•
Rating: First of all, let me give you a brief history with all Raimi films that address the subject, with original and translated titles so as not to drive mad anyone who has no idea what we're talking about:
- Within the Woods (1978) never translated into Italian, so you can watch it, dear Anglophobe, there are 4 useless dialogues and everything is so poorly seen and dark that to understand something you have to read the plot online. So yes, maybe you don't need to find it...
- The Evil Dead (1981) in Italian La casa
- The Evil Dead 2 (1987) In Italian La casa 2
{Then there's also: "Army Of Darkness! (1993) in Italian "L'armata delle tenebre"; but that's a proper sequel that in about 5 minutes lives independently (the best ever produced by Raimi) so, as cool as it is and somewhat connected to La casa, it might be better to mention it in a separate section (this in curly brackets... cool eh...)}
Hello there, on Wednesday, I went to see "La casa."
A small long introduction: it’s 2013 and for over a decade, the movies coming out of Hollywood are either reboots of already existing stuff, or crazy flicks based on American comics (one of the dumbest comic markets I know, but that's a matter of taste), or sequels of things that were decent only in the first episode (I don't know if any of you are thinking "Saw fifty-seven in 4D and smell-o-vision," in that case: I was thinking about it too, there's a bond between us brother), or movies based on video games, or remakes of old films, or... remakes of new films, just like that: maybe people are tired of rewatching films from thirty years ago, let's shoot ourselves the remake of stuff released ten years ago and produced (beautifully) in another country, so we flood it with crap—that some things we just can’t do—but who cares, we're Americans, and we do whatever the hell we want.
It’s been about ten years that probably in Hollywood you need to look for screenwriters under stones with a dowsing stick. Perhaps the screenwriters with guts all work in television serials, but I have strong doubts about it. In a time of crisis, the dream factory has basically reinvented itself into a safer and more dishonest recycling industry. It's one of the few cases where a waste-to-energy plant would be more productive.
And so, yes, out of 100 films, 90 will have titles that remind you of something, or make you think that whoever is talking to you has lived the last 10 years on Mars. For example, when they told me you could go see the first Spider-Man, a spontaneous response came out: excuse me, but it came out in 2001... And that shabby Andrea replied: "but noooo the reboot..." I swear, I haven’t digested the Spider-Man reboot yet. Not because it's bad, that would be a secondary factor, it's the usefulness of the thing that escapes me. More than anything, I don't understand why people, including myself, went to see it. But never mind, I'm straying too far, let's go back to the trails of Raimi and this Alvarez.
So, what is "La casa"? "La casa" is the remake of a 1981 Raimi film for which in 1987 Raimi himself shot a remake and originally, in 1981 it was born as a remake of the short Within The Woods by... Raimi. Tough, huh: Raimi makes a short, then remakes it, then remakes the remake and, twenty-six years later, produces (along with Bruce "Ash" Campbell) a further remake but of the first film (the one from '81) so you could say thirty-two years have passed... It makes your head spin, and even a bit pisses you off, let's be honest.
Why this amazing idea of remaking the remake which they had already remade?? Well, money (and if I may add this is quite a silly question).
So how does one approach a film that was originally a semi-experimental short, evolved into niche horror in intention and success in result, and in its third grotesque incarnation, conquers half the world with giggles and jokes???
So, as soon as I heard it was coming out, I thanked God that it was the remake of "Evil Dead" (which would actually be "La casa") and not "L'armata delle tenebre" (when we have the disease of title changing, I don't see why we absurdly didn’t decide to title it "I want to be like Bruce Campbell in this movie when I grow up which is the coolest ever or almost!" where "cool" you can't quite tell if it refers to "Bruce Campbell" or "film," and that's intentional).
So, I don’t know, too complicated trying to understand what it could be, the most important thing was what it wasn't: it wasn't a complete blasphemy, and thus, with the theaters open at three euros flat, you could go to the cinema hoping to throw some popcorn at the head of the guy in front.
And so we come to the film.
So (never start a sentence with so: it sucks) the film is about a group of kids who end up in a house in the woods for reasons I won’t explain to you (which are moderately original, by the way) and here they come into contact with things hidden in a cellar that awaken evil. Evil takes over the kids one by one, and there's blood galore, amputations, yellow eyes, death here, trees raping women, death there.
What?
No...
I'm telling you, no...
Hell no, it's not a spoiler... it's "La casa"!!!
Oh, you had never seen "La casa"... Well, in that case, it is a spoiler, but you're a cinema enthusiast of too low a rank for your disapproval to touch me in any way. You hadn't seen "La casa" and read this page? Tough luck, learn to do things properly.
As I was saying: that's the film, Alvarez adds a bit of his own things (a totally useless intro, a monumental finale, and three or four other goofball things) so that even if you know all the other "chapters" (or remake of remakes) by heart, you enjoy the film.
But it’s not so much the new things in the film that make it...I haven't said it yet... I’m saying it now. I cross myself like a football player before swearing on the field and I say it:
It’s not so much the novelties added that make the film THE BEST OF THE FOUR... I said it, yes, I said it, don’t agree? Tough. Stop throwing crap at me and let me finish.
What makes this "La casa" great is what's old in it. This unknown Alvarez holds you in your seat for almost 2 hours or less making you believe that Raimi hasn’t lost his touch, that Drag Me To Hell was just a joke, and now he’s back more angry and in better shape than ever. Unfortunately for Raimi that’s not the case: he didn’t direct the film... Unfortunately for Alvarez, it’s not very clear what he could give on a script, not say his own, but not interpreted three times by another guy... But the viewer leaves happier than ever.
I’ll say a few more little things I want to say but don’t feel like continuing to write, and then I invite you all to go out and see it.
Number one
What is missing in this film?
Bruce Campbell is missing, but if you stay seated until the end then you feel like jerking off, so it’s okay.
Thing[spoilerish] number two
How do you remove Bruce Campbell and still leave a big guy as the protagonist?
Change protagonist: here THE protagonist is A protagonist, but you find out halfway through the film, almost near the end... Well, spoiler or not, I told it here.
Thing number three
Is it as silly funny as "The Army of Darkness" and "The Evil Dead 2"?
Well, "The Evil Dead 2" never made me laugh all that much, "The Army of Darkness" yes... And yet no, here you don’t laugh so much, but it does give you two or three smiles, part for the fan service, part because there are a couple of good tricks.
Thing number four
I’m a "La casa" fan, I want Bruce Campbell as the protagonist, plus I want the special effects made with clay, or the whole thing loses that "we spent four pennies" spirit. Should I go see it?
You were the one behind me when I watched "Siberian Education," right? The one who said of every scene "but in the book, this thing is explained better," "this thing wasn't there," "neither was this other," "this character was different"... "Great movie yes, but for me who read the book, it's kind of bad." You’re someone who goes to the cinema for the pleasure of complaining, who already thinks about how to tear the movie apart from concepts that are as clear as water to everyone, not just to you unfortunate idiot. Shoot yourself. And "Siberian Education" is cool, shoot yourself again and embrace the idea of being someone who understands nada about cinema and looks better if one keeps quiet.
Thing number five
I’ve never seen the "La casa" films, can I go see it?
Yes you can, but it’s not a film made for you: it’s full of tributes and quotes and winks at the viewer. If you go and don’t like it don’t complain: you’re climbing to Mont Blanc with two t-shirts and three pairs of shorts, the luggage is important... But who knows, maybe on Mont Blanc you’ll find a shelter full of cold Swedish girls and finally, you’ll have fun. In the cinema, you won't find Swedish girls but lots of blood as if you were at a sanguinaccio festival. Before the end of the film, you’ll even jump a couple of times from your seat, even though I realize it's more interesting to hop along with the Swedes... Well, up to you.
Thing number six: Were you serious when you said it's the best of the four or were you just clowning around?
I was serious. I am also serious when I say that the only Raimi movie I really liked is "Army of Darkness," even "The Gift" kind of pleased me to tell you the whole truth, but nothing more. Draw your own conclusions from that.
Okay, end, five stars for the remake, four for the film. The film is a remake so, let’s go for five (didn't expect that, did you? Neither did I)
PS: I watched "Siberian Education" on March 27th in Milan. At the Eliseo, Kubrick Room, at the 8:30 pm show. I was in row B, seat 6.
I’m talking to you who were in row A (the last) seat 6 (behind me). I really hope you felt addressed if you read this page because yes: I was talking about you above.
Loading comments slowly
