Movie Review: The Gift (2000)

The Gift (2000) directed by Sam Raimi

Annie Wilson (Kate Blanchett) lives in a small town in the American South. She has three boys and her husband died a year ago in a factory accident. She makes a living doing readings, using a special deck of cards and her psychic abilities. She also has dreams and visions, though much more rarely. Her clients include Buddy (Giovanni Ribisi), who has troubling and unclear memories of his father, and Valerie (Hillary Swank), whose abuse by her husband Donnie (Keanu Reeves) is pretty obvious without psychic abilities. Annie tells Buddy he needs to confront his memories so he can get past them and Valerie that she needs to leave her abusive husband. Donnie is very unhappy with the situation and threatens Annie and her children. Her oldest son Michael (Lynsee Provence) has been having trouble at the school, pulling Annie into meetings with the principle Wayne (Greg Kinnear). Wayne is engaged to Jessica (Katie Holmes), daughter of a local rich man who also cats around quite a bit. The situation gets more difficult and dramatic when Jessica disappears and her father enlists Annie's aid to find the body, which turns up in Donnie's pond. 

While this movie combines a mystery story with a psychic story, it works hard at balancing the two and maintaining a realistic tone. Raimi, who is famous for directing the original Spider-man and Evil Dead trilogies, keeps his cinematic style to a minimum here. Annie's psychic abilities are bare-bones and depicted as such, giving her clues to what's going on without giving her whole picture. The limited information keeps the mystery side of the story in suspense, as the various suspects in Jessica's murder all seem plausible. The cast does a good job all around, especially with Reeves acting counter to stereotype as a villain. The movie is neither hysterical or over-the-top, a straightforward story that delivers an interesting mystery with twists until the end.

Recommended. 

I watched this streaming on Kanopy, a free service available from many public libraries, in June 2025.

Movie Review: Army of Darkness (1992)

Army of Darkness (1992) co-written and directed by Sam Raimi

Ash (Bruce Campbell) is thrown into the 1300s AD by the evil force (an event that happened at the end of Evil Dead II). He is captured by Lord Arthur (Marcus Gilbert) who plans to execute him as an ally of Arthur's enemy, Henry the Red (Richard Grove). Back at Arthur's castle, they throw Ash into a pit where they expect him to die from the monsters that live inside. Ash beats them and emerges very upset. He orders Arthur to let Henry and his men go, then cuts a deal to get sent back to the future. The castle's wise man (Ian Ambercrombie) knows of a powerful book that has a formula that will send Ash home. It's the Necronomicon, the evil book that started all the trouble for Ash. He quests for the book, having bizarre and silly adventures along the way.

The movie is a departure for the Evil Dead films. While it still has the "splat-stick" gore comedy, the tone is much more comedic and embraces its medieval setting. There's plenty of horseback riding, swords, and arrows. The medieval characters all (or almost all) speak in Shakespearean style (even though Shakespeare was from the 1600s). Ash also develops into more of a hero, though mostly because he is forced to. He is a lot more competent at building things and chemistry (his car also came back in time, luckily he had a chemistry textbook in there!). By the end, he's become a leader/hero of the medieval people, fighting the Deadite army (that's what the locals call zombies) that attacks the castle. Of course, his incompetence at getting the Necronomicon is what caused the Deadite army to rise, so he's not completely heroic.

The plot is a bit haphazard, with many moments not making a lot of sense, even within the world Raimi creates. There is a director's cut of the film that fills in a lot of details and provides some more surreal and bizarre scenes, along with an alternate ending that is more in line with the way things go for Ash. From the commentaries and special features, it seems like the studio wanted a tighter film with a more upbeat ending. 

While the director's cut is more entertaining and makes more sense, the movie still has a lot of problems. The special effects run the gamut from impressive to dated, though the lower-budget effects stand out even more thirty years later. Ash's character arc is loopy, changing him from incompetent bungler to mechanical expert to sword-fighting hero with little credibility. He seemingly changes to suit the comedy or to move the plot along. Campbell gives a delightful performance, with plenty of comedy, often self-deprecating, making me delight in the absurd nonsense rather than chafe at it. Viewers have to be in a casual and indulgent mindset to enjoy the film.

Slightly recommended--when people ask me what my favorite movie is, I usually say "Ran is the best work of art, Raiders of the Lost Ark is the most fun, and Army of Darkness is my guiltiest pleasure." The movie is a big heap of dumb fun.

Movie Review: The Quick and The Dead (1995)

The Quick and The Dead (1995) directed by Sam Raimi

Ellen (Sharon Stone) is a gunslinger with a past who rides into the Old West town of Redemption. Redemption is under the heal of mayor Herod (Gene Hackman), who collects a ridiculously high tax from the locals. The town also hosts a shoot-out duel. A lot of low-lifes drift into town in hopes of winning the title of fastest draw and the $123,000 that goes to the winner. Of note are Cort (Russell Crowe), a former associate of Herod who has foresworn violence and passes himself off as a preacher (though he doesn't do any sermonizing), and the Kid (Leonardo DiCaprio), who loves showing off and runs the local gun shop. Rumor has it the Kid is also the son of Herod. Ellen joins the contest and each day, pairs of gunslingers face off each hour. As the number of contestants drop, some background is given for Ellen, revealing her motivation.

The movie is mostly focused on Ellen (Stone was a producer). Her back story is a bit predictable, providing a typical motivation for wanting to take down Herod. Hackman gives the best performance in the movie. His scenery chewing fits in with the hyperbolic visuals typical of Sam Raimi (who directed The Evil Dead and the original Spider-man trilogies). The rest of the cast is fine though Stone and DiCaprio are not very convincing as characters from the Old West. They don't have that hardness of appearance or demeanor that their characters should have; other characters are exaggeratedly ugly, making an even bigger contrast to Stone and DiCaprio. The tone is a little confusing too: The score is a pastiche of other Western scores, maybe for comic effect, and a lot of the visuals (like the zooming-in to someone's eyes during the shoot-outs) could be either a homage or a parody spaghetti westerns. The actors play it like a drama but some moments are too absurd to be taken seriously. The movie leaves the viewer guessing about the filmmakers' intent even after the end credits roll, making this an unsatisfying western.

Not recommended.

Movie Review: Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022)

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) directed by Sam Raimi

Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) has been having horrible dreams where he is fleeing with a teenage girl (Xochitl Gomez), fighting a large, seemingly undefeatable demon while trying to acquire a book of power. Strange wakes up to his own nightmare--his beloved Doctor Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams) is getting married to another guy. Strange goes to the wedding anyway and has an awkward time. During the high-rise reception, a fight break out in the streets below. It's a large, Avenger-class fight with vehicles flying through the air. Strange goes down to help and discovers a demon attacking the girl from his dreams. Wong (Benedict Wong) shows up and helps fight off the demon. They go off with the girl who claims she's from another universe. She says Strange's dream actually happened. She has the ability to travel between universes and, as proof, shows them the dead body of the Doctor Strange from her universe. She does not really have control over her powers and the demons are being summoned by someone who wants her powers. She's reluctant to trust this Doctor Strange since the one from her universe would have stolen her powers to keep them from the demon. Strange goes to recruit Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) to help protect the girl and fight the magical demons since Wanda has great magical powers. Things get worse from there.

Like most Marvel movies, the story moves at a swift pace and has tons of action and dramatic moments (and special effects). Unlike most Marvel movies, director Sam Raimi shows his style in the film. The storyline has many horror elements that Raimi is able to capitalize on (though the movie never really becomes a full-on horror). Magic never looked more occult in the Marvel universe. Many of the scenes of peril have a sharper edge. The traveling through different universes also showcases Raimi's creativity as does some transitions and other visual elements. And, of course, Bruce Campbell has a cameo. I am a huge fan of Raimi (who is most famous for directing the Tobey Maguire Spider-man films and the Evil Dead trilogy) so I was very happy with the film. It blends the best of typical Marvel films with the best of Raimi's distinctive style.

The movie also grapples with some larger issues. First, other people ask Strange if he is happy. Instinctively he replies yes but on reflection, he realizes a lot of things that would satisfy him are out of reach (like Christine) because of his powers and the subsequent responsibilities he has. Saving the world is not as satisfying for him either. These reflections lead into the other theme: Is Strange really a hero? The Stranges from other universes make reckless and/or selfish decisions that cause more problems than they fix. This Strange has a history of wanting to be in control and to "go it alone" which has had mixed results. The film doesn't explicitly resolve the issue. Strange is still a work in progress.

This movie is definitely a step up from the original Doctor Strange film and advances a lot of stuff in the larger Marvel cinematic storyline (which includes the series content from Disney+).

Recommended, highly for Raimi fans.

The Sequel Was Better? The Evil Dead vs. Evil Dead II

The Sequel Was Better? is a series of reviews looking at famous movies with sequels that are considered, rightly or wrongly, to be better than the original movies. Typically, sequels are a step down in quality, acting, and/or production value. But not always. See other reviews here.

The Evil Dead (1981) written and directed by Sam Raimi

Five friends (including Bruce Campbell as Ash) drive out to a remote cabin for a fun weekend out in the middle of nowhere. Too bad the cabin was previously used by an archeologist whose research into ancient Sumeria led him to discover The Book of the Dead, which includes incantations that bring demons into the world. The friends stumble upon the professor's research and play a tape he recorded, including the part where he recites the incantations. Outside the cabin, things start to go bump in the night (including the bridge they drove across, which is destroyed, leaving them stuck at the cabin). One by one, the friends get possessed and turn on their unpossessed companions. Bloody, gory mayhem and horror ensue with most of the cast dying in horrible agony as possessed monsters. Only Ash survives to the morning, but as he leaves the cabin the evil force runs him down on his way to the car. Yep, this is one of those horror movies where no one survives.

The movie is a cult classic that established Sam Raimi as a director and Bruce Campbell as a b-movie star. The gore level is so high that the film doesn't have an MPAA rating (it's certainly deep in NC-17 territory by today's standards). The budget was miniscule because, as Raimi's first movie, he raised money by pitching investments to almost anyone with cash to spare. The makeup is surprisingly fake and horrifying at the same time. The characters get possessed by demons and turn into white-eyed, grey-skinned, bloated versions of themselves.

What makes the film stand out is the creativity. Raimi uses a lot of weird angles and camera moves that enhance the atmosphere. The point-of-view shots of the evil presence traveling through the woods work especially well. Those shots are even creepier with the sound effects, which are generally excellent throughout the movie. The actors' voices are altered when they become demon-infested and that effect helps to sell the less convincing makeup.

The movie became infamous when it was released on video tape. The censors in England put it on the list of the video nasties, a list of films that were called "obscene" that had bypassed the UK's ratings board as they were released on video cassette rather than in theaters. The availability to children was the issue, since video rentals were much more readily available.

Evil Dead II (1987) co-written and directed by Sam Raimi

In perhaps the earliest example of a reboot, this sequel repeats the basic story beats of the first film in ten or fifteen minutes. Ash and his girlfriend Linda (Denise Bixler, the other three friends are nowhere to be seen) drive out to a remote cabin across a bridge. Their plans for a fun night end when he plays a tape left there by an archeologist that summons a demon that possesses Linda. Evil Linda has some fights with Ash. Ash survives to the morning, only to be run down by the evil force which possesses him on and off throughout the movie.

Meanwhile, the archaeologist's daughter has found more pages from the Book of the Dead and is rushing to the cabin to rejoin her father and mother to decipher more mysteries. She and her brother are stymied by the destroyed bridge and enlist a local redneck couple to guide them on a footpath to the cabin. They arrive to find an unconscious, bloody Ash and no parents. Naturally, they think he's killed them. Soon enough they discover the possessed body of the mother in the cabin's fruit cellar. Bloody, gory mayhem and horror ensue with most of the cast dying in horrible agony as possessed monsters. The movie ends with Ash being sucked through a portal to the year 1300, where he is enlisted to fight the "deadites" by the local knights, something recorded in The Book of the Dead (thus setting up Army of Darkness as sequel).

The movie benefits from a much larger budget and the same creative team working both behind and in front of the camera. They came up with new and creative ways to scare an audience but with a much more humorous and less sadistic edge.

So is the sequel better? Let's look at some points of comparison.

• SCRIPT--The first movie has a fairly lean script that's more about setting up horror scenarios and squalid scenes of suffering and death. It's almost like a haunted house amusement that has no restraints on what watchers can experience. As I said, the first movie is abridged and recreated in the first few minutes of the sequel, leaving out massive amounts of gore and three other characters. The story is then expanded with new and different characters, not just a bunch of late teen/early twenties horror fodder. The archeologist's daughter has more to do than just scream and be attacked by the possessed horrors (including her own mother, poor woman). She helps with incantations to get the evil out of the present day and back to the middle ages, where they had a more ready belief in demons and were more ready to deal with them. The second film has a lot more script to it, so advantage Evil Dead II.
• ACTING--The first film has a cast of mostly non-professional talent. They do a good job considering the circumstances and give good performances. The second film is more of a showcase for Campbell, who is more cartoonish and silly (and does a better acting job, too). His performance sets the tone for the film, which is a lot lighter than the first film. The other actors do a fine job with the more substantial roles given to them. Slight advantage to Evil Dead II.
• ADVANCES THE STORY/MYTHOLOGY--The second film swallows up the first's storyline and adds in a lot more content about The Book of the Dead. It references the film before and sets up the third film. The demons are more specific in their goals--beyond the sadistic torment, they definitely want to drag more human souls to Hell with them. The sequel also sets up more convincing ways to fight against the demons, making what little mythology there is in the Evil Dead franchise richer. Advantage Evil Dead II.
• SPECIAL EFFECTS--The low budget of the first film is most obvious in the makeup. While the all-white contact lenses are freaky-looking, a lot of the other makeup effects are less convincing. At the end of the film, some of the possessed characters rot away or disintegrate in obvious stop-motion gore that's disgusting but also a little unconvincing. In the sequel, Linda does a little bit of dancing which is reprised by her corpse after she is killed in a fascinating and creative stop-motion animation sequence. The dance sequence does not seem particularly realistic but does have a sense of humor. A lot of other visual effects (like ghostly apparitions or the forest coming alive) look much better thanks to the expanded budget. Advantage to the higher-budgeted sequel that uses its money well.
• VISUAL STYLE--The first film is very creative in its camera shots and various set-pieces designed to horrify the audience. There's a bit of humor but a lot more stuff to gross viewers out or make them jump from their seats or squirm in their seats. Occasionally the film seems too mean-spirited, especially in the infamous forest rape scene. The second film has a slightly lower level of gore and a much higher level of humor. The forest scene is reprised without the horrible ending. The biggest indication of the thematic switch is the scene in the sequel where Ash has to cut off his hand because "it's turned bad." While still attached to his arm, the hand tries to kill Ash (though smashing plates on his head is definitely more comic than horrifying). Ash uses a chainsaw to cut off the hand; he bandages his stump with some cloth and duct tape. He then has to battle his disembodied hand as it scurries around looking for some way to kill him. The scene is completely ridiculous and the filmmakers know it, so they play it for laughs rather than for shivers. The tonal shift toward humor makes for a much more palatable film. Advantage Evil Dead II.
• THE BIG FINALE--The first movie ends with an all out splattery, disintegrating goo fest that's more stomach-churning than legitimately scary. The very last scene of Ash being chased down by the evil force gives a bleak note to the self-described "ultimate experience in grueling horror" (Check the end credits, that's how they describe the film). The second movie ends with Ash being sucked into a portal that leaves him as a prophesied hero to the band of medieval knights who find him. Ash definitely thinks he's in a horrible finale but it is definitely less worse than being possessed by the evil force. Advantage Evil Dead II.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I watched The Evil Dead for only the second time in order to write this review. While the creativity is impressive, the film goes over the top as much as it can with the gore and the squirm-inducing horror. I admire what they accomplished on a micro-budget but can't really say that I enjoy the film. Evil Dead II I watched for the fourth time. The lighter tone makes it much easier to enjoy and a lot of elements (the effects, the story, the acting) are of a higher quality. Unless you prefer gut-wrenching gore, I don't see how you could prefer the first film.

The Sequel Was Better? Spider-Man vs. Spider-Man 2

The Sequel Was Better? is a series of reviews looking at famous movies with sequels that are considered, rightly or wrongly, to be better than the original movies. Typically, sequels are a step down in quality, acting, and/or production value. But not always. See more reviews here.

Spider-Man (2002) directed by Sam Raimi

Nerdy youth Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is unpopular in high school, thanks to his nerdiness. On a school trip he is bitten by a genetically enhanced spider. The bite gives him spider-powers like super-strength, wall-crawling, and web-shooting. At first, he wants to cash in on the powers, especially since his family is relatively poor and the awesome girl next door, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), loves her boyfriend with a car. Peter tells his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) he wants to study. Ben drives Peter to the downtown library and gives the famous "with great powers come great responsibility" speech. Peter is uninterested and secretly goes off to a third-rate wrestling match where he can win three thousand dollars if he stays in the ring for three minutes with their champion, Bonesaw. Peter dresses in a completely amateur Spider-Man suit that hides his identity. He knocks out Bonesaw in two minutes, which means the organizer only pays him one hundred dollars. Peter leaves annoyed. As he's headed to the elevator, a two-bit crook robs the organizer and flees to the elevator. The organizer shouts for Peter to stop the crook but Peter refuses out of spite. Peter goes back to meet Uncle Ben at the library only to discover him shot by a carjacker. Ben dies. In anger, Peter chases the carjacker (who has the police in pursuit) to a warehouse. Peter corners the carjacker, only to discover he is the two-bit crook that he could have easily stopped earlier in the evening. Wracked with guilt, Peter decides to use his super-powers to fight crime. Which is a good thing because a super-criminal is about to show up.

Peter's best friend in high school is Harry Osborn (James Franco), the son of wealthy scientist and industrialist Norman Osborn (Willem Defoe), head of Oscorp. Norman is trying to secure a military contract for a super-soldier serum but the serum is not quite ready for human trials. The general deciding the contract has it in for Norman and will go with a different company in two weeks if Oscorp has no solid results. Norman decides to use the serum on himself. It gives him enhanced strength. His company has also develop a glider and an armor suit, which disappear. When the other company demonstrates their military-grade exoskeleton, the Green Goblin shows up and destroys both the exoskeleton and the observers, including the general. So Osborn gets the contract and the money comes rolling in. He has no memory of what he's done--the serum has obviously caused an alternate, less inhibited personality to emerge. Later, Oscorp's board decides to sell the company out from under Norman, forcing the Goblin on another murderous rampage. Norman wakes up the next morning with no real memories of what happened. His other personality comes closer and closer to the surface as the movie goes on.

Naturally, the Green Goblin and Spider-Man come into conflict. At first, the Goblin wants to recruit Spider-Man to be an ally. Peter wants none of it. To convince him, the Goblin goes after Spider-Man's friends and acquaintances. Peter has been working at the Daily Bugle taking pictures of Spider-Man. The Goblin shows up and threatens editor-in-chief J. Jonah Jameson (J. K. Simmons), who refuses to name names. Peter quickly changes and fights the Goblin. Later, Osborn figures out Peter is Spider-Man, putting both Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and Mary Jane in danger. Spider-Man resists the path of darkness and the Goblin gets accidentally killed in their last confrontation. Norman's dying request is that Peter not tell Harry he is the Green Goblin. Spider-Man takes Norman back to his penthouse. Harry witnesses Spider-Man there and assumes he killed Norman. At the funeral, Harry thanks Peter for being his best friend and vows to kill Spider-Man. Mary Jane professes her love for Peter but he says they can only be friends (even though he loves her) because he knows she will be in danger if they stay together.

The film was a huge hit when it came out. Special effects had finally gotten good enough to make a superhero look okay on the big screen. Some of the computer-generated effects don't hold up as well today. It's kind of like the effects in the original King Kong--they were spectacular for the day and contemporary audiences should make allowances thanks to the other fine qualities in the film.

The acting is good. Maguire does a fine job as the young and earnest Peter Parker who has to deal with so many issues--money, love, responsibility, etc. Willem Defoe occasionally chews the scenery with his performance but is mostly good. His depiction of the two personalities works well and makes for an interesting contrast with Peter trying to deal with being Spider-Man and Peter Parker at the same time. Osborn goes crazy (which may be a side-effect of the serum) where Peter learns to be a better person. Cliff Robertson hits everything well as Uncle Ben. Simmons is great as loud-mouth publisher Jameson, stealing the scenes he's in.

The story is classic. Spider-Man's origin is probably the best of all superhero origins. Peter is a relatable character who goes through a lot of growing pain. The twist of the carjacker being the two-bit crook works extremely well. The filmmakers do a great job moving the story to the big screen. They also set up a lot of other characters and give them more depth and understanding than you'd expect from a comic book movie. Jameson is a jerk but he sticks up for Peter by not naming him. Mary Jane has abusive parents and a hard time managing boyfriends (she dates a jerk in school and then dates Harry). The ending where the hero doesn't get the girl but gives her up because of his superhero calling only makes Peter more sympathetic and respectable.

Spider-Man 2 directed by Sam Raimi

Peter is still pining for Mary Jane and still struggling with jobs and school. The super-hero work keeps getting in the way. He can't make it to class on time, or the pizza delivery job on time, and he's tired of feeding Spider-Man pictures to the Daily Bugle which continues to vilify the web-slinger. Peter's best friend, Harry Osborn, constantly badgers Peter to find out who Spider-Man is so he can get revenge for his father's death. Mary Jane is acting on Broadway and Peter can't even make it on time to see the play because of Spider-Man obligations. If that isn't enough stress, Aunt May's house is under foreclosure and Peter seems to be losing his spider-powers.

The only up-side in Peter's life is meeting Doctor Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), a physicist who is working with Oscorp to develop cheap and sustainable fusion energy. Octavius isn't just a scientific mentor, he also provides relationship advice. Octavius's wife, a charming and intelligent woman, is at the lab. She has a degree in Literature. The couple recommends Peter use poetry to win the woman he loves. They also invite Peter to the initial test of the fusion engine.

At the test, Octavius attaches four mechanical arms to help him handle the nuclear reaction. The arms have artificial intelligence to help them work better. Octavius has an inhibitor chip to protect him from the AI since the arms are attached to his nervous system. The reaction destabilizes and Octavius can't get it contained. The ensuing accident kills Octavius's wife and damages the arms, specifically the inhibitor chip. Peter changes to Spider-Man and pulls the plug before the reaction explodes. Harry is furious that the experiment fails; Octavius is taken to the hospital. The surgeons try to remove the arms. Now that they are uninhibited, the arms kill everyone in the operating room and drag Octavius out. In a chilling scene, Octavius tries to reason with the arms but winds up agreeing with them that they need to complete the experiment, no matter the cost. To get financing, Octavius robs a bank--the very bank where Peter and Aunt May are trying to refinance her house. Peter changes to Spider-Man and another fight breaks out. May is kidnapped by Octavius and Spider-Man manages to save her. Octavius rebuilds his experiment on an abandoned wharf.

Peter finds out from MJ that she is engaged to John Jameson, son of Bugle editor and Spider-Man hater J. Jonah Jameson. He has a breakdown and his powers completely vanish. Peter gives up being Spider-Man and puts his regular life back together. He starts going to school, manages to repair his broken relationship with MJ (though she's marrying the other guy), and gets a little peace with his disgruntled landlord. He even gets the courage to tell Aunt May about his role in Uncle Ben's death without mentioning that he is Spider-Man.

But Peter is haunted by the crimes going on around him and is forced to get back in the game when Octavius kidnaps MJ and demands that Peter deliver Spider-Man. Octavius and Harry have a deal--Harry will provide more of the nuclear fuel if Octavius delivers Spider-Man alive. Octavius and Spider-Man have another harrowing battle on an elevated train. Octavius rips out the controls, creating a runaway train that Spider-Man saves. The effort exhausts him and Octavius takes him to Harry. Harry unmasks Spider-Man before killing him and is naturally shocked to find his best friend. Peter tries to appeal to Harry's better nature but Harry is too shocked to do anything.

Peter races to the wharf where Octavius is finishing his experiment. MJ is tied up in the background. Peter subdues Octavius and appeals to his better nature when the new reactor goes out of control. Octavius doesn't want to die a monster and sacrifices himself to stop the nuclear reaction. Peter frees MJ and reveals his identity and his love for her. He explains that's why he has refused to date her, to keep her safe. She reluctantly accepts this.

Later, MJ flees her wedding and goes to Peter's apartment, where she tells him she is willing to take on the risk of being with him because she loves him and he needs someone to save his life. They kiss and then hear a police siren. She tells Peter, "Go get 'em, Tiger." Meanwhile, Harry has discovered his dad's secret room full of Green Goblin paraphernalia. Cue the end credits.

So is the sequel better? Let's look at some points of comparison.

• SCRIPT--The first film is slightly infamous for overusing the "With great power comes great responsibility" line. Rewatching the film, it isn't used as often as I thought, though they do hammer that point home with the subtlety of a sledge hammer. The script does a great job translating the origin story to the big screen. It also handles the large cast well, not leaving any main characters one-dimensional. The second movie follows suit, though Doctor Octopus is more well-rounded than Green Goblin. Without having to go through the origin story, there's more time to be creative--putting Peter in the worst situations, dealing with his doubts about being a hero, and showing the strain on his relationships with just about everyone. The sequel has a lot more comedy which fits well with Spider-Man. Slight advantage to the sequel.
• ACTING--Maguire and Dunst are good in their roles, as are the supporting members of the cast, in both movies. The big difference is the villain for each movie. Dafoe is good as Osborn, less so as Green Goblin. His best scenes deal with the dual personalities of Osborn, portraying both characters. Occasionally he does chew the scenery. He's a bit of a father-figure to Peter more than to his own son Harry. Molina's Octavius is a more sympathetic character who also has to deal with the alternate personality of his mechanical arms. He is also a father/mentor figure with some genuine care for Peter, making his moral recovery at the end more believable and satisfying. Molina does a solid job with a great character. Advantage sequel.
• ADVANCES THE STORY/MYTHOLOGY--As I said above, the filmmakers did a great job with the origin story and dealing with the role of a hero, which requires a lot of sacrifice. The second movie follows on this tradition. Peter has lots of problems exacerbated by the heroics robbing time from his regular life. The second film looks at the bigger picture of being a hero. When Peter quits being Spider-Man, it isn't just that crime goes up in the city. A lot of people look up to him and are inspired by him. Aunt May has a great speech about how important it is to have heroes. MJ also has a great speech at the end about Peter's need for someone to save his life (which is admittedly in shambles). She is willing to sacrifice for him, as are many other characters earlier in the film. Advantage to the sequel.
• SPECIAL EFFECTS--Both film look a little dated in the special effects department. The movies have a weird mixture of convincing and unconvincing CGI. This category is a tie.
• VISUAL STYLE--Both films have Raimi's distinctive style. The transitions are very imaginative in the first film. The second film shows more of Raimi's horror background, with intense scenes when the reactors overreact and at the hospital where the doctors take power saws to the mechanical arms and the arms fight back. The movie does have a suprisingly effective montage of Peter's life getting back together set to "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head." The second movie is a bit more confident in the materials and presentation. Advantage sequel.

FINAL THOUGHTS
Both movies are well done. The first one capture's the origin story perfectly and establishes a lot of characters. The sequel builds on this foundation and is a little more relaxed and confident with the material. Both are good movies, with the second one improving on the first.

Book Review: The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi by John Kenneth Muir

The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi by John Kenneth Muir

Sam Raimi made his name in movies when he made The Evil Dead, a small budget, independently made horror film that became a seminal work in 1980s horror. His career moved in fits and starts. He is visually inventive with a style that is distinctive. His genius for visual storytelling can be seen in the Evil Dead sequels, his early and original superhero movie Darkman, and the oddball western The Quick and the Dead. Having burned out a bit on style, he shifted gears to more character-driven films like A Simple Plan and The Gift, where the directing doesn't overwhelm the story. He had a return to visual creativity when he was selected to direct the 2002 Spider-Man, a massive box office hit that was well-regarded critically for a superhero film.

Author John Muir gives a comprehensive review of Raimi's films, with plenty of original interviews from cast, producers, and crew members to fill in the details on the films. Muir starts by discussing Raimi's early life and work with Super 8 cameras, including college projects that gave him an early experience of audience feedback and what works (and doesn't) for creating an entertaining movie. Each subsequent chapter focuses on one movie and goes fairly in-depth about the production, the critical reception, and the author's own thoughts about the film. The book (published in 2004) ends with a preview of Spider-Man 2 (which came out in 2004).

Oddly, he has no interviews with Raimi himself, relying on previously published interviews in magazines and trade papers. Other major figures like Raimi's usual co-producer Rob Tappert or go-to actor Bruce Campbell are also only present through secondary sources. The book is still rich with detail on the films.

Muir expresses his love for Raimi's character quite thoroughly. Raimi is famous for wearing a jacket and tie as a director, taking the job very seriously as did great directors before him like Alfred Hitchcock. Raimi is also well-liked as a director, able to get the shots and performances he wants through gentleness and enthusiasm rather than dominance and anger. He's also open to good ideas from others that enhance the storytelling. Actors have sought him out for their projects and generally are very positive about working with him.

Muir also loves the films themselves, sometimes bending over backwards to praise even the lesser films. His critical analysis is on the mark with movies like Evil Dead II or A Simple Plan, but he struggles to find praiseworthy aspects to Crimewave or The Quick and the Dead, falling back on academic distinctions to create positive opinions about every movie.

The book is a fascinating look at Raimi as a movie director, giving insight into his character, his creativity, and his struggles with low budgets and with Hollywood nonsense. It is occasionally uncritically positive about the movies, making it a little less convincing overall. Still, for fans of Raimi's work, it is a great read.

Recommended.

Movie Review: Evil Dead (2013)

Evil Dead (2013) directed by Fede Alvarez

Here's another film I meant to see last summer, though unlike Pacific Rim, World War Z and Much Ado About Nothing, I debated long and hard about whether I wanted to see this one or not. Too long, thus I missed it in the theatres here.

It used to be in Hollywood, aspiring film makers could break into the scene by making a low-budget noir thriller (see Blood Simple) or horror film (see Night of the Living Dead).  Sam Raimi and his friends got into the business by making The Evil Dead, a low-budget horror movie famous (or infamous) for pushing the boundaries. The movie is pretty raw. The story is fairly basic--five 18-to-25 year-olds go to a cabin in the woods where they plan to have a lot of fun but unleash a demon who starts possessing and killing them one by one. The special effects were the best they could do on a low budget and work for the most part. The violence and gore and scares are so extreme that they sometimes become comic. Bruce Campbell's over the top performance as Ash begins his amazing career. The movie became a cult hit and was also banned in Britain during the video nasties scare of the 1980s.

Fast forward 30 years. A high-budget (comparatively speaking) remake is made with the backing of the original film's producers. The story is mostly the same, except that the five young people come to the cabin to help one of them kick her drug addiction (which helps explain why they don't run away immediately when she tells them about the crazy evil things happening to her). The special effects are top-notch, to the fault of being too realistic. The violence and gore and scares are extreme but don't cross the line into comedy. Jane Levy's solid performance as going-cold-turkey Mia carries the viewer through the excruciating horror. The movie, while not a big hit, performed well enough at the box office to get a sequel greenlit.

This movie has a lot of visual and audio references to the first film (and its sequels), which is to be expected, but has nothing iconic of its own to offer. I liked the set-up which makes their reluctance to leave more plausible, though both this film and the earlier one show that escape is impossible regardless of the characters' decisions. So the set up is a welcome but not necessary addition. The change in tone, losing the humor and the over-the-top rawness, is a big problem. Without the humor to buoy up the viewer, the gore gets too grim and unbearable. The realistic depiction of the gore doesn't help. When Bruce Campbell cuts his evil hand off in Evil Dead II, the filmmakers play up the ridiculousness of what's happening (at the end the hand goes scurrying away like Thing from The Addams Family). A similar scene in this film has a woman (not Mia) chopping most of her arm off with an electric kitchen knife, but it's just an unpleasantly realistic-looking experience--gore for its own sake, which is repulsive in every possible sense. Mia's plight is pitiable but truly unpleasant. Perhaps there's heroism in her survival to the end but watching the movie is more like a forced march than a triumphant arrival. The film has almost nothing to offer but a lot of unpleasantness.

Movie Review: Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) directed by Sam Raimi

MPAA rating

PG for sequences of action and scary images, and brief mild language

ZPAA rating

 This is a bit scarier than The Wizard of Oz, so 7 or 8 and up?

Gore level

1 out of 10--Some transformations from good to evil, like how the witch got her green on. The flying monkeys are a bit scarier, with fangs and growls but no actual gore.

Other offensive content

Two "damns" are spoken; Oz is a charlatan, which includes tricking women into having romantic feelings for him; some fight scenes including people and objects being thrown through the air; the balloon ride into Oz is pretty intense.

How much fun

Sam Raimi is a visual master and there is plenty of comedy in the story, so it is a lot of fun.

Synopsis & Review

It takes a lot of hubris to make a sequel to a beloved classic. It takes even more skill to craft something remotely worthy of such a classic. I think of the novels Scarlett, a sequel to Gone With the Wind, and Cosette, a sequel to Les Miserables, and shudder. The news of a film prequel to The Wizard of Oz struck me as a blow to fond memories of a childhood classic. I was completely uninterested and ready to write it off until I found out the director's name--Sam Raimi.

Raimi is famous for directing the Tobey Maguire Spider-man movies, though he has had a long history of horror, fantasy, drama, and comedy film making. Often, all in the same film. He has a distinctive and imaginative style. If anyone could pull off another Oz movie, it would be him….or Stephen Spielberg.

Oz the Great and Powerful tells how Oscar Diggs came from a traveling circus in Kansas to the land of Oz. He runs a magic show for the carnival and wants to be a great flimflam artist but he can't make it to the big time. He tells a girl in Kansas who wants to marry him that he doesn't want to be a good man, he wants to be a great man. She wants a good man but he's not interested in small town life. After his fateful balloon ride, Diggs is mistaken for the prophesied wizard who will defeat the wicked witch and become the just and benevolent ruler of the land of Oz. Diggs is, of course, no wizard, but he is a man of great ambition, and the fabulous wealth of Oz is a great temptation to him.

The story follows a rather predictable arc, especially for anyone who has seen the original film. Nevertheless, the movie is full of invention and visual splendor, perfectly suited to Raimi's cinematic style.The actors are fairly good, though James Franco as Oz gives only an adequate performance in what should be a star-making larger-than-life role. It is a devilish hard mark to hit and I don't know who would have done a better job blending the ambition and the heart that are required for the role.

Overall, the movie is a joy to watch and I am sad that I didn't see it in the theater in its full glory. I watched it on a plane and want to watch it again on a bigger screen with better sound. It's not a classic but it is fun and might grow more charming with repeat viewings.

Movie Trailer