This week kicked off with Sam Raimi’s 1981 horror classic The Evil Dead, lauded as a milestone in the genre by its fans. You may remember in my first post I reviewed Bubba Ho-Tep and was mightily impressed. Compelled by the quality of this film, an exploratory mind, reckless spending habits and most importantly, a student discount card, I invested in a three disc DVD copy of My Name is Bruce, Bruce Campbell’s latest film, largely because Bubba Ho-Tep was included in the package. Having read a couple of (admittedly quite negative) reviews of My Name is Bruce, I became aware that much of the humour would be in the form of deictic references to Campbell’s previous body of work. To that end, then, I decided that I ought to familiarise myself with the Campbell canon, starting, obviously, with the Evil Dead trilogy (the two sequels to be reviewed in a future installment!).
The Evil Dead, then: even with no previous knowledge of the film, one could probably hazard a reasonably accurate synopsis of the plot. Five teens, including Campbell as our hero Ash (who, incidentally, spends most of the film struggling under a book shelf), travel to a dilapidated cabin in the woods for a holiday. Events conspire that lead to the awakening of ‘evil’ in the woods and soon our teen heroes are turning into zombies and killing each other with violent delight. Who will survive and what will be left of them (a biscuit for anyone who knows what I’m referencing)?
Despite its inevitable predictability, The Evil Dead stills entertains, due mostly to the canny flair of Raimi’s direction, the brutal shocks and none-more-black humour. It may sound clichéd, but The Evil Dead really is a crash-course in low budget film-making, making up in creativity what it lacks in capital. Raimi’s camera pokes and pries around locations and characters like an ADD voyeur, presenting us with increasingly interesting shots as the film progresses.
The gore and violence, of which the film boasts an infamous reputation, have a real wince-factor. The notorious ‘tree-rape’ scene is particularly nasty and acts as a sign of things to come and pretty much urinates all over the boundaries of good taste. The home-made effects are impressive in their repulsiveness.
Ultimately, whether or not you like The Evil Dead depends on your feelings towards the horror genre. Personally, I have little interest in it and have only indulged previously in horrors with that came with large dose of humour (Severance, Slither, Shaun of the Dead, et al) and The Evil Dead hasn’t managed to change my opinion in the least. The acting and dialogue are atrocious and the the violence is gratuitous (especially in the end sequence, talk about overkill) and I can’t help but feel a little subtlety would add to the creepiness. Still, I would be lying if said I wasn’t looking forward to the apparently superior Evil Dead 2.
This week’s Latin American film is La Vida es Silbar (Life is to Whistle or Life is Whistling) by the celebrated Cuban director Fernando Pérez. The plot concerns the problematic lives of three individuals, unknowingly watched and played by omniscient narrator Bebe, a teenage orphan girl played by the director’s daughter. Bebe uses her apparent influence over the individuals to change the course of their lives to make them happy. The three are Elpidito, a waster who craves his estranged mother’s love, Julia, an older woman with a guilty past and Mariana, a ballerina torn between a promise to god and her love for her leading man.
The film is an unorthodox curiosity and much more than its component parts. While the separate storylines are hugely melodramatic, there are moments of genuinely impressive cinema here too, notably the scene in which Julia’s doctor chases her through the streets of Havana (the doctor being just one of the excellent and idiosyncratic supporting cast). The ending is ambiguous, which may annoy, but the film is a delightful oddity and you may find yourself becoming very emotionally invested, should you decide to give it a chance.
Finally, I saw Watchmen last night. I went in quite dubious of whether or not I was going to enjoy the film, having heard mixed reviews and being all too aware of its indulgent running time of two hours and forty minutes (as some of you are aware, I feel that if a director cannot tell their narrative in less than two hours, they should go back to the drawing board or make a TV series). Above all, I was determined to judge the film on its own merits and disregard its comic origins. Whether or not this is the ideal way to view the film is another matter.
I’ll start off by saying Watchmen is a hell of a lot better than I thought it would be. I would even go to as far to admit that I really enjoyed it. The story is a kind of murder-mystery, cold war, conspiracy thriller with superheroes. And it really is quite good. The problem is, judged in comparison to the thrilling graphic novel, the film inevitably pales. But does it work by itself?
That’s a question that I can’t really answer, having read the book about eighteen months ago (it would be interesting to hear what someone who hasn’t read it thinks) and aware of its subtleties and depths left unexplored by its cinematic counterpart. In any case, the question may be moot. Zack Snyder has admirably not attempted to appeal to the uninitiated, a bold move, but apparently one that has paid off, given the film’s box office dominance last week (either the marketing department must be applauded or Watchmen has a much less niche appeal than I suspected).
The adaptation really is laudable, managing to create a coherent plot out of the sprawling morass of story in the source, and is probably the most impressive element of the film. The significantly altered ending, whilst less exciting than the original, is elegantly implemented and arguably makes more internal sense than Alan Moore’s. The cast are largely excellent, with the exception of Ozymandias, who due in part to his slightly altered role and an off target interpretation of the character (it seems unfair to pick on an individual in an ensemble performance; it’s not that Matthew Goode does much wrong, the rest of the cast just shine brighter).
Problems include the minor and the major. Small grumbles would be the slightly anachronistic casting and Nixon’s nose, whereas more concerning matters include the dreadful soundtrack, which jars and tracks often seem unsuited to the on-screen images (see the dreadful implementation of Hallelujah and 99 Red Balloons - just because a song is from the time period in question and is about the cold war does not immediately justify its inclusion Mr Snyder!). Also the aesthetic of the art direction seems incompatible with some of the narrative’s loftier political and philosophical themes. The film can’t quite decide if it’s a serious one or just a neon tribute to a serious comic. Questions of peace at what cost and vigilantism are undermined by gaudy visuals, blue penises and fake noses, often making the film rather snigger-worthy, perhaps highlighting the kind of things comics can get away with that films cannot.
In spite of all this, the film, to a seasoned Watchmen reader at least, is a highly enjoyable romp and, if nothing else in this time of economic crisis, provides great value for money. Whether non-readers will ‘get’ or enjoy it is another matter (do comment if this includes you, I’m very curious to hear what you think).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment