Contains mild spoilers.
Knock, knock? Who's
there? 14th century zombie warlocks risen from the grave seeking revenge on the
decendents of those who blinded and killed us. No, that's actually the first
thing they did and it's also one of the main criticisms I have with Amando de Ossorio's
sequel to the moody continental Tombs of the Blind Dead; for as much as it
wants to be a serious tense horror it can't help but unintentionally come
across a bit amateurish and silly on more than a single occasion.
First, there's
something we need to address. Remember the iconic final scenes of the first,
where the blind dead knights escape the confines of their isolated ruins to arrive by train at the first populated town ready to start their world
slaughter tour. It didn't happen. The ancient legend of knights found guilty of
heinous crimes hung up with their eyes pecked out to deter others. Nope, all
gone and all unnecessarily different; this time, we're told, they had their eyes burnt out and they weren't put on trial, they
were killed by 'the angry mob'(tm). There's no narrative connection, no reuse
of the location or characters. It is a sequel, in truth, in just having the same
blind dead horse riding warlocks slicing, dicing and massacring another set of
unfortunate European misfits.

This turns out to be
the least of their problems though. Murdo (José Canalejas), who, I believe the
politically correct way of putting it, suffers from severe spinal curvature, is
tormented and bullied by the towns children and adults and has decided his only
course of action is to resurrect 700 year old murderers who can be his friends.
Not only has he worked out what's necessary to bring the knights back but he
seems quite happy to kidnap and murder a local innocent damsel (in the same boob
out, knife in manner) to put it into action; his character is quite contrived
and implausible, and making the only person with a physical defect the monster
responsible for the shitstorm is never mind clumsy and easy, it's more than a
little un-pc.
I commented that the
characters in Tombs of the Blind Dead were complicated and deep with a little
irrationality and European je ne sais quoi,
that made them quite likable and believable. Like Mundo, the ensemble of Return
of the Evil Dead all feel flat with little depth or complexity, like convenient
one line caricatures brought in to play one particular horror trope. Whether
it's the dastardly mayor or doting mother, their descriptor is their single
role in the film dictating motivation and behaviour. They always appear obvious
and trite, and the complexity of the relationships which worked so well in the
first is completely absent; interactions that do take place feel amateurish,
inauthentic and far too like that of a bad soap-opera.

One of the reasons
the dead knights worked in Tombs was the tight claustrophobic nature of the
film meant, if we're honest, that they weren't in shot a great deal and when
they were there was plenty of shadow to hide them. On paper bringing the story
out of the ruins and into the town has plenty to go for it but unfortunately
the bright lights of the bustling town don't do the animatronics any favours.
The undead Templers
always appear in one of two states. They're costumed actors, dark, menacing,
lifelike and quite effective as they ride horses and throw swords about. The problem
is, de Ossario is quite fond of their second form of appearance; that of quite
shockingly bad and obvious wooden skeletal puppets. The main problems come, not from
their wooden behaviour and appearance, though this is bad, but from moving back and forth between these and the actors often in quick succession. One minute Marlowe is fighting for his life in the
market square against a well costumed foe, the next he throws some fireworks
at an obvious effigy a quarter the width and depth which topples over like a
scarecrow. It's jarring and so obvious to be almost insulting that the audience is supposed to not notice or care.

Return of the Evil
Dead isn't a bad film, it's just not that good, its fault amplified by
comparison to the brilliance of its predecessor. Languid and all too obvious
and easy, the film fails in all ways to rise above average and mundane, and I'm really not sure why de Ossorio didn't just make a proper sequel following the events of the first. Return of the Evil Dead fails when compared to its predecessor in every way and the lazy manner in which it's all been put together quite nearly pushes it into full bad b-movie territory. A confusing missed opportunity and all quite the disappointment, 4/10.
I was also a little
unhappy in this Blue Underground transfer, especially as I came at it with
high expectations after the masterful crisp and clean Tombs of the Blind Dead.
I watched the uncut Spanish version included on the disc which runs about four
minutes longer than the original English dub but found the picture quality
quite severely lacking and several scenes had quite unnecessarily camera shake.
WTD.
I also thought this was disappointing. You pretty much summed it up for me LOL I'v actually avoided reviewing this one, because I'd rip it to shreds. Great review!
ReplyDeleteCheers! In many respects I felt I was being a bit generous with a 4. I want to see your review now ;)
DeleteI rather like this outing (not as much as the first film). It was the third film I thought was a stinker.
ReplyDeleteYou'll note however that none of the four films have any sense of series, all stand alone with no previous film connection (bar the blind dead)
It gets worse! I am scared now...
Delete