Crimewave (1985)

Crimewave (1985)

Director: Sam Raimi

Writers: Joel & Ethan Coen, Sam Raimi

So you guys know how there are certain films that have nightmarish production stories, where everything goes wrong and they turn into total fiascos? Well, that’s what happened with Sam Raimi’s Crimewave. This was Sam Raimi’s film after he showed the world what he was capable of doing behind the camera with Evil Dead (1981). This was also the first time that Raimi worked with a real budget. Not money from his dentist or from his friends. Nah, this was a real true blue Hollywood production, with professional actors and producers. Would Raimi adapt to working in a studio production when he was so used to artistic freedom? Would the ensuing film be worth watching? 

This is like a long lost gem for me because I watched it a lot as a kid when it was first released. I discovered it because HBO played it a lot back in 1985. Sad part is that Crimewave is a film that everyone involved wanted to forget about. The studio didn’t like it, test audiences didn’t like, the studio decided that Bruce Campbell wasn’t big enough of a star to star in the film and to top things off, the film went over budget and had a couple of the actors  go on drug binges. Brion James and Louise Lasser would hault production because of their drug problems! So yeah, things didn’t go well for Raimi and Crimewave. Thing is, I think the way the film was treated was total boloney. This film is not without its merits!

The story is about this guy called Vic Ajax, a regular every day Joe. Sadly, this every day Joe gets blamed for a bunch of murders that these two crazy rat exterminators committed. Yes you read that sentence right. Anyhows, Vic is sitting in the electric chair about to get zapped away for crimes he did not commit. The film transpires as he tells us the story of how everything went down. Will he survive? Will his innocence shine through? Will someone save this poor dope?

What I absolutely love about this movie is the film noir feel it has all throughout. There isn’t a second of film on Crimewave where you don’t feel like you’re in this big, dark, lonely metropolis in which lots of evil things happen in every dark corner or alley. To make things even spookier, it’s always stormy and windy…a lightning storm is about to strike! The wind cries in the middle of the night and newspapers fly through the air, it is definitely not the kind of night anyone wants to be out and about. So there’s always that feeling of dread all throughout the movie. The city exudes this feeling of emptiness…as if everyone is hiding away, looking out through their windows, peeking at the evil things scourging in the night; kudos to Sam Raimi for successfully maintaining that feeling of dread all through the film.  

And yes, I said Sam Raimi, he of Evil Dead and Spider Man fame. You see, this here film was his sophomore effort and his first studio film, with a budget. The great thing about Crimewave is that it has all of that Sam Raimi style and flare. Lots of camera tricks, lots of movement and lots of composite shots…basically, this movie has a lot of what I love about Sam Raimi, a lot of what I miss about this filmmaker. You see, when he became an A list director, he sort of lost that zany style he was so known for in order to play the Hollywood game. I personally loved low budget Sam Raimi because he was free to do all these crazy things with the camera. Thankfully,  Crimewave was a small enough picture that it allowed Raimi to show off his comic/kinetic style in spades! In other words, this movie is extremely cartoonish and feels a lot like a Three Stooges sketch. The whole film is made up of camera tricks, unorthodox angles and cartoony situations. 

All the characters in Crimewave behave like cartoon characters. We got the snake, we got the nerdy guy, we got the damsel in distress and we got the two crazy villains! Now these two crazy villains are special, they are so over the top that they end up being the real stars of the show. There’s a reason why they are on the poster, it’s because they are the best thing in the movie! One is played by Paul L. Smith who some of you might remember as the guy who played Bluto in Robert Altman’s Popeye (1980) and the other is played by Brion James, better known for his role as Leon the Replicant in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982). He’s the guy who tells Harrison Ford “Wake Up! Time to Die!”  So anyway, these two guys are basically rat exterminators. And how do we know this? They drive a truck with a huge rat on top of it that’s how we know! They kill rats during the day but work nights as Hit Men. So they kill whoever they have to kill in the same way they kill rats! With a machine that generates bolts of electricity called ‘The Shocker’! Trust me; these two guys will have you cracking up.

Bruce Campbell has said that with Evil Dead they learned all about success and that with Crimewave they learned how to fail. Well, the film might have failed at the box office (hell it was only released in Kansas and Alaska) and the studio might have had no faith in it, but there’s a lot to like here. It was written by the freaking Coen Brothers and Sam Raimi! It has style and fun to spare! Its film noir! It’s cartoonish! It’s dark and gruesome fun; this is dark humor of the best kind. Of course a lot of people might be put off by seeing some of the unrealistic cartoonish action, but for lovers of that sort of unrealistic silly fun, well, you’re in for a treat! This movie was made for you! It’s a real shame that Crimewave has been treated like some sort of unwanted step child. I mean, yeah the studio messed around with it and cut it to pieces, still, a fun film shines through. A similar situation happened with David Lynch’s Dune (1984) and many adore that film, myself included; same thing with Crimewave. This is a very kinetic film, visually, you will never be bored. There’s always some gag going on. It might have been a nightmare to make, but it sure is a pleasure to watch. Enjoy this forgotten gem, you won’t regret it.

Rating: 4 out of 5  

Original vs. Remake Comparison: The Evil Dead (1981) vs. Evil Dead (2013)

Fede Alvarez’s new Evil Dead film has been the talk of the horror community for some time now. When news emerged that a remake of the classic was in the works, horror fans were instantly apprehensive of the idea. After all, Sam Raimi’s original The Evil Dead (1981)is one of the most beloved horror films of the 80’s, hell, it’s one of the most revered horror films ever, period. Sam Raimi and crew unleashed their independent horror film onto the world way back in 1981, when they were all struggling filmmakers and actors. Back then Raimi wasn’t the Hollywood mogul he is now, back then he was just a guy who loved making movies with his friends, and that he did. With every film they made goofing around, they got better and better, until they finally decided to make their first real feature length film. The Evil Dead’s kinetic style and frenetic pace truly impressed horror fans, so much so that Stephen King himself called it “the most ferociously original horror film of the year” That famous quote was well earned, back then, nobody had seen anything like The Evil Dead.

I first came in contact with the Evil Dead films around 1993 because it kept getting mentioned in Fangoria Magazine. Back then, before the internet, all a horror fan could do to keep up to date with new stuff and learn about the classics was to devour every issue of Fangoria and its sister magazine Gorezone. I kept seeing articles that mentioned The Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn (1987) over and over again as films that any true horror fan should experience. Back then, as a neophyte horror fan, I devoured every horror movie I could see. When I finally got around to seeing The Evil Dead, my teenage mind finally realized what all the hype was about. Evil Dead was “the ultimate experience in grueling terror”. It quite simply pushed the limits of what had been done with gore and horror up to that time. Because of its meager budget (350,000) the film was a success and while it was banned in many countries because of its graphic nature, it also served its purpose; it showed the world that Sam Raimi was good at making horror films and that he was a special filmmaker that was here to stay.

Raimi and Campbell on the set of The Evil Dead

Fast forward 30 odd years later into the future and The Evil Dead has spawned two sequels, helped boost the career of both Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell and has now spawned the most recent addition in the Evil Dead family: a remake. When I first heard about the remake, I was also apprehensive of it. I guess, that’s a gut reaction from any true horror fan. I also feared that this was going to be a watered down version of the Sam Raimi classic. Various factors lead me to believe this. Why was I so hesitant to believe that a new Evil Dead film was destined to be a “sans cojones”  version of the old one? Well, my main reason for all the trepidation was the sad state of the American Horror Film. For the past couple of years, the American Horror film has suffered from the same ailment that the American action film has suffered from. They just don’t have the guts they use to have; they just don’t make them like they used to. You know this and I know this. When you watch an action film from the 70’s or 80’s you can feel the difference, you can sense the augmented sense of horror and violence; you can see the characters were crazier, edgier somehow. When you watch old horror films from the 70’s and 80’s, you are reminded of what you no longer see in modern horror films. Where are today’s Icons of horror? Where are the Freddy’s and Jason’s of this generation? That shock to the system that you would get from these old horror films is all but gone from cinemas. All you’re left with is what American Horror films are today, a pale imitation of what they used to be. Old horror movies like The Evil Dead serve to remind us just how soft American horror films have become.

Then there’s the fact that the director behind the old Evil Dead films -Sam Raimi- has kind of drifted away from his horror roots, which is a natural progression for any filmmaker who wants to grow. Filmmakers need to stretch their muscles and try other things outside of the horror genre, which Raimi has proven he is adept at. Unfortunately, when Raimi attempted a return to horror he made Drag Me To Hell (2010) a film that I didn’t love because it simply felt like a watered down version of a Sam Raimi film. It was Sam Raimi light. Drag Me to Hell was the studio horror film that couldn’t go very far in terms of horror because it had to play it safe. It was a studio putting kajillions to make a horror film, Raimi couldn’t risk it being a failure. Drag Me to Hell was disappointing because it wasn’t the Raimi that I loved, it wasn’t the guy who pushed the horror genre as far as it could be pushed. Drag Me to Hell felt like Raimi was pushing back, pulling away.  Another thing that worried me are the horror films that Raimi has been producing through his own production company, Ghost House Pictures, a production company that Raimi formed to make new horror films and allow younger directors to take a crack at making them.  I’m talking about films like The Possesion (2012), Boogeyman (2005), Rise (2007), The Grudge (2004), not exactly a mind blowing group of films, not to mention the mind numbing direct to video sequels that followed some of these productions. My big worry was, would this new Evil Dead film also be unspectacular and watered down?

Boy was I wrong! This new Evil Dead film blew me away! It took my expectations and surpassed them in every way imaginable. In my book, Evil Dead is the horror film responsible for giving American horror its balls back. This is what I’m talking about! Evil Dead is a film unafraid to cut away, unafraid to show you the goods, unafraid to be graphic and brutal and unrelenting. In other words, I was a happy horror fan, I cheered, I clapped in approval, I jumped, I cringed, I gasped. It’s a funny thing that the director responsible for giving American Horror films it’s gravitas back is actually Uruguayan! Ha, but seriously folks, I applaud Sam Raimi for giving young filmmakers like Fede Alvarez a chance to just go out and make their own thing, test their mettle, see what they are made of. And let me tell ya, for a first time filmmaker who’d only made short films before this one, Alvarez shows great aplomb with Evil Dead. Editing, cinematography and performance wise the film is solid. It wowed me, it took me by surprise. Let’s explore what worked and didn’t with this remake shall we?

First off, they give the events that happen in the film more depth, more weight. For all its legendary status and legions of fans, the original Evil Dead film is a very simple, straight forward horror movie about a group of friends going to a cabin to have some fun. Their main preoccupation is partying. Demons resurrection passages, the book of the dead and everything else is just something they stumble upon while on their search for good times. There’s a hint of romance between Linda and Ash which gives Ash something to fight for, but for the most part, the main focus of the first Evil Dead film was to shock the hell out of you. Where the remake succeeds in my book is in giving the proceedings meaning, purpoise. The kids on the remake go to the cabin to help their friend break with her cocaine habit. This isn’t a film about people going to have fun as in most horror films, nope, these kids are here to help their friend break the habit, so immediately the film has a more somber/dark tone to it. This mission was a positive addition to the film. I also enjoyed how they used demons as a metaphor for the Mia's personal demons, nice touch.

Then there’s the gore which was plentiful. How plentiful you ask? Well, let me put it this way, in the pantheon of ultra gory horror films like Peter Jackson’s Dead Alive (1992) or Clive Barker’s Hellraiser (1987) which are two of the goriest films I’ve ever seen, Evil Dead can proudly stand next to them. You know how modern horror films don’t linger too long on anything graphic, as if afraid to offend sensors or the Motion Picture Association of America? Well, Evil Dead isn’t like that; if somebody chops off their arm, you see it, if blood splatters, it really splatters! If somebody needs to get chopped up in half with a chainsaw, then this is what you are going to see! I honestly don’t know how the MPAA let this one slip by. That is the question that kept popping into my mind, how the hell did this one slip by them intact? Sam Raimi must’ve pulled a few strings because this is one blood drenched film. Honestly I was getting tired of films being all shy about the gore, this one my friends brings those gory days of the 80’s right back! There’s only one scene that I regret they didn’t include from the original and it’s the scene where Ash chops off his zombie girlfriends head off with a shovel. They do something similar, but they didn’t really do it. It’s the only negative thing I can say about it. But they included so many other cool things that I let that one pass. And the demon possessed folk look really demonic, loved that about it.

When comparing the two Evil Deads, both come out on top. Both are good for different reasons. Evil Dead is the rare remake that is great, it pays its respects, but keeps things interesting as well. Trust me, if you love horror, gore and demons in your entertainment, then go see this one as soon as possible! We get the stuff we love about the original, like kids going to a lonely cabin in the woods, we get a book that brings demons from hell and all that, but the film also offers up new things that we never saw on any of the previous Evil Dead films, but with enough familiar elements to keep Evil Dead fans happy. Its little things here and there, little bits of dialog, or simply, visual gags that pay homage to the original. For example, for most of the film we don’t see a chainsaw anywhere, but there’s this one moment in which a character finally picks one up and turns it on and at that precise moment, the audience cheered as if saying “now it’s really an Evil Dead film!” You’ll see Raimi’s signature yellow 1973 Oldsmobile Delta 88; a car that has appeared on all of Raimi’s Evil Dead films, including this one. So from the standpoint of an Evil Dead fan, I can say you’ll be happy.  

Audiences have liked this new remake, actually, audiences have devoured it! It is still number one in theaters and has more than doubled its budget with its box office intake! I personally would like to thank Raimi and Campbell and Alvarez for making this one special, it wasn't a half assed cheap-o sequel cash in. Nope, this one was made with love, and I know that sounds weird because its a movie about people getting chopped up with chainsaw's, but dammit, there's a love for the genre present here. A sequel is no doubt in the horizon as we speak and first time director Fede Alvarez must be feeling all kinds of giddy with his first success. Alvarez has already spoken about a sequel, which as he states it would be an all new story that takes things in a whole new direction, gotta admit, I’m looking forward to that! Evil Dead fans should be rejoicing because if internet buzz is true, then Sam Raimi and his brother are currently writing a new installment in the Evil Dead franchise! With Bruce Campbell playing Ash! Now how groovy is that? Extremely freaking groovy that’s how groovy! And speaking of groovy, take it for me and stay after the credits, there’s a special something for all you hardcore Evil Dead fans! It’s well worth the wait.

Rating for The Evil Dead (1981): 5 out of 5

Rating for Evil Dead (2013): 5 out of 5

   

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

Title: Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

Director: Sam Raimi

Cast: James Franco, Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams, Milla Kunis, Zack Braff

Review:

Sam Raimi’s Oz the Great and Powerful was probably not an easy movie to make for Raimi, especially when we take in consideration that it’s supposed to be an unofficial sequel to MGM’s Wizard of Oz (1939), a film that is revered and loved by many. Aside from keeping audience approval in mind at all times, Raimi had to also deal with a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo from the MGM guys, but I’m getting ahead of myself, let me explain things a bit so you won’t get lost in the magical Land of Oz. You see, L. Frank Baum’s Oz novels became public domain in 1985, so from there on in, anybody could make their own Oz thing, which is how Disney’s Return to Oz (1985) came to be. Now, though Baum’s novels became public domain, whatever original elements MGM came up with for their film is strictly the property of MGM, so Disney or anybody who wants to make their Oz thing, cannot use any of the elements that MGM came up with for their movie. This includes and covers everything from the ruby red slippers (which were never red in Baum’s books), to the green tone on the Wicked Witch’s face! Disney couldn’t even use the wart on the Wicked Witch’s chin because that wart belongs to MGM! So making this new Oz movie must’ve felt a bit like walking on a mine field for Sam Raimi.

Raimi works out a scene with James Franco

Still, I think even though they tried their best to get away from MGM’s film, they still ended up paying homage to it. This is something that they admittedly did entirely on purpose. There are many similarities between MGM’s Wizard of Oz and Oz the Great and Powerful, first of all, both films start out in sepia tones and later turn to color once we reach the Land of Oz. We have the singing Munchkin’s and the Wicked Witch flying on a broom, leaving a trace of black smoke behind her. The color scheme for both films is extremely similar, the yellows and greens have that over saturated look. The film looks as if Ted Turner himself had converted the film from black and white to color. My guess is that Raimi and Disney tried to get as close as they could to MGM’s film without breaking any of the legal boundaries. Smart move on their part because the idea that people have of Oz and that world is very closely linked to the old movie. They want that old yellow brick road, they want the same Emerald City, the want those Munchkins. So fans of the old movie can rest assured that this new film is extremely similar to the old MGM film.

Now here’s something I didn’t expect from Oz the Great and Powerful: how closely it resembles Sam Raimi’s Army of Darkness (1993)!  Now for those not in the know, once upon a time, Sam Raimi was once a filmmaker struggling to make his way in Hollywood. He made a moderately successful comic book film called Darkman (1990), and so Universal gave him the chance to follow that up with Army of Darkness, the closing chapter of his Evil Dead series of films; a series of films he started making way back in the beginning of his career, with his first film The Evil Dead (1981). After a successful run in theaters, he followed The Evil Dead with Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn (1987) and ended the whole shebang with Army of Darkness. Now the similarities between Raimi’s Oz film and Army of Darkness are not denied by the director himself. In an interview for Screen Rant he mentions that he was aware of these similarities, and that he tried to get away from them as much as he could, but that at the same time he felt it wouldn’t be much of a problem, since a lot of people have not seen Army of Darkness. In that interview, Raimi also mentions that any similarities between both films cold be blamed on the writer of the script, which existed long before Raimi was ever committed to directing the picture. But if you ask me, Raimi knew exactly what he was doing because the similarities are way too obvious and you know what? So what, I liked it! Oz the Great and Powerful is essentially Army of Darkness but the characters from Wizard of Oz! And made with Disney’s kajillions!

And so, here my dear readers I offer you the similarities between both! There be SPOILERS AHEAD, so you've been warned! 

ASH AND OZ

On Oz the Great and Powerful, Oscar Diggs is an illusionist who works in a traveling circus. He is a sleazy guy who lies to the girls and wants to bed them all, he uses sweet lies in order to more easily seduce them. He is a hero, but not entirely. He lies, cheats and scams every chance he gets. In many ways, the great and powerful Oz is an anti-hero.  Interested in personal gain, he accepts helping others to achieve his goals, even with all these negative qualities, he ends up becoming a leader and a hero to the people.

In Army of Darkness, Ashley Williams is your regular blue collar worker. He’s sleazy with the ladies and wants to bed them all, telling them stories and using “pillow talk” in order to get to first base. He’s our hero, but not entirely. He is afraid to do what he has to do; he is at times a liar and a coward. But his interest in personal gain makes him help others, even with all these negative traits, he ends up becoming their leader and hero.   

HERO GETS WHISKED AWAY TO ANOTHER LAND THROUGH A MAGICAL WORM HOLE

In the ending of Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn Ash opens up a portal that is supposed to suck away all the demons and send them to some other dimension, unfortunately, the portal also sucks him in. Ash soon discovers that the portal doesn’t send him to another dimension; it actually sends him back in time! And so, suddenly Ash finds himself in medieval times, becoming the leader of a group of people who are fighting against an Army of the Dead.

In Oz the Great and Powerful, an illusionist known as Oscar Diggs is one day whisked away by a tornado, he soon discovers this isn’t just any regular old tornado, nope, this tornado ends up magically sending him to the strange and wonderful Land of Oz! When he arrives, he finds himself becoming a leader of a group of people fighting against an evil witch and her army.

HERO MUST AQUIRE A MAGICAL ARTIFACT TO COMPLETE HIS MISSION

In Army of Darkness, Ash must retrieve ‘The Necronomicon’, a magical book which the demons (a.k.a.  Deadites) have an insatiable hunger for. If he achieves this goal correctly, he saves the people and fulfills a prophecy. In order to retrieve this book, Ash must venture into a spooky forbidden cemetery where the book rests.

In Oz the Great and Powerful, Oz must retrieve a witch’s magical wand, in this way, fulfilling a prophecy that will allow him to turn in the “Great and Powerful Oz”. In order to get this magical wand, Oz must venture into a spooky cemetery to get it.  

LOVE INTEREST TURNS EVIL

In Army of Darkness Ash falls for a beautiful maiden called Sheila, unfortunately at a given point in the film, Sheila turns evil when possessed by demons! Sheila tells Ash: “You found me beautiful once” to which Ash replies “Honey, you got reeeeal ugly!”

In Oz the Great and Powerful, Oz falls for the beautiful Theodora, a good witch who dreams of one day becoming Oz’s queen. When circumstances in life tear them apart, Theodora’s hatred for Oz turns her into the proverbial ‘Wicked Witch of the West’.

EVIL  ARMIES and ROUSING SPEECHES

In Army of Darkness Ash must train a medieval army in order to fight against the demonic Army of Darkness. Ash gives a rousing speech in which he motivates his army to fight for their land.

In Oz the Great and Powerful, Oz must train The Munchkins, The Tinkers and The Winkies to fight against the Wicked Witch of the West’s evil army. He gives them a rousing speech that motivates them into using their smarts and their cunning in order to achieve this.

EVIL FLYING MONSTERS

In the world of Army of Darkness, there exists such a thing as a ‘Deadite’. What’s a Deadite you might ask? Well, Deadites can come in all forms, but one of the most hideous is the flying demons you see pictured above. In one moment of Army of Darkness, a deadite snatches Ash’s love interest away and flies away with her.

In Oz the Great and Powerful, there exists such a thing as an evil flying monkey; actually, there’s a whole army of them! In one pivotal scene of the film, an evil flying monkey snatches away Glinda the good witch and flies away with her.

GUN POWDER = UPPER HAND IN BATTLE

In Army of Darkness, Ash comes from the future and must learn to live amongst the “primitive screwheads” from medieval times. In order to have the upper hand in the battle against the Army of Darkness, Ash shares his knowledge of gun powder and chemistry with the soldiers of medieval times.

In Oz the Great and Powerful, Oz shares his knowledge of gun powder and fireworks with the people of the Land of Oz so they can use it in their battle against the evil witches. 

EVIL EVANORA – SHE BITCH

In Army of Darkness, Ash fights with a possesed old lady whom he refers to as “She Bitch”. He fights with her for a few seconds before blowing her away with his boom stick. In the ending of the film, he fights a similar looking possesed woman, whose ass he also blows away with his boomstick after which he proclaims himself a king.

In Oz the Great and Powerful, Glinda the Good Witch must do battle with Evanora the most evil witch of all, after Glinda beats Evanora, she transforms Evanora into who she really is, an old hag, who looks a hell of a lot like the “She Bitch” from Army of Darkness, and I mean a heck of a lot, it's almost a copy paste type of deal! At the end of the day, Oz ends up being King of Oz.

And that my friends, ends the comparison part of my review! 

But of course, the biggest similarity between these two movies is it’s director Sam Raimi. The film might be Disney, and it might be Oz but at times you will also notice it is very Sam Raimi, it has those kinetic camera moves that let you know it’s Raimi behind the cameras. It even has cameos by Ted Raimi and Bruce Campbell! Sadly, theres no 1973 yellow Oldsmobile on this one, you know, the car that Sam Raimi puts in all of his movies! But aside from all that, I personally really enjoyed the film, me being a huge fan of the Oz books and films, well, I was having a blast. One of the few flaws I found was Mila Kunis who for some reason didn’t deliver a great performance; her acting dialog delivery felt robotic and unnatural, no real emotion in it. But that’s a minor hiccup. Her bad performance stands out amongst all the other good ones. I mean, James Franco did a good job of portraying Oz equal times sleazy and equal times heroic. But if I had to pick a favorite it would have to be Rachel Weisz, who was great as evil witch Evanora. But Kunis? Left a lot to be desired. Still, even with this minor hiccup, the film ends up being ultra fun, and loaded with tons of visual effects. Yes my friends, this is one colorful mind bending CGI overdose that I recommend checking out on 3D. If you like CGI fests and you like 3D, then you should have yourself a dandy old time!   

Sam Raimi goofing around on the set of Army of Darkness

There was something else that I didn’t enjoy in this particular Oz film. You see, the Oz films have always played with the idea that the powers that be are lying to the masses through politics and religion, this is an aspect of these films that I’ve always found daring. Yet, in an interesting turn of events, this time around the film tells us that these lies are something necessary in society, a necessary evil if you will. In this way, it is similar to Life Of Pi (2012), yet another film that tells us that it is better to believe the pretty lie, then live with the awful truth. For this I give the film a point less, why? Because I don’t think the masses need to be lied to, I think people should be told the truth, no matter how “desperate the times”, for what kind of society are we living in if it’s all based on a lie? According to this film, people are lied to because they need a hero, they need hope, they need someone to look up to. Why do films like Life of Pi and Oz the Great and Powerful think it’s a good idea to lie to the people in order to keep them happy? I’d love to see a sequel in which the people of Oz found out that they’ve been had all along; wouldn’t that make an interesting sequel? 

Rating:  4 out of 5

The Possession (2012)

Title: The Possession (2012)

Director: Ole Bornedal

Cast: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Natasha Calis, Kyra Sedgwick, , Madison Davenport, Matisyahu

Review:

I’m going to take the opportunity and comment on the state of American Horror Films with his review because well, dammit, this is a PG-13 rated demonic possession film, and to me, the words PG-13 and demonic possession simply shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same sentence, but here we are, talking about the Sam Raimi produced The Possession, a horror film about Jewish demons possessing a little girl. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, American Horror has been castrated, it no longer has any guts. It’s been so freaking deflated of any true horror that we get films like the one we’re talking about today. The Possession is a harmless little horror film, not too scary, not too horrifying, but still, pretty watchable, let’s get that out of the way. This is not a bad film; it simply doesn’t deliver on what we would expect to see in a film about demonic possession, it doesn’t have that edge, that intensity. And of course this is all due to the fact that the film was originally ‘R’ rated, but in order to get the all important money making ‘PG-13’ rating, it was edited down and thus, we get this soft core horror flick.  

Now immediately when we talk about demons and little girls one film pops to mind and that’s of course William Friedkin’s immortal horror classic The Exorcist (1973). If you don’t want your demonic possession film to be compared to The Exorcist, then don’t make it about little girls being possessed by demons, or else you’ll get what you’re gonna get today from this film connoisseur, a comparison between the two. So anyhows, was The Possession worth a damn? Did it even come close to the horrifying levels of shit your pants scares that The Exorcist did? Hell no! It still baffles me how not a single film has ever been able to achieve what Friedkin achieved with The Exorcist. Failed attempts include Lost Souls (2000) and The Unborn (2009), by the way, The Unborn is a film that has a lot in common with The Possession because they are both about ‘Dybbuks’ which is the Jewish word for ‘Demon’. In trying to understand why an American film studio would purposely make their film about Jewish Demons instead of Catholic/Christian demons, the hypothesis I came up with is that producers want to play it safe and so they avoid playing with Catholicism or Christianity out of fear. After all, we all know how cautious Hollywood has always been when it comes to dealing with religion. With this theme, Hollywood rarely takes chances; which is probably why this film is so ‘soft’.  

If you were to judge this film simply by its previews you’d swear The Possession was a true blue scary film, sadly, this was not the case. Demons and Sam Raimi are two things that should get together more often, but apparently the days in which Sam Raimi would direct a good horror film are long gone, never to return. Raimi has gone full on Hollywood for years now, horror is a thing of the past for him. His attempt at horror Drag Me To Hell (2009) was ‘light’ when compared to his Evil Dead days. These days Raimi is contempt with merely producing horror movies through his Ghost House Pictures label instead of personally directing them; which is fine by me, I love the fact that he gives up coming/new directors a chance to flex their filmmaking muscles. I just wish he wouldn’t play it so safe with the horror films he produces. The question that inevitably pops into my head is will the Evil Dead remake that is currently in production be a soft core horror film? A horror movie without guts? I hope not, but if The Possession and Drag Me to Hell are any indication…

Technically speaking, the film is very well made and it does have its scary moments. Invisible things shutting doors and throwing things around is always a spooky deal. The reason why I gave The Possession  a chance is because sometimes, PG-13 horror movies can be scary, the one example I always give is Gore Verbinski’s The Ring (2002), a film that is PG-13 and scary as hell. While The Possession didn’t quite get there in terms of intensity, it is a well told tale, well acted and well shot and has one or two truly eerie moments in there, I loved those scenes with the little girl opening up the Dybbuk box in her room, which kind of brought to mind the Hellraiser, but thats besides the point. I can’t really complain about the way the film looks, the visuals are very slick, very clean. Kudos to director Ole Bornedal for deliver a slick looking horror movie. Also, I loved the score for the film, it’s so classic! Again, with its score the film reminded me of a horror film from the 70’s, where so much emphasis was put in the musical score. Nowadays, this is something that films have all but forgotten. Music is 50% of the equation when it comes to films!

The cast does a great job, especially the lead actor Jeffrey Dean Morgan whom some of you might remember as ‘The Comedian’ in Zack Snyder’s Watchmen (2009). I couldn’t help but notice how much this actor looks like Javier Bardem! It’s actually kind of uncanny! The dude even talks like Bardem! Casting a mature actor like this one in a horror movie reminded me of horror films from the 70’s when they’d cast these solid, mature actors in the principal roles. In this sense, The Possession reminded me of The Changeling (1980), which starred George C. Scott in the starring role of the father struggling with the loss of his family. Jeffrey Dean Morgan comes off as a strong male lead. Natasha Calis as ‘Em’ the girl who is possessed by the Dybbuk does a commendable job as well, but she didn’t go through hell like Linda Blair did in The Exorcist. A surprising casting decision was giving Reggae singer Matisyahu the all important role of the  exorcist, didn’t do a bad job in my book, as far as I know this was his first attempt at acting in a full length motion picture, so there’s that.

So why is The Possession such a harmless horror flick? Well, because this is a Demonic Possession film and doesn’t deliver the goods in terms of nastiness. Demons are supposed to be these ultra evil things who hate god. They are the worst of the worst; they want to rape and pillage the body they inhabit. On this one, the demon whispers, and makes the little girls eyes go white, that’s about it. Oh wait, the demon also likes to make the wind blow, and turn the lights on and off a lot; that’s as far as this one goes. So it’s harmless in that sense, the film uses a lot of old school horror techniques, lots of horror movie cliches like shadowy hallways, the wind howling, the whispers in the darkness, that sort of thing, and I liked that about it; I just wanted a bit more intensity with those old school scares. Truth be told, it reminded me of these harmless ghost movies like Lady in White (1988), you know, scary movies that aren’t too scary. Ultimately, this is the kind of horror film that a kid interested in starting to watch horror movies would enjoy. Someone who hasn’t seen a gazillion horror movies before might enjoy it, but for the true blue seasoned horror veteran this film is just child’s play.

Rating: 3 out of 5

The Quick and the Dead (1995)

Title: The Quick and the Dead (1995)

Director: Sam Raimi

Cast: Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio, Lance Henriksen, Keith David, Tobin Bell, Gary Sinise

Review:

The Quick and the Dead isn’t one of those films that purely emerged from the mind and imagination of director Sam Raimi. It wasn’t like Evil Dead (1981) or Darkman (1990) both of which were films born and bred in Sam Raimi’s brain. Nope, on The Quick and the Dead Sam Raimi was a director for hire. He was personally chosen by Sharon Stone herself for this film because she loved what he did on Army of Darkness (1993). So here was Sam Raimi, coming out of the moderate success of Army of Darkness, doing his first “director for hire” picture. How did it go?

An awesome cast makes this an awesome western!

The Quick and the Dead centers around a shoot out contest that takes place in the Western town of Redemption. This contest attracts a varied group of gunmen from all over the Old West. The twist comes when we find out that one of these gunmen is actually a gun woman who goes by the name of ‘Lady’. She signs up for the contest but doesn’t reveal the true nature of her plans: exacting sweet revenge on the man who was responsible for the death of her father! It just so happens that this man is the towns mayor; an abusive politician named Herod who squeezes tons of tax money from peoples pockets and lives a life of luxury at their expense. Will she ever muster up the courage needed to go up against Herod and his men? Will she ever get the revenge that she came for?

One of the things that makes The Quick and the Dead special is the fact that it has a female lead in the role; normally western films have a male lead in them. I figure studios think females don’t really give a damn about cowboy movies so why make one with a female lead? But this one was just a little different. It has an ass kicking female playing the lead character in the form of Sharon Stone, who's one tough cookie on this movie. Though many of the men in Redemption enlists in the contest, somebody protests saying that ladies shouldn’t be allowed to enter. Herod, the towns mayor played by a scene stealing Gene Hackman says “we don’t have nothing against ladies entering the contest, it’s just that ladies can’t shoot for shit!” All the men in the room laugh when he says this. It's right then and there that , and Lady proceeds to show them what she’s made off by shooting her gun faster and quicker then all of them thought she could. So this movie is different that way. Sharon Stone carries the whole film on her shoulders. She’s the ‘Blondie’ of this film. She smokes a thin cigar, says very little and answers almost everything in two syllables. To her credit I will say that she was appropriately bad ass in this film, equal parts sexy and tough.

Sadly, this film was a complete bomb at the box office and an abysmal failure for Sam Raimi who started to doubt his abilities as a director. “I felt like I was a dinasour. That I couldn’t change with each film” But Im guessing that wasn’t the case. Raimi remains a great stylist in my book, he’s kind of lost touch with that in his recent films (Spider Man 3 and Drag Me to Hell) but Im hopeful that he still has a couple of great films in him. The failure of this film can be attributed to a common ailment in action films: having a female in the lead in a genre whose target audience is mostly males. I don’t get this because, shouldn’t guys be happy to get a western with an incredibly beautiful actress in the lead role? But whatever, films like Supergirl (1984), Red Sonja (1985), Barb Wire (1996), Elektra (2005), Aeon Flux (2005), Catwoman (2004) and Ultraviolet (2006), with very rare exceptions, continue to bomb at the box office. But of course, this could have to do something with the fact that these movies are pretty bad to begin with. I guess the real question would be why doesn’t Hollywood make better films with female heroes in them? You make a good action film, with a female lead and it will be a hit just as much as the ones with male leads in them. Look at Salt (2010) and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001), two examples of successful action films with a female playing the lead.

Sam Raimis stylish direction remains a major asset of this film

But forget that noise; Sharon Stone in The Quick and the Dead was bad ass. This film not finding its audience was a real tragedy because, not only is this film a great western, it’s also one of Sam Raimi’s best films. At least in my book it is. When Sharon Stone (one of the films producers) chose Raimi as the director for this project, she thought that Raimi showed promise in Army of Darkness and that The Quick and the Dead was going to be the film where he could really come full circle and fine tune his directorial skills, which he achieved wonderfully as far as Im concerned. The film is filled with many signature Sam Raimi camera moves. The lightning flash zoom in, quick camera moves and odd angles make this one a stylish western. Raimi gives it his own distinctive style by placing the camera in extremely interesting places. Like for example when characters load their guns, the camera is actually on the gun itself! In one scene a gunsman shoots his gun and the camera becomes the bullet…little things like that let you know that yes, you are watching a Sam Raimi film. That, plus it’s got the word ‘Dead’ in the title.

Aside from Raimi’s camera play, we also get memorable heroes and villains and a great story to go with them. The contests attracts all sorts of gunslingers to Redemption, each one of them a unique character. For example, Lance Henriksen plays a gunslinger named Ace, because he is renowned for being so great. He likes to do tricks with his pack of cards, which are all aces. We get another gunslinger who’s a gun for hire, another one is a ruthless ex-con, another one is a young kid, and so forth. Behind the characters lays a story of connected lives. They all live under the oppressive reign of Herod, the films villain played by the one and only Gene Hackman who eats up the screen whenever he appears. There’s this awesome scene in wich Sharon Stone is planning on shooting Herod down, but she is so intimidated by the words he speaks that she doesn’t even dare pull the trigger! Now that’s what I call a villain! On top of this, every other character on this film is played by a recognizable actor before they got famous. Russell Crowe is here playing a Priest who’s looking for redemption. He had an ugly past as a gunslinger and is looking to make his peace with God by becoming a priest. Leo DiCaprio plays ‘The Kid’ who also happens to be the son of Herod, the villain. Even Jigsaw himself is here playing a gunslinger who’s looking to kill ‘Lady’. All in all, this film has a solid cast! So much so, that if this film had been made today, with the exact same cast, it would have cost a hell of a lot more money then what it cost back in those days when a lot of these actors were virtual unknowns.

So let’s see, the cinematography is excellent, the music is top notch, the whole cast really makes the whole thing worthwhile, what’s not to like in this picture? Nothing! It is a great homage to Sergio Leone films and westerns in general. We have the lead without a name; we get the revenge that drives the plot of the film. We even get the helpless towns folk who can’t fight for themselves, so they end up looking for the right gunslinger to save them from the oppressive villain. And we got the showdowns at noon. Basically, everything and anything you could ever want to see in a western. This is a highly underrated Sam Raimi film in desperate need of some love and attention!

Rating: 5 out of 5