Evil Dead (2013) Review

Evil Dead (2013)

The “Evil Dead” trilogy from “Spider-Man” director Sam Raimi is one of the more famous in the horror genre, not the least of which is because each installment is so different from the last. While the starter is a straightforward brutal horror movie, its sequels would play up comedy in increasing amounts until the concluder “Army of Darkness” contained very little traces of horror anymore. Now, as much as I love the first one, and it is still a great little B-movie, the crudeness of its appearance makes it riper for a reimagining than many other hallowed horror classics. With that in mind, the prospect of young blood coming in to rejuvenate the original in remake form had me excited, particularly because newcomer Fede Alvarez was determined to return to the horror elements that begin the trilogy.

After a prologue that establishes the grim mood, Alaverz and his co-writer Rodo Sayagues admirably avoid the cliché of kids going to a cabin in the woods to party. There is a real reason for this group to go there: their friend Mia is attempting to kick a drug habit cold turkey with the help of them and her estranged brother David. This provides a bit more of a backbone to the characters than I expected, and I appreciated that there was an attempt at creating actual characters we can care for.

From there, as is expected in an “Evil Dead” movie, they find the book of the dead, someone reads it, and then it all hits the fan. Or at least it should have. The largest problem here, and one that looms over the whole movie once the demons are unleashed, is that every time the movie feels like its gearing up to the next level by building momentum it stops dead in its tracks. There is a pervasive start-stop-start-stop feeling to the pacing that often kills the excitement and tension that previously looked like it was building, leaving only the dread-induced atmosphere to carry it along when the thrust lets up.

Taken as individual parts and scenes, the set pieces are fairly impressive on their own. If there is one thing that is unquestionably great about this remake, and boy is it incredible, is the gore factor. Raimi’s first two “Evil Dead” movies certainly let the blood flow liberally (to put it mildly), but they look restrained in comparison to the torrent of violence and gore on display here. Alvarez achieves all of this almost entirely through practical effects, and the hard work put into them pays off with their startling shock value and cringe inducing moments. Once the climax draws closer, it only gets more and more over-the-top until reaching a final kill that is spectacular in its gleeful abandon.

Alvarez’s heart is in the right place, and his intentions to diversify his iteration from the 1981 original (when he isn’t referencing or recreating specific bits) are mostly successful, although even he can’t escape many of the tired tropes of the genre. Some of the more effectively done jump scares are often overshadowed by hackneyed ones, and the movie has a couple look-away-look-back scares too many, as well as another predictable bit with a mirror. Also, and skip to the next paragraph if you want to avoid a minor spoiler, the black character is once again the first to die. Come on, this is 2013, we should be over this by now.

Even with these issues, this remake of “Evil Dead” can be enjoyed if entered with the right mindset. There are certainly many callbacks to the originals, although this definitely feels more like Alvarez’s “Evil Dead” than Raimi’s “Evil Dead.” The gore and violence is very extreme, so the faint of heart (and stomach) will want to skip out. Additionally, the tone is one of dark horror, so don’t go in expecting the slapstick humor that was injected into “Evil Dead 2.” This is a hardcore effort in mainstream horror, where horror movies are usually toned down for mass audiences, that is often fairly entertaining even though it doesn’t all come together into an unrelenting stream of suspense.

2.5/4

Resident Evil: Retribution (2012) Review

-->

Resident Evil: Retribution

At this point, is anyone really expecting something worthwhile out of the “Resident Evil” movie franchise? The first one may have been a passable horror/action B-movie, but since then the series has descended into excess and overall idiocy. This fifth movie doesn’t change the status quo; the same “Matrix” influenced action is in full effect and the actors are just as flat as ever. However, I would be lying in saying that I didn’t get some enjoyment out of “Retribution,” which is more than I can say for “Apocalypse” (#2) and “Afterlife” (#4).

Picking up right where “Afterlife” left off, Alice and the other survivors are attacked at sea and overwhelmed by Umbrella’s forces. Alice then wakes up in a holding cell, where she learns that the Red Queen computer has taken over Umbrella. Because of this, previous Umbrella head honcho Wesker enlists Alice’s help in stopping the renegade A.I. It turns out Alice is being held in a massive underground testing facility, so Wesker sends a team of soldiers to extract Alice while wading through the hordes of monsters still hanging around the facility.

That may sound like a plot synopsis, but in the context of the movie itself, “Retribution” has only the illusion of a plot. I owe a few apologies to any action movie I’ve ever called plot less in the past, because this movie takes the same tact as “Afterlife” and literally has only a barebones skeleton of a plot. There’s a semblance of a beginning, and arguably a middle, but there’s no ending. Remember the beginnings of “The Matrix Revolution” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” where Neo and Sparrow have to be rescued from some holding place? “Retribution” is those 20-minute segments stretched to feature length and padded out with exposition and relentless action.

On those grounds, it may be objectively the worst movie of the series. I hesitate to go there though because unlike some of the previous entries, the action is actually really fun to watch in spots. Unlike “Apocalypse,” where the action was incomprehensible, and “Afterlife,” where the abuse of slow motion killed much of the enjoyment, “Retribution” is able to come up with a few over-the-top sequences that stand out. Even though director Paul W.S. Anderson is still not above throwing in tired bullet-time bits here and there, he appears to have a slightly better grasp on creating diverse and fast-paced scenes of carnage for this go-around.

It’s also very clear that Anderson loves his wife, Milla Jovovich, very much, as Alice is still the only character that gets any reasonable amount of attention, more so than the characters that are actually from the videogames. Alice remains a forgettable heroine without a personality back her up, and Milla is as reliably stoic as ever, despite how beautiful she is. She’s also one of the few actors, along with Kevin Durand (Barry Burton) and Johann Urb (Leon Kennedy,) that don’t embarrass themselves. Shawn Roberts (Wesker) continues his forced, cringe-worthy sneering from the last movie, and Sienna Guillory (Jill Valentine) is flat-out awful. On top of her inability to be a convincing antagonist, Anderson saddles her with the worst of his already terrible writing, leaving a character that is only bearable when she doesn’t open her mouth.

The best way to describe “Retribution” is as a 90-minute lead up for the inevitable sixth movie. This is rather irritating, as the movie finally comes to a scene where the pieces are in place for an all-out monster war…and then the credits roll. In the end, the movie is just one big tease that fails to establish the stakes and scope that it promises, and then ends once it hits at something worth watching. Because of this, the film is not as enjoyable as the first film or even the mediocre third one, “Extinction.” However, thanks to its decent action scenes, I would probably watch “Retribution” before the other two installments, as much of a backhanded compliment as that is.

1.5/4