The Evil Dead

The Evil Dead Franchise is one of few truly good trilogies. There are many good movies with great sequels, but the third installment always seems to be the trickiest, tripping up franchises like the Godfather, or just about any comic book movie that can be named. But the Evil Dead movies are some of the most consistently high quality films out there, only rivaled by something like Toy Story, or debatabley Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, big blockbusters with major studios behind them. The Evil Dead franchise had none of that, just Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi before either of their names meant anything.

One of the most interesting things about these films is how they shifted over time. They all have some horror elements, featuring blood and gore and terrible monsters, but it shifted away pretty decidedly from straight horror around the second film, and the third, Army of Darkness, drops it completely. The first is a B-horror, but a very good one. Blood spurts and monsters growl and there is a scene with tree rape but overall it is a good horror film with a very solid and atmospheric first fifteen minutes and a sometimes funny but often frightening latter two acts.

Evil Dead II is where the series really shines though, brilliantly combining horror and comedy, often jumping between them very quickly, within seconds of one another. The film also often goes from moments of shouting blood to immense silence, waiting for demons to come through any of the openings into the cabin, as they frequently do. The first was the quintessential cabin horror movie, lovingly mocked by the recent title The Cabin in the Woods. The second takes the concept and throws it on its head long before the meta concept had become so accepted. It shows what was a normal horror movie and laughs at it, literally in the case of one scene were the entire house begins to laugh after enormous geysers of blood had shot out from the wall.

That is the essence of the film, violence at a contrast to utter insanity and slapstick. Several of the actions in the film are taken nearly directly from the Three Stooges, though adding a good dosage of blood. Essentially the film is to normal horror what Shaun of the Dead was to zombie horror. It delights in this, with the main character, Ash, putting on just the right expressions screaming and shouting but looking defiant at precisely the right moments. The film is not a deep examination of why horror movies are popular, nor does it try to look deep into the human condition and explain why we do all that we do. It is simply a great B-Horror-Comedy thing that rides the line and manages to overcome the pitfalls of both genres.

Army of Darkness takes the ridiculous parts from the previous film and multiplies them by ten. Finally having a budget Raimi is able to direct a final fight involving knights and zombies and cars and an infinite ammo shotgun with one liners spouted after every kill. This is what the previous films were leading up to, the patent ridiculous overloading any sense of disbelief the audience had and going straight to awesome. That is the goal of any sort of action comedy, and it does it brilliantly, again highlighting the ridiculous of the concept and embracing it like any good B-movie.

Overall the series shows a sense of progression that is rarely seen in films. It's not a forced change like the sequels to The Land Before Time or the gradual degradation of a villain like the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, it is simply a forward progression based off the conventions of the genre and an attempt to subvert the expectations of the audience. There are few directors who could pull this off, as it requires an understanding of audiences and genres that simply is not had by many directors. Tarantino was able to do it with Kill Bill part 1 and 2, with all the violence in the first and talking int he second but that was a very rare case and only extended to two films, as well as not exactly changing genres, just changing focus.

Of course going from splatter horror to comedy could also be thought of as just changing focus. Most horror can become inadvertent comedy with just a little change, like to the music, or quantity or color of blood. Given how accustomed society has become to violence it only makes sense to combine the two, it is more of a natural extension than anything else, as shown by a recent upward swing in horror comedies. Overall the Evil Dead franchise has stood the test of time and will continue to be a cult movie for decades to come.

An Invisible Place

Ghost World is not a unique movie. It does not try to accomplish much, it is not a grand scope, and while it has some decent actors and performances it shouldn't really be anything that special, but I really, really enjoyed it. In my mind it is Juno but done right, and I know it was made about 6 years before Juno so the comparison is not really relevant I just feel like it works so much better. There are a few similar elements but they are two different movies, though both star teenagers making difficult teenage decisions.

Life isn't easy for these first world people who live off plenty of food and have happy homes, they have relationship problems with their friends and family and no one seems to really know what romance is about. Enid and Rebecca are two fairly run of the mill outsiders who are basically hipsters before the word existed, loving to live at the edge, thriving on being non-conformist. They play pranks and do things which they think are random enough to attract attention. These are all negative qualities, and theoretically the viewer should hate them for these qualities, but they are oddly endearing. Enid is so confused by life and scared that we really identify with her, and the feelings of rejection and again fear held by Rebecca echo throughout life.

These characters are defined by the script, as the cinematography of the film is nothing special, just fairly typical style of the 2000's, many extended shots on seemingly unimportant details, examinations of rooms, and in general more focus on dialogue than anything else. One unique feature of the film is that it leaves almost nothing resolved at the end. It is not that it doesn't have an ending, it's just that the character's stories are not resolved, and life goes on for a bunch of clueless people. Enid gets on a bus that shouldn't exist at the end of the film and goes off to an unknown place, still unsure of herself but sure that she doesn't want to live the way she did.

The film chronicles the story of Enid and Rebecca's summer approximately, though no definite time-frame is really established. Enid plays a prank on a man named Seymour played by Steve Buscemi. The prank is really one of the cruelest moments of the film as she falsely returns a personal ad from the paper setting him up on a non-existent date. He comes into the shop and they watch him. Slowly it dawns on the pair that what they have done is cruel and Enid develops a fascination with him, going to where he lives and trying to find out what kind of person places that kind of ad.

In the end it is a character study on both of the protagonists, and their relationships with others. Around the second act Rebecca especially loses her screen time and is replaced by Seymour, directly showing the audience how out of touch Enid is becoming with the rest of reality. In the film a romance is hinted at between Seymour and Enid that becomes official about midway through the third act but it is more of fumbling in the dark than anything else. Neither knows exactly what to do about it given the large age difference and culture difference, and Enid especially doesn't know what to do as she has agreed not to go to college and her father is considering getting remarried changing everything she thought she knew.

With every end there is a new beginning and that is what the film ends with, the promise of more, of something that happens later that the audience does not know about and can't for it to be a fitting conclusion. Life does not simply stop in the middle, but the film does, because there is simply too much for a single film to cover, life is complicated and long and confusing, and the film shows that with a non-ending that still seems like a conclusion. One of the only sure things is that Enid will no longer be involved with the other characters, as for where they go or what they do the audience is unsure, but can make up their own stories.

In the end all movies about romance are just stories that will end one day, because very few truly last forever. That is why it is important to know when to end, when to stop the story and let everyone live happily ever after. If things go on too long they always end in death, Ghost Story is about people, and how they all seem to exist in their own little places, their own worlds, but no man is an island, and every decision affects others, often inadvertently. Life is all interconnected, and so are all the people in it.

Bromovies

One of the most frequent relationship dynamics is that of two dudes who don't get along at first, but they learn to work together; fight crime, make some good jokes, or escape from prison. Of course inevitably they part ways after an argument, but realize they can't accomplish their task on their own, and get back together for an epic conclusion. There are a number of sub-genres, namely Buddy Cop and the more recent annoying guy destroys a competent guy's life. Of course besides films it is also a frequent theme in video-games, especially early video-games, where the two player co-op was very common.

First there are the comedic variants of this, with classics like Planes, Trains, and Automobiles with John Candy and Steve Martin standing out as exemplary examples, but there are many others which are still good, but not quite as good. It's actually incredibly easy to identify these types of movies. Look at the poster, does it have two guys, one with a comical expression? Probably a buddy comedy movie, with the same plot twists you've seen a million times, but maybe some decent comedy. Some opt for hyperbole like the Blues Brothers, though that does not follow the standard formula, as there is no conflict between the characters, creating a very different dynamic.

As stated these are simple movies, with a simple purpose, comedy. Even movies like Clerks follow this same dynamic, with two dudes who hang out together eventually having some huge event that tears them apart, but they get together before the finale. Of course in Clerks there is no real plot, so the conclusion is not exactly action packed or truly decisive, but it still works along the same formula. This has resulted in many brilliant comedies, and many lackluster impersonations. This two man dynamic is relatively easy to right and difficult to screw up, but it is the quality of the comedy and writing that makes it a good or bad movie, so that is why there is such a variance.

Now the second very popular variant is the buddy cop movie, something which has died down in recent days, but still has some appeal as shown by recent films like The Other Guys or 21 Jump Street. Classics like Rush Hour where the main proponents of this type of film, and again it uses the easy and entertaining dynamic to create a decent film. Even something like Bad Boys was still a decent watch, because the main actors work well together. Typically these types of films also have explosive finales which area  visual treat, again helping to create the basis for a very decent film, albeit nothing truly amazing.

With many of these genres the film-makers are so constrained by convention that they can't make anything truly genre-defining or defying, because often the financiers refuse to do these kind of risky projects, as they know what works and don't know what won't. This is applicable to a number of genres, but some like Horror and Sci-Fi can still put out interesting and inventive films, whereas some others like buddy and Rom-coms really can't. Genres generally constrain instead of enhance, and in many cases categorizations don't help with the best films, like Pulp Fiction or Donnie Darko. Films are an expansive and all-encompassing media, and we need to shy away from these constrictions and embrace free-form film, especially int he lower budget market.

Fanboys

Fanboys is an indie film wrought with troubles in its production. Originally it was going to be released in late 2006, then they wanted to reshoot some scenes so went with early 2007. Unfortunately cast members being busy delayed the release until late 2008. This also meant their were a lot of edits to the film, perhaps too many. Apparently some of the more sensitive moments were changed for some of the crude comedy which seems out of place with the rest of the film, and it shows.

There's one scene early on where all the guys are forced to strip at a gay bar, that could have been cut really easily, and  nothing would be lost, not even comedy considering how unfunny that sequence was. These random sequences do drag the film down a bit, but overall I really liked it. This is apparently a differing opinion to the critics given its 30% on Rotten Tomatoes, but it is a great Star Wars movie.

That is what the film is really about, fanboys, the rampant devotion of the titular characters is shown throughout the film, not necessarily in a positive light, but in an honest self evaluation. The creators of the film were obviously huge fans, from the use of original sounds to the constant references, and choice of actors it shows a nerds devotion to the art of Star Wars.

It also shies away from the obvious "the prequel's sucked lolololol" jokes, aside from one minor comment at the end, and this makes it a much better film. It embraces the cheesiness of Star Wars, but also shows just how much any given media can mean to fans, as the events that drive the film are because one devoted fan just wants to see Episode 1 before he dies of cancer. This is the serious plot point that could have used more time, though it does kind of undercurrent the film, and there is a lot of more subtle hints at it throughout, thought they could have been expanded upon.

Some of the fanboyness shines through , like when they stumble upon Lucas' private sanctuary, with all the original props, it is an amazing sight. The reverence they treat the films with is what sets this apparent from parodies like Scary Movie and the like, it embraces the subject matter lovingly, though not without good humor, instead of insulting it. Overall this is what makes it the better film, and definitely one I would watch again, as the loving reverence reminds of an age past, when the original trilogy was all there was, and we loved every last moment of it.

Those That Service Us

They live life everyday, bored of their seemingly tepid existence. All this is compounded when one clerk, Dante, is bullied into coming in on his day off. This classic 1994 film by director Keven Smith is one of the defining movies of the indie movement, and it's development is amazingly entertaining. He maxed out 8 credit cards by pretending to be his boss, and work night and day to make sure the film got done. Overall he got about one hour of sleep for many night, nearly driving himself insane.

The film has its problems, and its limited budget shines through in numerous instances. The most obvious of this is the fact that it is in black and white, a trend that ended just more than 25 years before this film came out, but the incredibly limited budget made it the only option. The actors are also, not the highlight of the film, the limited budget meant friends and family of Smith's had to come in and 'act', but sometimes the silences are obviously the actors forgetting lines, and some of the reactions seem stilted.

This is also Smith's first real film, and the camera angles and the technical stuff are all obviously amateur. Despite all of this, I still love the film. This is a result of the dialogue, it is so well written that the rest of the movie is excused from its many faults. The movie is funny, it's full of pop culture references that are more than just quotes, and has a loving knowledge of comedy.

It is also a very human film, from the customers who come in just wanting a pack of smokes, to the main characters Dante and Randal who are characterized as normal people, they contrast each other extremely well with Randall openly spitting in the customer's faces, sometimes literally, and Dante bottling up his anger until it bursts at the climax of the film.

This is what makes the writing so impressive, it just seems like a group of friend's talking, because that is what it is. You don't need to make up dialogue when your typical conversations fit the characters, and it adds realism because they are the kind of conversations that go on. It also helps define the target audience and makes it so much more enjoyable by drawing you in. For example the Star Wars conversation in the middle sounds exactly like something we would say, in fact I'm sure I've had a similar discussion in real life.

Clerks is one of my favorite 90s films, I feel it really represents the decade. The Seinfeldian nature was right at its peak, and the conversations are so real, that the faults of the film just fade into the background as the witty dialogue takes the show. I suppose I love the film because if it comes to that I could see me in that position, it's not favorable but it is a distinct possibility, and that makes it real, and a real movie like this is strictly superior to all those with painstakingly written dialogue, that it stands as a gem in a shit.