Film Review: The Evil Dead

 The Evil Dead 

** (out of ****) 

In his review of "Halloween II" (1981), released the same year as "The Evil Dead" (1981), former Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert, quoted author John McCarty from his book Splatter Movies to describe the definition of the term "splatter film" -     "[They] aim not to scare their audiences, necessarily, nor to drive them to the edge of their seats in suspense, but to mortify them with scenes of explicit gore. In splatter movies, mutilation is indeed the message, many times the only one."

I thought a lot about that quote not only while watching "The Evil Dead" but while watching movies of today.

There is a preoccupation among artists and filmmakers with the concept of "pushing the envelope" to the point many movies, not just horror movies, are disturbing to watch. Comedy changed for the worst after "There's Something About Mary" (1998) as comedies no longer focused on making us laugh due to enjoyment but rather pushing the limits to see how far they could go with gross out humor. Many times we don't laugh out of pleasure but awkwardness and discomfort. Today's action movies - "Gunpower Milkshake" (2021), "Suicide Squad 2" (2021), and "Kate" (2021) to name a few, have substituted pulse racing action sequences for violent death scenes. Good ol' fashion car chases aren't enough for audiences anymore! I hate to sound like one of those right-wing evangelical nutjobs but we've become desensitized to violence. What have we gained in exchange? iPhones? Keep 'em!

I've long been of the opinion violence, in horror movies, isn't scary. I am not scared watching a character get sliced and diced by a killer, as it's shown in gruesome detail. At best it is disturbing and disgusting but not scary. "The Evil Dead" is an example of this trend in horror movies popularized in the 1980s.

"The Evil Dead" is considered a cult-classic and an influential movie within the horror genre. On the website imdb.com the movie has a score of 7.5 (out of 10) from a total of 195,000 votes. User comments gush praise at the movie calling it a "masterpiece", "a horror classic", and an "ultimate experience". I'm not sure what the gender is of those making these comments but I have a suspicion they're men. I'd love to hear however what women think of this movie and movies like it. Too bad Pauline Kael didn't review it when released in 1981. However, one of my favorite critics, Elizabeth Weitzman, wasn't very impressed with the 2013 remake in her review for the New York Daily News. Nor was Manohla Dargis in her New York Times review.

If you've been reading my blog these past 10 plus years you know I'm not afraid of going against "prevailing wisdom" and often scratch my head trying to figure out the public's movie preferences and logic to life. I'm not sure what makes "The Evil Dead" so celebrated and influential. There isn't anything here I haven't already seen in  "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), vampire movies, "I Walked with A  Zombie" (1943)  or "The Exorcist" (1973). If your response is, yes, but it took those movies and pushed the genre forward by updating them. Really!? How? Just by adding excessive violence? All any modern adaptation of older movies can "contribute" to a story is adding graphic sex and excessive violence. THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH! EITHER DO BETTER OR DON'T TOUCH THE CLASSICS! It's a simple rule to follow.

As for "The Evil Dead"'s influence, it gave us "Cabin Fever" (2002) and "The Cabin in the Woods" (2011). Goody, goody gumdrops! Two movies that made my top ten list of the worst movies released in their respective years. That's the kind of influence I can live without.

The movie revolves around five college age students (one has a Michigan State sweater on) on a road trip, headed to Tennessee, where they have rented a cabin in the woods. Director Sam Raimi wastes no time immediately establishing a spirit following the group in the first scene.

Once the students (consisting of Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker, and Richard DeManincor) arrive, a porch swing violently bangs against the side of the cabin, an indication that evil lurks around it, but when Scott (DeManincor) finds the key placed above the front door and opens it, the ominous banging stops. It would seem we are substituting the scary old mansion in haunted house movies for the small little cabin, engaging in the same horror movie tropes associated with the genre. But then things take a turn when Ash (Campbell) discovers a book and a tape recorder seeming to warn the listener of evil goings-on and then "The Evil Dead" becomes a demonic possession movie.

At a lean 85 minutes "The Evil Dead" actually wears out its welcome when the movie's obvious conclusion - the killing of the evil dead in grisly fashion - is delayed. Raimi, as the movie's writer and director, appears to be playing around with the character archetype I've referred to as "the cowardly liberal" - a passive individual who gives grand speeches on justice and equality but is placed in a situation where their masculinity must be proven, usually signified by committing violence and clashing with their prior beliefs. Examples of this character can be seen in Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" (1971), Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" (1998) and the classic western "The Ox-Bow  Incident" (1943). This time around it is the Ash character who freezes in the movie's frenetic, violent sequences. Ash will eventually need to "prove" himself by the destruction of these beings.

The problem however is  Ash and the rest of the characters are underwritten. They have no distinguishable personalities. They are merely generic plot devices disposable to the mechanics of the movie's plot. We know one by one each will fall victim to the spirits haunting them, with the exception of one. Ash, as the movie's hero, is not clearly defined. Not enough is done to establish he will be "the cowardly liberal". Half-ass implications aren't enough (i.e. freezing during fights)! We need to know Ash is a weakling, a pacifist, opposed to violence, has a religious background. His "set-backs" and his alleged "weaknesses" need to be defined early on so that the audience clearly understands the "inner obstacles" he must overcome. Once we get to his final violent act it will pack a punch and we can see there has been a transformation.

This is to say nothing about the acting and the dialogue. Has a horror movie had more bland acting than what we see by Bruce Campbell and the rest of the cast? They witness horrific events and more often than not they stand there with blank expressions on their face, completely oblivious to what they have seen. Performances in Ed Wood movies are more animated. How can the audience be afraid when the characters just stand around like a bunch of dummies? And the dialogue! Sam Raimi couldn't be bothered writing it. Characters engage in actions and never explain to the others what they are doing. It's not only dialogue but characters don't even scream when they see danger at certain moments.

Then there is the usual criticism of horror films as being deeply misogynistic and having unnecessary sexual overtones. Lets take for example the bizarre tree rape scene (pictured above) where tree branches begin to not only tear off a woman's clothes, knock her down to the ground and tie her down, but a tree branch slides up her thighs and inserts itself in her, causing her to moan in what seems to be momentary delight (!). Go ahead defenders of  "The Evil Dead", explain the necessity of this sequence to your dumb Hungarian movie critic friend! 

And it's not just that one particular scene but the entire sweep of the movie. The function of the female characters seems to be to get the stuffing beat out of them by the male characters. It is the female characters that are the ones first possessed by the demonic spirits and it is the male characters that slap, punch, and ultimately chop up with an ax the female characters. Not to mention, when the female characters are killed a white liquid substance oozes out of their mouths, resembling semen. Something far more disturbing than demonic possession is going on here!

At this point I have to take a step back and get into social politics a bit to point out what a bunch of hypocrites the woke left crowd is. This crowd goes after the low hanging fruit of cinema from the 1930s and 40s, complaining about the representation (or lack thereof) of minorities. Classics from Hollywood's past now need "trigger warnings" while everyone turns a blind eye to movies like "The Evil Dead". Why? Because you grew up with it? This crowd wants to say movies from the 1930s don't reflect the values of today (duh!). Movies of today don't reflect the (pretend) values of today! Mind you, I'm not part of the cancel-culture left and I don't want to ban Sam Raimi or "The Evil Dead" but movies from the 1930s never showed a woman getting penetrated by a tree! Aim higher wokesters!

Yes, there is a small amount of craft to what Raimi is doing here. There are some nice framing shots with open doors that lead out to darkness, where we suspect danger will come running towards us, and some minimal attempts at creating atmosphere by way of thick fog. But I must point readers in the direction of classic "B" horror films from the 1940s by producer Val Lewton like "The Cat People" (1942), "The Leopard Man" (1943) and "I Walked with A Zombie". Those movies did a far better job creating atmosphere by playing around with lighting and shadows. Some even talk about "Evil Dead"'s make-up. It looked somewhat decent but resembles "The Exorcist" to me. What was that about "The Evil Dead" being original? I'm still waiting.

Early in this review I mentioned violence in horror movies isn't scary. It occurred to me there is probably an entire generation that knows nothing but excessive violence in horror movies. It has become synonymous with the genre. To them I say watch "The Exorcist", "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), or "Psycho" (1960). For examples of craftsmanship in creating atmosphere watch the classic Universal Monster movies of the 1930s & 40s. For effective modern horror movies watch "Dark Waters" (2005) and "The Conjuring" (2013). I like psychological horror movies, movies that activate my imagination. I don't need to see blood and guts.

Others will say, I just don't get it, I don't understand what makes "The Evil Dead" so good. No. You don't understand. You don't understand the movie isn't original. It's not scary. The characters are boring. It isn't remotely funny. It's repetitive. I've seen it all before and I've seen it done better. If you wanna say you like it, that's your prerogative but don't feed me this garbage that "The Evil Dead" is original. It's a bloody freak show.