The Evil Dead (1981)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Sam Raimi
Studios: Renaissance Pictures
Starring: Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Hal Derich, Betsy Baker, Sarah York
Tagline: The Ultimate Experience in Grueling Terror; The Most Ferociously Original Horror Film of the Year
MPAA Rating: NC-17
Genre: horror, supernatural thriller, slapstick, black comedy, drama, action, gore
Scare score: B
Rating: B+

Plot overview: Five friends venture into a lonely cabin in the woods for spring break where they find an ancient text that awakens a terrible evil.

A cult classic in every sense of the word, this is the film that launched Sam Raimi (and Bruce Campbell)'s career as well as the first installment of the iconic franchise (of the same name). The story behind this hit horror franchise is really pretty interesting: Basically, producer Robert Tapert (married to Lucy Laweless) was roommates with Sam Raimi's brother in college, and over time the two became friends with a mutual interest in film and ultimately horror.  Match made in Michigan State heaven am I right? Two broke guys with useless degrees (or no degree at all) meet up with Campbell who has recently quit his job driving cabs, and the three young minds come together to write and produce this incredibly low-budget movie (~$375k) with a smash result.

Anyway, the gritty, difficult conditions the cast and crew had to suffer while filming this movie are what create the believable sense of dread and horror the movie boasts. In my opinion, it is a combination of this dirty, creepy cabin in Tennessee (where the whole cast and crew had to live and sleep during filming) plus the dangling, creeping, crawling, slanted camera shots that most unnerve us, leading to an overall uncomfortable and actually scary feeling while watching the film. Any time you have a small set to work in (aka a creepy, concrete, wooden, dirty, old cabin), small shots around doorways and hallways and cellars become your best friend to create a true atmosphere of horror and claustrophobia. Much like Ash (Campbell), the entire audience feels trapped during the movie, truly doomed with nowhere to escape to as the evil was just as much inside the cabin as without.

As far as plot goes, this movie follows some of the protocol of our well-known '80s flicks (this movie came out in the same year as both Halloween II and Friday the 13th Part 2) while simultaneously going so far as to truly coin the cabin in the woods as a horrifying and typical setting for the genre (perhaps with some kudos and inspiration going to Friday the 13th which was released a year earlier in 1980. Let's talk for a second about said cabin. Much like in other movies pertaining to the genre (Cabin Fever, Cabin in the Woods), the claustrophobic, old, and even grimy setting of such movies manage to play with our nerves from the very beginning. At least for me, being stuck in a small space that has already had the windows and doors broken down, unsure of where your assailant might enter through is one of the scariest situations— aka just about every scene of this movie.

The first installment of The Evil Dead has not yet entered into the overly absurd slapstick feeling that the sequels seem to rely on. I agree with the use of "black comedy" to describe this movie because at times you can't help but laugh, even if it is during a particularly gory scene. Speaking of which, one thing this movie certainly does and very much so is gore. Gore, fake blood, crazy (great!) makeup, puss/ milk, gore, ooze, goo, slime, muck, fake blood again, plus all other sorts of generally disgusting and disturbing substances (think Dead Alive at times)—cleverly paired with ('80s) humor, plenty of action, and a hero we find ourselves rooting for—was what put this movie on the map.

Fun fact: The now frequently used tagline "The Most Ferociously Original Horror Film of the Year" was coined by Stephen King when he saw this movie at the 1982 Cannes Film Festival. In an interview, King considered The Evil Dead his fifth favorite horror movie, resulting promotion and support from King propelled the low-budget film to great box office success worldwide.

*SPOILER ALERT*

The acting really isn't that bad here. We have the whole 'teenagers on break' thing going on, but without the typical sleaziness associated with those plots. While the acting in the beginning of the movie is pretty normal (random lines, small talk), the most impressive acting comes later from the possessed characters. I thought that the most unnerving (and equally most annoying) thing about this movie was the three girls—especially Cheryl (Sandweiss) and Linda (Baker)—when they were possessed. From the moment of their gruesome transformations, they do not ever stop shrieking and screaming, and their shrill noises frankly bug and upset the audience to the point that we, too, feel the psychological pressure that Ash and Scotty (Delrich) are dealing with. Campbell conveys a great sense of balance between true fear, emotional concern for his friends/ the loss of his girlfriend, and just the right amount of comic gestures.

The special effects are honestly not bad until the final scene. I was highly, highly impressed with the masks and makeup that characters had to wear especially after begin injured/ possessed. Unfortunately the climactic final scene becomes a bit hokey by modern standards when toiling claymation hurts the great progress that was made up until that point. Luckily, that same final sequence contains so much disgusting 'gore' (think various purees, goos, and bodily fluids) that we find ourselves squeamish enough to perhaps by distracted from the claymation (or not).

I'll briefly touch upon the infamous scene with Cheryl and the possessed, demonic tree branches and roots in the woods. That was a fairly weird sequence that disturbs a lot of viewers to this day. It makes us question was it necessary? Admittedly the scene was creepy and sensual, we're not sure of what we're seeing until it's too late maybe. It is perhaps the darkest scene in an otherwise not so dark (just bloody and creepy) horror movie.

Final critique: This movie is a fun and even disturbing watch. It is filled with plenty of action, screaming dead girls, pureed vegetables seeping from dismembered bodies, and a claustrophobic sense of doom. Then again, there's the pretty frequent one-liner or laugh that confuses us in our fear, making us question whether this is a comic book or true terror that we're witnessing. With just the perfect touch of literary inspiration stemming from H.P. Lovecraft, The Evil Dead explores both the teen and cabin in the woods genres of time period while drawing from hyper-hyper-animated Romero-esque zombie roots, all brought together with that uniquely '80s feeling. The result? An equally frightening and funny film sure to creep and gross you out no matter how many times you watch it.

The Exorcist (1973)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: William Friedkin
Studios: Warner Bros.
Starring: Ellen Burstyn, Jason Miller, Linda Blair, Max von Sydow
Tagline: The Movie You've Been Waiting For... Without the Wait.
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, terror, supernatural thriller, drama, exorcism, possession, religious occult
Scare score: B
Rating: A-

Plot overview: Recently-separated movie actress Chris MacNeil (Burstyn) is living in Georgetown with her friendly, spontaneous 12-year-old daughter Regan (Blair) and some staff. When Regan suddenly begins undergoing extremely drastic personality changes, Chris takes her to several doctors, who can only conclude that Regan should go to a psychiatrist. Chris, however, thinks that there is something much more fantastic and malevolent at hand. When Regan, who is now constrained to her bed due to her violent fits, appears physically altered and her personality has completely changed, Chris enlists the help of Father Damian Karras (Miller), a gifted psychiatrist and priest who is dealing with his faith. After seeking the help of the renown Father Merrin (von Sydow), both men attempt an exorcism to rid Regan of the demon possessing her.

If you ask anybody between the ages of 30 and 60 to name a horror movie, any horror movie, chances are they will name The Exorcist. There is something special about this film that scared—or maybe the word here is fazed—audiences and then stuck with them, something that people today still recount and it sends shivers down their spine. Horror Buff doesn't particularly love hopping on the bandwagon without giving the fad in question a good thinking over, so I have to admit that I was not enamored of The Exorcist after first seeing it when I was little. A coworker was talking to me about it recently while we discussed my love of horror movies, so I decided to revisit this classic. I guess I had to know exactly what it was about this movie that still scares people today.

Even if you're not into overkill, mainstream stuff, The Exorcist is a genre-defining classic. The movie is more artful than scary, relying on a few images that shock you and stick in your mind after the movie has ended. I have to admit, as I started this movie around 1 AM the weather took a turn for the worse outside my window, and I was able to enjoy this film during a pretty crazy wind and rainstorm. As I've said before, the ambience changes the movie-viewing experience entirely. Beyond the few scares this movie tosses our way, there is a general sense of uneasiness, and throughout the rest of the time we have a family struggle of which the drama certainly had me hooked early on.

What's weird about this movie? Nothing scary happens until about an hour into the film. Sure, there are a few subtle moments (I was really into the random flashes of that demon's face; would love to see a monster like that in modern horror), but the plot doesn't even beginning rolling into pretty far into the film. I thought the Ouija board was a fun touch, although I wasn't convinced that it was even important to the plot— is that how Regan first got possessed, or is it introduced as a cultural tool that introduces the possibility that Regan brought this on herself? Same goes for the small medallion that Father Merrin uncovers at the dig in Iraq. The multiple story lines in this movie struck me as being pretty bizarre in the fashion that they were ultimately edited together. It took such a long time to get to Regan's story, which, while everyone knows is the main point of the movie, in reality doesn't even take up too much time. We see practically just as much slow-moving background on Father Merrin (even though we don't know who the heck he is) and Father Karras as we do on the MacNeils.

One thing I did like about all the background was that it makes the characters more real, which I guess has a lot to do with the book on which this movie is based. I haven't read it, but I'm sure that Blatty, Friedkin, and crew knew exactly what they were doing. The dynamics between Burstyn and Blair are so genuine, so spontaneously realistic that you can't help but liking them. Blair is an incredible actress (although later in the movie it's not clear when it's actually her and when it's a doll with Mercedes McCambridge's voice) because you can't even tell she's acting. She just seems like a happy-go-lucky 12-year-old girl. This is one of the biggest challenges to Karras's faith: Why would such an innocent girl become a victim? What does that mean for the rest of humanity? The onset of her possession happens really quickly (hmmm), but the contrast afterwards is great. Out of all the possession movies I've begrudgingly seen, I think that my absolutely favorite possessed person has to be Regan/ Pazuzu.

What else is weird about this film that I wasn't crazy about? Now I certainly don't think that directors need to beat a dead horse, and I really can't stand dialogue for the sake of plot exposition, but you can't always take crazy leaps and expect people to follow. I acknowledge that I haven't read the book, so perhaps the movie was made with the understanding that many viewers wouldn't have as hard a time following along. Example 1: Father Merrin is called to check out the recently discovered dig site, and when he finds a small medallion and a carving he suddenly grows ill, freaks out, and 'has to leave.' And then he disappears for like an hour and a half. Alright. Later, Regan is showing her mom the Ouija board that she 'found in a closet' and we are introduced to this character of Captain Howdy. The Ouija board is a reference to one of America's most famous cases of possession, which Blatty's novel draws inspiration from. While we do see the planchette move by itself, therefore refusing to let Chris play along with Regan, we never see or hear it mentioned again, and even during a preliminary meeting between Father Karras and possessed Regan, when asked "Are you Regan's friend Captain Howdy?" the entity responds no. So is the Ouija board a red herring, or is Pazuzu just a master of deception, lying all over the place? I couldn't help but feel like this movie on several accounts jumps ahead and we miss out. Why are there bumps in the attic? What was there? A physical manifestation of the demon? Something else that ticked me off was the help in the house— did this movie ever explain that Sharon Spencer (Kitty Winn) was an assistant, or why she was living with the family? For half the movie I thought this was Regan's sister that Chris oddly didn't treat like a daughter. This was really confusing, but I guess it's in the book.

I think the special effects of the movie were really pretty good. In fact, I'd have to say that in the whole movie—forget the pea soup, the green slime, the mucus-y loogies-from-hell, the twisted necks, and even the crucifix being used as a weapon and other things—the scene that grossed me out the most was when Regan had to go to the hospital for tests and they like stuck that wire into her neck. The shooting blood and then even thicker needle really grossed me out. Perhaps the other memorable part about this particular classic is Pazuzu's use of profanity. Like keep your children away from this movie unless you want them acting like the offspring of a sailor and a truck driver. I think the fact that they filmed Regan's bedroom scenes in a refrigerated set was brilliant, because I hate in movies when it's supposed to be cold and you don't see any breath. I read that Friedkin kinda sorta abused his cast here, leading to some real and true reactions from various actors resulting from surprise or even pain sustained while filming. I also saw the version with the so-called "spider-walk," and I thought that while its placement within the film was awkward, the scene itself was a cool touch.

As far as acting goes this movie had a '70s touch to it, but the acting was both convincing and endearing. Call me crazy, but did anyone else find it ironic that while Burstyn plays an actress, I didn't think her acting in the beginning of the movie was that great? Regardless, she might have been my favorite character, but I found some scenes a little questionable earlier on in the film. I thought Jason Miller was the true main character of the movie (not sure how it is in the book), and while I felt like I was watching The Godfather, he did a good job. Not sure why Father Merrin is treated so importantly in the plot when his importance did not seem established to me, but I liked von Sydow's acting. As you know, I don't think Linda Blair could have done any better. A quick shout out to Reverend William O'Malley in the role of Father Dyer, because we share the same alma mater. You gotta love a good Jesuit-themed horror movie.

Final critique: You should see this movie, especially at this time of year. While I think there's much more to this movie than its horror, the scary scenes are fun and worth the wait. What I don't understand is why people, magazines, and conglomerate sites rate this movie the scariest movie of all time because it's quite simply not. Understandably, at the time of its release it might have been, especially because of the shocking language and gross imagery. What's strange about the 'scary moments' of this movie is that they're very memorable, but not very scary. Sure, you have a few head turns and a lot of slime thrown on people's faces, and the title song is certainly eerie, but these things last a brief amount of time and then the emphasis returns from horror to drama, which seems to me to have been the theme of this movie.

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Roman Polanski
Studios: William Castle Productions, Paramount Pictures
Starring: Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer
Tagline: Pray for Rosemary's Baby
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre: horror, supernatural thriller, drama, suspense, witches, cult, spawn of satan
Scare score: C+
Rating: A

Plot overview: Rosemary (Farrow) and Guy (Cassavetes) Woodhouse are a happy young couple living in a luxurious, new apartment on Manhattan's Upper West Side. Guy is a driven, aspiring actor, and Rosemary is a kind but naïve homemaker and hopeful mother-to-be. Although warned by their dear friend Hutch (Maurice Evans) about the strange and dark history of their new building, The Bramford, the young couple are happy in their apartment and are openly embraced by their elderly, eccentric neighbors Minnie (Gordon) and Roman (Blackmer) Castevet. After Rosemary conceives, she goes through an increasingly painful pregnancy, but she has Minnie to help her with home remedies and even the care of one of New York's top obstetricians, Dr. Sapirstein (Ralph Bellamy). As her concern about her unborn child grows greater, Rosemary also begins to learn about the possibility that Roman's family and friends practice witchcraft. Unfortunately, Guy becomes more distant as his acting career takes off substantially. Ultimately alone and scared, Rosemary becomes more desperate to protect her unborn baby, although soon she will realize it might be herself that needs the protection.

This movie is great. Hands down, it is a slow and steady, suspenseful success. Following the eerie (irritating) opening music, we find ourselves in a very real 1960s Manhattan. Rosemary is perfectly chic throughout the whole movie, from her mod minidress, to the wallpaper she puts up in the nursery, to her iconic Vidal Sassoon haircut. While the plot isn't something I personally believe to be plausible, the world that it takes place within most certainly was copied from Polanski and author Ira Levin's real life.

Let's start by talking about Mia Farrow. I mean, come on. She makes Rosemary such an interesting protagonist, even though she spends most the movie confused, in pain, or scared. While there isn't exactly enough depth to make her very realistic (mainly just a mother's instinct to protect her child), there is something really interesting about her. I enjoyed following her on her scary and uncertain journey through pregnancy and potential insemination by satan. Mainly I liked her look: mod, frail, cute, and determined. She was a truly perfect choice for this role.

The other character that sticks out for me, as she did for awards committees at the time, is Minnie Castevet. Ruth Gordon is a ridiculous character from her first scene to her last. The best part is, there are absolutely women like this living in Manhattan that you encounter from time to time on the subway or sidewalk: those old, loud, noisy, tacky, 'devil may care' types— you know to stay out of their way. Ruth turns Minnie into an almost preposterous character who, while annoying, we can still find to be endearing. The mystery behind the many characters in this cast leaves us questioning who is good and who is bad until the end, when perhaps we question our own definitions of 'good' and 'evil.'

I guess the only thing I don't love in this movie is that it drags on at times. At 136 minutes, this certainly isn't the longest film we've ever seen, but the lack of action makes it more noticeable. Not that this movie would benefit from much more action than it already has, but I'm just saying. We can only watch Rosemary wander around pregnant and in pain for so long.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Otherwise I kind of enjoy that any logical audience member goes into the movie more or less knowing what's going to happen. Honestly, we are as in on the plot as the rest of the coven, with only Rosemary being left out. *Irony* Still, any film that can pull this predictable plot off while maintaining an audience—and finding new fans even 50 years later—is a home run.

Final critique:  If you are looking for a wild, fast-paced ride of scares and jumps, this is not the movie you want. If you are looking for a deeper, suspenseful, and subtly terrifying horror classic, then you've come to the right place. I would recommend Rosemary's Baby to any viewers, as it is a relatively calm and all around enjoyable movie with only a few scares or disturbing images. Really excellent film right here, perfect for a rainy afternoon or a quite night in.