Evil Dead - Review

I'll be straight up honest with you folks... I wasn't looking forward to this one. With the current state of film being obsessed with sequels, prequels, remakes, re-boots, re-whatevers, I was convinced that a remake of The Evil Dead would just be another half-assed retelling of a classic movie. The original Evil Dead was released in 1981, a low budget horror/comedy written and directed by Sam Raimi. It was an ambitious indie-horror flick that blended 70s exploitation violence, buckets of blood, cartoon slapstick, and haunted house-inspired scares. Many debate whether the film's humorous tone was intentional or if it was a result of the lack of skill/experience, but either way, the film was one of the genre's most entertaining efforts. It was followed by two sequels, 1987's Evil Dead II (a bigger budget pseudo-remake) that myself and many others consider the series' best, and 1993's Army of Darkness, an action-comedy that failed at the box-office but would later find a massive cult following on home video. Raimi himself constantly denied rumors of another sequel, but eventually announced that he would be co-producing (though not directing) a darker and less humorous remake with the trilogy's original star, Bruce Campbell, serving as his co-producer. By the way, if you don't know who Bruce Campbell is... go sit in the corner! As I said, despite Raimi and Campbell's endorsement, I wasn't exactly on board with this film... especially after Cabin in the Woods did such a brilliant job lampooning this kind of movie. That said... I come before you just a tab-bit humbled... this remake of The Evil Dead is actually... decent. Not great, not fantastic, but not terrible either... just decent.

The remake, once again, re-tells the familiar story of Raimi's 1981 film, with a few new twists. Five friends drive to an isolated cabin in the middle of the woods for a short getaway. Unique to this version is that one of the members, Mia (Jane Levy), is a drug-addict who has decided to go cold-turkey and break her habit. Upon arriving, they find a mysterious book in the cabin's basement, which unbeknownst to them, is none other than The Book of the Dead... which holds the power to summon terrible spirits. Despite warnings and ominous messages, the curious Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) reads from the book and accidentally awakens an ancient evil upon the cabin. Mia is the first one to be affected, and soon begins to have violent compulsions and tendencies. At first thinking it is just a side effect of her quitting her drug habit, the group soon realizes that something far more evil has come for them, and that their lives (and souls) are in grave danger.

I'm really torn on my feelings for this film. On one hand, what I said earlier about excessive remakes and lack of original thinking certainly resonated with me while watching this. On the other hand, I couldn't help but love the no-holds-barred style of filmmaking. This is one of the few honest-to-God true horror films of the last few years to go for broke. Subtlety has never had a place in any of the Evil Dead films, but instead of over-the-top slapstick jokes, the remake favored oceans of blood and violence that would make even Clive Barker cringe. The lack of the series' trademark humor was a bit of a disappointment, but the excessive blood that made my inner-gore hound giddy was enough to keep me engaged. Really not gonna lie on that last point here folks... this film has some of the most memorable and twisted deaths, dismemberments, and mutilations I've seen in a while. Even if you're a seasoned gore veteran like me, there are one or two scenes that might make you feel a little nauseous. I also couldn't help but appreciate the film's dedication to both practical effects and it's gritty roots. While Evil Dead does have the expected stylish and more polished updated look seen in so many horror remakes, it still nonetheless sticks to it's exploitation film roots and has a sort of retro/modern thing going for it. Those who were concerned that this remake would be a tone-downed rehash of the original, you can at least rest easy that the blood still pours freely. It's not as funny as it's predecessors but it's wild in it's own way.

The story is a bit of a mixed bag. I have to give the writers credit for at least trying to do something kind of interesting but in the long run, nothing really excels. One could actually make a reasonable argument that the movie is a metaphor or examination rehab from drugs cold turkey. It definitely has those kinds of moments, and when it dwells on that aspect, it's kind of interesting. Beyond that though, it's pretty straightforward. Aside for a couple little twists, it's pretty much a basic retelling of the original flick with few surprises. Unfortunately, none of the characters really amount to much more than their typical genre archetypes either. I haven't even mentioned that the character of Ash (originally played by Bruce Campbell) doesn't appear in the remake (well, except after the credits but that doesn't really count). This is probably for the better, as nobody other than Campbell should even touch that role, but without Ash's presence the film does lack the wit and flair of the previous three. The only character who has some level of depth is Mia, but even she doesn't do much to break the formula. This was one of my biggest concerns, once Cabin in the Woods did such a solid job spoofing this kind of repetitive writing, it just made it even harder to accept. All of the actors do pretty commendable work, which is fairly impressive considering that they really didn't have a whole lot to go off of other than looking scared. Not much more to say about the actors other than that they're fine. I don't want to bash the story too much though, as it does have a certain enjoyment factor. The setup is good, it has all of the necessary suspense beats, and it moves at a good pace. It does little to differentiate itself from the barrage of other "isolated cabin" horror films but you can't argue with what works.

There's not much more I can say about Evil Dead. Odds are, you either love or hate these kinds of movies and made up your mind a long time ago about whether you would see it or not. Because of the liberal amounts of blood and the obvious efforts made on behalf of the filmmakers, I'd say it's worth a watch. I would have much rather seen this team put their talents to use on an original idea instead of another remake, but as long as the film is good, I can live with remakes like this. If you're a horror fan or a blood hound, it's worth a matinee ticket or as a midnight movie. Check it out.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

Jurassic Park - Review

Wow! Has it really been 20 years since Jurassic Park was first released in theaters? Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem like it's been that long... time sure flies doesn't it? This Sci-Fi/Adventure flick was a pretty huge deal at it's time to say the least. Not only did it have the Spielberg name attached to it, but also was based on a hugely popular Michael Crichton book, featured groundbreaking special effects, and had dinosaurs... that last part alone is awesome unto itself. It was praised by critics, broke box office records, and even today is remembered as a landmark summer blockbuster and endearing audience favorite. It was well received enough to warrant a 20th anniversary theatrical re-release... with new post-converted 3D effects. There was no doubt in my mind that seeing this on the big screen again would be awesome, but the 3D conversion made me curious. I had to wonder if the third dimension would add much to the film's overall quality or if it was just a cheap marketing ploy. I mean, I can't help but think the producers before they even knew what they had, patented it, packaged it, slapped it on a plastic lunch box, and now... they're selling it, they're selling it! Okay, I'm sorry, that last reference was a corny joke... but the question remains, 3D or otherwise, has the movie held up, is it worth seeing in theaters again, and is it worth the extra bucks for 3D? As Samuel L. Jackson would say... "Hold on to your butts!"

As mentioned, Jurassic Park is based on a best-selling novel by Michael Crichton, which is basically a science-gone-wrong meets prehistoric adventure story. Advancements in science and genetic research have resulted in the ability to bring dinosaurs back to life through means of genetic cloning. When the eccentric though well-meaning businessman John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) discovers this, he assembles a team of scientists and workers to construct Jurassic Park, a theme park of sorts located on a remote island housing the cloned dinosaurs. Still a year away from opening to the public, the development appears to be going smoothly, until tragedy strikes when a worker dies at the hands of a velociraptor after a transporting accident. Faced with a major lawsuit and concerns over the park's safety, Hammond invites a number of individuals to the island for a weekend to evaluate the park, provide an endorsement, and get back on schedule. The team includes renown paleontologist Alan Grant (Sam Neill), paleobotanist Ellie Satler (Laura Dern), mathematician Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), and the "blood sucking lawyer" Donald Gennaro (Martin Ferrero). Also visiting are Hammond's grandchildren, Lex and Tim (played by Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello respectively). What starts as a relaxing getaway turns into a nightmare when the park's security systems fail, and the dinosaurs escape their electric fenced paddocks and start preying on the visitors. With escalating danger, the group must find their way off the island before it's too late.

You know what's the biggest problem with most summer blockbusters? It's not that they're all bad (though there are plenty), it's that most just exist in a bubble. Even though there are plenty of good ones, only a few have made any real lasting appeal. Why this is has no definitive answer, but typically it comes down to the substance over style debate. Most effects-driven summer blockbusters are often well-made and perfectly serviceable action flicks, but whether it's because of a lackluster concept, uninspired writing, or simply for being a cookie-cutter money-maker, they rarely leave much of an impression. In my opinion, the few summer blockbusters that are still fondly remembered, even decades later, like Star Wars, Jaws, Ghostbusters, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Terminator 1 & 2, and Jurassic Park, hold up mainly due to one thing... heart! I know that sounds schmaltzy, but it's true. Every time I watch Jurassic Park, and the other films I just mentioned, I can see the passion and effort that went into their productions. All had brilliant concepts, innovative filmmaking techniques, and the filmmakers with the ambition and skill to make their visions possible. Jurassic Park, for example, has a brilliant idea but not a particularly dynamic script. It could have easily become a forgettable effects-laden action piece with no real edge or bite (as example by the sequels, but that's another story), but because of Spielberg's (and others) dedication to the idea, the movie still resonates 20 years later.

As I mentioned already, Jurassic Park has a wicked premise... it's a concept so good, it makes me wish I had come up with it. There have been other man vs dinosaur movies before, but normally they involved time travel, alternate realities, distant worlds... etc. The idea to bring dinosaurs to the present day via genetic cloning may not be the most scientifically accurate, but the film sells the concept well enough to make you suspend your disbelief. This also gives the writers the opportunity to tell an interesting variation on the whole Frankenstein-like "Why man shouldn't play God" concept. It's more or less what you would expect, the character development is standard, and ends on a fairly predictable note, but there was never a point where I was bored or uninterested. The pacing is flawless, with just the right balance of plot and action, and it always manages to throw something engaging or exciting your way. The characters aren't the most unique or multi-dimensional, but they work. You've got your reliable every man, the tomboyish female/love interest (who for once was NOT a damsel in distress...nicely done), the likable but naive park owner , the slimy lawyer, the goofy comic relief, and the two kids-in-distress. They may not be deep, but they're all very likable (minus Gennaro the lawyer) characters whom you root for and want to see survive. The script doesn't break much from the typical formula, but dammit it just plain works! Can't ask for much more than that.

I think what's made these characters so endearing is less about their scripted qualities and more for the actors who play them. Sam Neil makes a convincing Alan Grant, selling the rugged and outdoorsy adventurous type with an extreme passion for dinosaurs. Laura Dern pulls off the tough-but-caring paleobotanist/love interest to Grant who gets in on the action many times and sells her role commendably. Richard Attenborough, in what was his first acting role in over a decade, is one of the stand-outs as John Hammond. When you first meet the guy, you get a strong sense of his passion and excitement for what he's created, and really feel for him when he comes to grip with his guilt and depression when all Hell breaks loose. Jeff Goldblum is at his "Jeff Goldblum-est" as the comic relief chaos enthusiast Ian Malcolm. Say what you will about Goldblum, but I usually enjoy the guy and get a kick out of his goofy mannerisms. The rest of the cast is across the board solid, including the two kid actors (can't remember their names) in roles that sometimes can ruin these kinds of movies (gotta appreciate that). I also have to give a special shout-out to Samuel L. Jackson for every film he's in... because he's Samuel L. Jackson and he's awesome. You know it's true.

Even though I had seen this movie many times, it had been a few years since I last saw it, and I was genuinely curious to see how well the effects held up on the big screen. In short... I'm amazed how great these once-novel effects still look after 20 years. The dinosaurs designs were realized through a combination of cgi and practical animatronics, both of which are damn good. The practical dinosaurs are especially incredible, with scale or life sized models of various species, each shot at the perfect angle to sell their effect. The cgi has a few dodgy spots, but the attention to detail is stunning, and even today, you typically forget that you're looking at a computer generated image instead of the real thing. In today's cg-bloated blockbusters, it makes me wish that movies would embrace this kind of style more often, blending cgi and practical effects (they just look so much better). In addition to the still-impressive effects is the equally stunning sound design, which is definitely some of the best I've ever heard. The sound effects are some of cinema's greatest, from the whale-like songs of the brachiosaurus, the ear-piercing screeches of the raptors, and the booming roar of the T-Rex (that roar is freaking awesome). These all work together to bring some of film's most thrilling and enjoyable action sequences. The first T-Rex attack in particular is one of my all time favorite action scenes. Also got to mention the finale with the main cast being chased by two vicious raptors, that's another favorite of mine. As for the 3D effects... I could take or leave them. They never hurt or ruined the experience in any way, but I can't think of that many shots that really looked better in 3D. If you're a fan of the technology, it might be fun to see a classic with the added dimension, but it's not essential. Still, 3D or otherwise, Jurassic Park is one hell of a ride that rarely lets up!

So yeah, that's Jurassic Park, and even 20 years later, it rules! If you're a fan of the series, if you've never seen it, or have never seen it on the big screen... it's more than worth the price of admission. Some theaters are just playing it in 3D while other's give you the option to choose, either way you can't go wrong. See it!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Roger Ebert (1942 - 2013)

Well... today was a very sad day. Roger Ebert, the legendary film critic, has died at the age of 70 after an 11 year battle with cancer. This sucks... plain and simple. That may not be the most innovative, creative, or even appropriate to say in a situation like this, but honestly, it's what been running through my head all day. I've been a long time fan of Ebert's works, from his reviews for the Chicago Sun Times, his blog, and of course his long running show with fellow film critic, the equally legendary Gene Siskel. After all, this is the man most directly responsible for making film criticism what it is today, namely how it's become a form of entertainment or even an art unto itself. The pairing of Siskel and Ebert was a stroke of genius, putting together very intelligent yet very different individuals who share an incredible passion for movies and letting them simply discuss the movies they watched. It was a simple concept, no doubt, but very effective letting the two guys reflect, debate, and insult each other over the films of the week. When Siskel died, film critic Richard Roeper took his place. While the chemistry between Ebert and his former partner could never be replaced, Roeper was a worthy successor, mainly thanks to a passion for film and a great respect for both Siskel and Ebert. I think most film critics, either established or just starting, were in some way inspired by Ebert to pursue their passion/hobby... I know I was. 

I had hoped that Roger Ebert would make an appearance in either Seattle or Vancouver so that I could get the chance to meet him, sadly that opportunity never presented itself (or if it did, I blew it). I won't say that I agreed with all of Roger's reviews (that said, you're eventually bound to disagree with a critic at least once) or his stances on certain topics. Namely, I was eluded by his constant dismissal of David Lynch's films, plus his positive review of Speed 2 (one of the worst movies I've seen), and his stance that video games being unlikely to grow as a legitimate art form seemed a bit short sighted. Still, I often agreed with opinions, and even when I didn't, I could always appreciate that his stances came from intelligent and well-defended arguments stemming from his extreme passion for film and the arts. This was a guy who pretty much lived, ate, and breathed movies... they weren't just a passion to him, movies were his life. He was an outspoken opponent of censorship, praised audacious and risky films, and was full force in support of the New Hollywood era (which take place in the late 1960s to the early 1980s), resulting in some of cinema's greatest achievements. Even after that, he never stopped defending the pop culture and was always on the lookout for the next great creative achievements. You would think a man who spent every day of his adult life relentlessly pursuing his passion would eventually slow down as he got older... but not Ebert! Not only he did refuse to let his age slow him down, but nothing could... not even life-threatening diseases. He was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002, which eventually worsened lead to the removal of his jaw in 2006. Even without a voice, Ebert refused to slow down, taking advantage of social media and his blog to continue his work. Even just two days ago, Ebert posted on his website plans to continue his creative work through new means and websites despite a recurrence of his cancer. Tragically, those efforts were cut short, but just the fact that he never let up until the day he died is nothing short of incredible. 

As a long time fan of Ebert's written reviews, there are tons of great quotes attributed to him that I could list here, but since space is factor, here's a small selection... 

"This is a film without a shred of artistic distinction. It lacks even simple craftsmanship. There is no possible motive for exhibiting it, other than the totally cynical hope that it might make money."
- Review of "I Spit on Your Grave" (1977)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800716/REVIEWS/7160301/1023
Ebert often called this the worst movie he had ever seen. Can't say I totally agree with this review, but the quote is still of my favorites. 

"If you, under any circumstances, see Little Indian, Big City, I will never let you read one of my reviews again."
- Review of "Little Indian, Big City" (1994)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19960322/REVIEWS/603220306/1023
I didn't want to be banned from Roger's reviews, so I never saw this movie ;)

"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels."
- Review of "Freddy Got Fingered" (2000)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010420/REVIEWS/104200304/1023
Some have said his review of this movie was too harsh... I'd say he was being too nice. 

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it."
- Review of "North" (1994)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19940722/REVIEWS/407220302/1023
Somehow, I get the feeling he hated this movie. Can't say I disagree. Honestly though, for a critic known for his sharp wit and piercing though sensibly written criticism, this is pretty hilarious. 

"No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough."
Don't know where this one came from, but it makes perfect sense to me. 

"So on this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies."
- "A Leave of Presence" by Roger Ebert
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/04/a_leave_of_presense.html
This was the last thing Ebert wrote for his blog and the Chicago Sun Times. If there's ever been a perfect quote on which to leave, that's it right there!

I don't intend to do these tributes or insights too often, but given the influence Roger made on film criticism and the industry in general, I felt like it was something I needed to do. A world without Ebert's movie reviews just doesn't seem right... but we'll move on. 

RIP Roger Ebert. 

But because I don't like ending things on a sad note, here's some great clips and videos from Siskel and Ebert plus some other stuff.