – Keep your apartment to yourself.

APARTMENT

In Billy Wilder’s brilliant film “The Apartment”, the lead character C.C. Baxter (wonderfully played by Jack Lemmon) sees his chance to climb the corporate ladder by allowing four of his bosses to use his apartment for their individual extramarital trysts. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to see this is a bad idea, right? Things do indeed turn sour. Not only does Baxter start hearing it from his neighbors, but he finds out that a girl he’s interested in (Shirley MacLaine) is having a fling with his big boss (Fred MacMurray) right there in his apartment. Things go bad quick and Baxter gets beat up and loses his job. We even get a suicide attempt by a drug overdose. If there was ever an example of an idea going south, this is it!

#2 – “KING KONG” – Not all giant apes are made for Broadway.

King Kong

Ok, how does one come to the conclusion that capturing a giant monster-sized gorilla and using him in a stage show on Broadway is a good idea? Well that’s what happens here and things get deadly in a hurry. After discovering Kong on a mysterious uncharted island, a film director sees dollar signs. A lot of dollar signs. Even though Kong almost kills them on the island, they manage to sedate him, load him on a boat, and take him to New York City. Like all dumb ideas this one blows up in their faces. Before long Kong is loose in New York destroying property, killing people, and climbing the Empire State Building. “King Kong” turned out to be one of the great classic films of all time. And we would have never gotten it if not for one of film history’s stupidest ideas.

#1 – “FARGO” – It’s hard to find good kidnappers these days.

FARGO

Most all of us have been in a financial tight at one time or another. But I bet few of us have thought that having our wife kidnapped so that her rich father-in-law would pay the ransom and then pocketing the bulk of it would be a good way of getting out of our financial trouble. I mean it sounds preposterous, right? It is preposterous and that’s right up Joel and Ethan Coen’s alley. Once again they appear on this list and this particular movie idea is a horrible one. When Jerry (William H. Macy) hires two criminals (Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare) he thinks he has a foolproof plan. But before long a trail of murders brings everything back to Jerry and all thanks to an able small town sheriff (Frances McDormand). An idiotic plan and one dark comedic bad turn after another is all it took to bring Jerry’s dopey plan crashing down.

So there they are, five fantastic movie idea that went terribly wrong. There are so many other that I could name right now but I would rather hear from you all. Who did I miss? Who did I get wrong? Please take time to share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Special Collaborative Post: 10 Redeeming Films for Easter… or any other time of the year

I had the wonderful opportunity to collaborate with my blogging buddies Ruth and Terrence on 10 movies that feature great examples of redemption. With Easter upon us, what better time to focus on such a wonderful subject. Please be sure to visit Ruth’s and Terrence’s sites by clicking their links in the post. Happy Easter and God bless.

ruth's avatarFLIXCHATTER FILM BLOG

Happy Easter everyone!

I’d like to wish everyone a wonderful holiday. Fellow Christians all over the world are celebrating the resurrection of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ… I’m forever grateful for His atoning sacrifice. So in the spirit of personal redemption, I invited two of my best blog pals Terrence and Keith to participate in coming up with 10 redeeming films we’d highly recommend.

re·demp·tion
an act of redeeming or atoning for a fault or mistake, or the state of being redeemed.

So, what’s a “redeeming” film? The definition varies, but borrowing from this Christianity Today article , we mean movies that include stories of redemption—sometimes blatantly, sometimes less so. Several of them literally have a character that represents a redeemer; all of them have characters who experience redemption to some degree—some quite clearly, some more subtly.

So without further ado, I present to you our list…

[SPOILER ALERT: It…

View original post 3,175 more words