It’s Golden Age of Television… Again

All the latest and greatest innovations in television technologies were supposed to usher in an era of television unlike anything we have ever seen before. These technologies brought with them the promise of never having to sit through another commercial again. The rise and proliferation of DVR technology along with the advent of a subscription model for on demand programming and OTT (over-the-top) content was touted as a revolution of the television industry. Instead these technologies appear to be ushering us all the way back to television’s earliest days of sponsorship programming.

The sponsorship programming model is as old as television itself and to put it simply, it allows for a sponsor to pay for the cost of a show in exchange for having their product integrated into the content of the show itself, often times having the show’s stars pitch the product directly to their viewer while still in character. This is different from the model most of us have known our entire television watching lives, in which the network puts up the money for the show who then attempt to recoup their money and then some by selling advertising blocks around the content of the show. Those who are instituting today’s modern version of sponsorship prefer to call it branded content, or product placement, or advertiser funded programming but no matter the name the end result is the same, an undeniable return of the sponsorship model.

Nonbelievers need only to look at the two videos posted at the top of this post to see that the sponsorship model has made its way back to television in a major way. The advertising techniques used to sell cars in a 1957 episode of I Love Lucy and a 2011 episode of Bones are eerily similar. The first video clip is pure sponsorship model as the advertisement is inserted into the opening of an episode of I Love Lucy with the stars of the show there to sell the audience on the latest technological advancement from Ford Motors, the automatic retractable hardtop. The second clip also has the advertising inserted into the content of the show, this time in the middle of the episode. Here too the characters from the show are selling their audience on the latest technological advancement, this time from Toyota, automatic parking. Both instances even showcase the simplicity of the technology, just push a button (it’s so easy a girl can do it) and a giddy appreciation from the men about the new feature despite the agonizingly slow pace at which the technology works.

There is of course one major difference. The modern day version of sponsorship is not purely a sponsorship model but rather a hybrid as it of course still uses the commercial breaks to help pay for programming and outside of the integrated commercial the control of the content still rests with the network not the advertiser. Still we have entered into an era in which a show can be inextricably associated with a product the way that The Texaco Star Theater once was. It is difficult to think about a show like Chuck without thinking about Subway, the show’s sponsor. The Finale and Footlong campaign in which fans of the show attempted to show their collective buying power by purchasing Subway sandwiches en masse is what actually saved Chuck from cancellation after season 2. The show continued to exist essentially for the purpose of promoting its sponsored product, Subway sandwiches.

But why are we seeing the return of the sponsorship model at all, in any form? Well the US has always relied on an advertising model to pay for television content as oppose to say licensing fees or taxes as other countries have utilized in the past, we are after all a capitalist nation. Yet the proliferation of DVR technology has made it incredibly easy to skip commercials and watch a show at one’s own convenience, perhaps even stacking up multiple episodes or even an entire season for binge watching. Some have even cut the cord altogether, choosing instead to watch programming on demand through a paid subscription service like Netflix to avoid advertisers. So of course this trend of commercial avoidance leaves broadcast and cable television vulnerable as less people watching commercials means less money advertisers are willing to spend on those commercial blocks. They need to make up this lost income somehow and the answer for now appears to be a return to sponsorship programming.

These advertisers have not forgotten about those consumers who pay a subscription fee to avoid advertisements. The WWE Network is an OTT service that offers access, through a monthly fee, to their massive archive of wrestling events including all their prior PPVs and live access to current PPVs (terminology has not evolved as quickly as the technology) along with other original programming. Their largest PPV of the year WrestleMania 32 perhaps follows more closely to the sponsorship model than network and cable television as the intro showcases that it was presented by Snickers and the program even included a “commercial break” that was made to appear as part of the show. You can hear the live crowd react to what they at first thought to be a backstage segment involving a wrestler who won a championship earlier in the show. I say this is closer to the sponsorship model in that there are no commercial blocks to sell, the only advertisements come from the show’s sponsor and this commercial only aired once, exclusively for WrestleMania 32. Of course this isn’t the sole source of income for the content as they do collect a monthly fee from their customers.

Other on demand subscription services are not immune either. Hulu has always offered commercials whether you subscribe or not (they now offer a commercial free version for a little more money) but advertisers have the option to sponsor entire collections of shows on Hulu, such as Fall TV on Hulu, or Hulu for the Holidays, essentially serving as a sponsor to your viewing of an entire cavalcade of shows. Netflix may be better at avoiding this sponsorship model but even they, like Hulu, depend on television shows like Bones and Chuck to fill out their on demand content and the sponsorship model implemented within those shows gets an opportunity to live again on these streaming services. A relatively new experience considering rebroadcasts or DVDs of I Love Lucy do not include any of the sponsorship material that originally aired as part of the show.

With every day that passes we continue to creep closer and closer to this sponsorship model of the past. Perhaps the most telling sign of its seemingly imminent return is Saturday Night Live allowing six opportunities per year for the show’s advertisers to work directly with its writing staff to create original work that promotes their brands. And like the sponsorship of the past this will allow for the elimination of commercials, well at least two commercial breaks per episode. That’s 3o% of their current commercial offerings gone. The fragmented nature of late night talk and sketch comedy shows are particularly vulnerable to modern on demand viewing. There is no need to stay in or up late to watch these shows when you can now watch them at your own convenience. There isn’t even a need to watch the entire program as you can simply watch a clip of the sketch that interests you or happens to be trending on Twitter or posted on Facebook and talked about in the news. SNL sponsors are surely hoping that their original content will be the ones that go viral in the future. With all this momentum building, one has to wonder how much longer before a show decides to completely eliminate commercial breaks and return to a full sponsorship model?

“Corporations and consumers are in a coercive arms race,” is how Rushkoff (1999) explained this phenomenon in which a society becomes aware of the coercive techniques used against them and collectively rejects them forcing new techniques to be developed to continue the cycle. What was unforeseen by Rushkoff was that this “arms race” could recycle old techniques after it had been out of use for an appropriate amount of time. I assume this time to be just long enough that the majority of consumers had not experienced the technique in their lifetime. Perhaps it is appropriate then that this era of television (on demand services included) shares a name with its 1950s height of sponsorship counterpart. So sit back, relax and enjoy, cause it’s the Golden Age of Television… again.

 

 

 

Brady Or Montana?

All of last week Tom Brady was vilified, his legacy in doubt, his integrity impugned, all because of deflated footballs he had used during a 45 – 7 drubbing of the Indianapolis Colts during the AFC Championship Game. All of a sudden everyone became science experts conjuring reasons why the footballs were under-inflated while others would try to disprove those hypotheses. Even Bill Nye The Science Guy (an actual scientist) joined in on the fun. Everyone wanted to harken back to Spy Gate and people wondered whether Brady had won any of his Super Bowl’s without cheating and some even went so far as to wonder whether he should even be allowed to play in the Super Bowl. Legends of the game were calling him a cheater.

What a difference a week makes. Tom Brady won his fourth Super Bowl title and third Super Bowl MVP after defeating the Seattle Seahawks in a 28-24 instant classic, tying him with Joe Montana in both categories for most ever by a quarterback. So the talk this week wasn’t about deflated footballs it was about how Brady has now surpassed Montana as the greatest quarterback of all time. Not only did he tie Montana in Super Bowl wins and MVPs but he made more appearances and broke Montana’s record for most touchdown passes thrown in the Super Bowl. His teammates say this makes him the greatest to ever play the position, Sports Ilustrated’s cover story makes the same claim, Mark Wahlberg didn’t even wait for the confetti to finish falling before making the claim.

The talk from last week seems a distant memory, and was probably an overreaction by the media needed to fill the 24/7 sports news cycle. Calling Tom Brady the best quarterback ever is the exact same thing, an overreaction to the most recent greatness we’ve seen while past greatness fades into the recesses of memory or for some of the younger fans greatness that was never known to begin with. Tom Brady was down right legendary engineering the largest fourth quarter comeback in Super Bowl history, completing 37-50 passess for 328 yards and 4 touchdowns but he also threw 2 interceptions. That’s 2 more than Montana threw in his entire Super Bowl career. Joe Montana has a ridiculous 11 touchdowns and 0 interceptions in his four Super Bowl games and oh yeah he also ran for two more touchdowns. So while Brady may have finally broken Montana’s passing touchdown record on his sixth try he still only tied him for most total touchdowns in the Super Bowl.

Any way you want to slice it Tom Brady falls short of Montana’s greatness. Tom Terrific has a legendary career Super Bowl quarterback rating of 95.3, Joe Cool has an otherworldly rating of 127.8. In those 4 games Montana has 105 yards rushing and 2 rushing touchdowns, Brady has 11 rushing yards and 0 rushing touchdowns in his 6 games. Regular season stats are tougher to compare since the rules of the game have tilted astronomically in favor of the offense and quarterbacks in Brady’s era but even still Brady’s career quarterback rating of 95.9 is just over 3 points higher than Montana’s rating of 92.3. Considering how much more offensively oriented the NFL has become this should be seen at minimum as a draw and one could argue Montana’s rating would easily have been higher than Brady’s if they played in the same era. Some would argue it’s more difficult to be consistently great in this era of parity I would argue the road is much easier now as long as you have a good quarterback. It’s really all you need to be a contender in today’s NFL. When was the last time Tom Brady or Peyton Manning didn’t win their division? You can throw Andrew Luck into that mix now as well. Today all you need is a good quarterback and you’re better than 75% of the league. Montana had to deal with the likes of the 46 Bears defense and the Lawerence Taylor led Giants defense just to get to the Super Bowl.

Montana is a perfect 4-0 and while Brady has 4 wins too, his record is blemished by 2 losses to the Giants. The first loss was his greatest, with an opportunity to duplicate Montana’s 4-0 record and go undefeated in a season (something Montana never did) Brady lost to a 14 point underdog Giants team. Brady broke the single season record for most passing touchdowns thrown that year but only managed to throw one touchdown in falling to the Giants 17-14 and putting to rest any arguments of Brady as the greatest to ever play the position for the moment. 4 years later he would get his rematch against the Giants a chance to avenge his lone Super Bowl blemish and he fell short again this time losing 21-17. Last week Brady finally got that elusive 4th win but he was one all time bad play call away from falling to 3-3 in the Super Bowl. Joe Montana never left it in someone else’s hands to define his legacy he put an exclamation point on every one of his Super Bowl wins.

It’s clear at this point that Brady falls short of Montana in the greatest quarterback debate. The only advantage Brady has over Montana is that he’s been to the Super Bowl 6 times to Montana’s 4. Still no one gives the 2008 Patriots credit as the greatest team of all time despite winning the most games in NFL history because they lost the game that mattered most, Brady lost it twice so why should he be treated any differently.

Why The WWE Doesn’t Care Who You Want To Win The Royal Rumble

The Royal Rumble saw fan favorite Daniel Bryan eliminated early and the backlash was obvious and severe from the hardcore fan base both in the arena and on the WWE’s favorite marketing tool, Twitter. Philadelphia long known as a haven for wrestling’s hardcore fans chanted Bryan’s name for several minutes after being eliminated and booed for large portions of the match thereafter but never louder than when Roman Reigns was announced the winner. Reigns who last year would have received a standing ovation for winning the Rumble was booed so severely that not even The Rock could turn the crowd.

Twitter was worse, #CancelWWENetwork was trending worldwide Sunday night and most of the day Monday. Yet the WWE claims that despite all the Tweets and internet reports there wasn’t a noticeable uptick of people canceling their subscription to the WWE Network and certainly not enough to crash the website. So while fans may have been upset with the in ring product they weren’t upset enough to even dip the subscription numbers below the 1 million subscribers they’ve been advertising. That number is important because it is estimated to be the number where the WWE breaks even on the WWE Network cannibalizing PPV buys. Every subscriber above that is just pure profit.

According to Variety, “Surpassing 1 million subscribers since the end of October represents a growth of 37% since the third quarter. Around 24% of that came from new members in the U.S.” Those are huge numbers and great news for WWE as a company and publicly traded stock. How good? Before those figures were announced on Jan 27th the stock was down as low $10.23 after reporting those figures it rose as high as $12.57. That’s about a 20% increase to Vince McMahon’s wealth in one day.

This is why the WWE doesn’t care who you want to win the Royal Rumble. The hardcore fan has proven they are there to stay and at $9.99 a month it is cheaper than ever to stay. Fast Lane, WWE’s next PPV will cost $44.95 to order on Comcast so there really is nowhere for them to go especially since all legitimate competition was bought out years ago. What the WWE is after is the casual fan. The ones who will take a chance on a product that only cost $9.99 to invest in, the ones who will get them over the 1 million subscriber mark and make them more profitable than ever before. To these fans who are just learning the intricacies of wrestling they may very well be more tempted to watch two mammoth men, Roman Reigns and Brock Lesnar, do battle at WrestleMania than see one mammoth man take on someone half his size who is quite frankly completely unremarkable to look at.

Granted it will take some time for many of those who did unsubscribe to be officially removed as subscribers but those that did leave should easily be made up by the large influx of subscribers expected for WWE’s biggest yearly event and draw for casual fans, WrestleMania. Even hardcore fans who unsubscribed will be tempted to return if say The Undertaker returns for one final match or to see what is expected to be Sting’s first and possibly final match in the WWE. WrestleMania is typically where the WWE excels at appeasing both the casual and the hardcore fans. There were rumblings after last year’s Royal Rumble as well and another fan favorite even quit over it but WrestleMania still delivered Daniel Bryan’s career crowning achievement and drove the internet and hardcore fan base delirious with joy, who knows what will happen this year but the WWE’s betting you’ll pay $9.99 to find out.

MOVIE REVIEW: ‘TOP FIVE’

Written, directed and starring Chris Rock, Top Five comes across as his most introspective work to date. Rock plays Andre Allen, a stand up star, turned movie star, turned fading star releasing his first serious film that seems destined to be a flop. The entire film takes course over one day as Andre goes on a press junket tour for his movie while simultaneously preparing for his wedding to a reality TV star played by Gabrielle Union. The conduit for this day in the life of a celebrity is Rosario Dawson’s Chelsea Brown, a journalist assigned to follow Andre around for the day in order to do an in depth interview.

The premise really allows for some introspective moments for the character and perhaps by extension for Rock himself. Not only do we hear his top five rappers of all-time but we also learn why he’s been absent from the standup stage for so long, his longing to be taken seriously and how he initially struggled to handle his fame. It’s difficult to tell where the line between character and reality is drawn in these moments but its certain that Rock looked to his own experience with fame for inspiration. The fact that Rock has first hand knowledge of celebrity culture lends credibility to the film and even helps to keep it grounded during its most over the top moments of celebrity excess. That being said there are still moments in the film that are just overly silly and just don’t go over well with the audience.

Top Five plays more like a Woody Allen rom-com than a raunchy comedy as the trailers would have you believe. Its also a bit of a character study as the plot revolves heavily on trying to figure out just who Andre Allen is and explores the question with a “rigorous honesty” that’s refreshing to see on the big screen. This isn’t to say that the film doesn’t have raunch, it earns every bit its R rating but the raunch is sparse throughout and is indicative of the film’s excellent pacing. Many of the funniest moments come not from Rock but from the cavalcade of cameos who pop up at seemingly every turn. Rock must of called in every favor he had because the quantity of cameos is truly impressive but it is nothing compared to the quality of those performances. One in particular stands out above them all but its perhaps best the viewer discover this on their own by watching the movie.

The film isn’t perfect aside from a few moments that just don’t land there are some other minor issues. For instance Andre’s fiancee is an extremely one dimensional character that would have benefited from some additional screen time and backstory, the film essentially spells out the romantic plot of the movie from the outset and the thought of Hammy being a $600 million franchise is just ridiculous. Still these minor issues aren’t enough to detract from what is Chris Rock’s best work as an actor, director, writer and simply his best film to date.

Movie Review: ‘Non-Stop’

The fact that Liam Neeson has emerged as an action star so late in his life is nothing short of remarkable. Neeson, now in his early 60s would fit right in Sylvester Stallone’s Expendables franchise where ancient action stars come together to form an action movie team that would have blown people’s minds in the 80s. Only thing is Neeson wasn’t an action star in the 80s…or 90s. In fact he didn’t really establish himself as an action star until his staring role in the surprise hit Taken… in 2005. Neeson’s talent is such that even at his advanced age audiences don’t doubt for a second the believability of the badass he portrays on screen. The same is true of his latest action film Non-Stop.

In Non-Stop Liam Nesson plays an Air Marshall who is going through hard times, having trouble at work and struggling with alcoholism. If that’s not enough someone is threatening to kill off a passenger every twenty minutes unless an unseemly amount of money is transfered into an offshore account. As exciting and tense as this premise sounds it never quite delivers on it’s potential. Part of the reason is that the action is confined to such tight quarters that it’s impossible to deliver much variety and as such it peaks fairly early in the film. In fact the first action scene, an incredibly tense, claustrophobic bathroom brawl, is never matched, let alone topped for the rest of the film. The rest of the action involves Neeson dragging passengers through the aisles or fighting in the aisles or running through the aisles or flailing, falling and floating through the aisles. Basically everything happens in between the aisles of this plane. This isn’t to say that the action itself is terribly flawed, it’s just terribly repetitive.

The mystery portion of the film works a bit better as it does genuinely grip you into a guessing game of who on the flight is responsible for the tragedies playing out on the plane. And as seemingly each suspect is cleared you begin to wonder if the mystery will be solved before it’s too late. While the tension builds well and there are some solid red herrings and plot twists, the ultimate reveal feels forced, underwhelming and like a complete cheat. Once again the promising buildup fails to deliver on its potential. This doesn’t make the film a failure, there’s plenty to like about it, it’s just disappointing that for everything the film does right it seems to do something wrong.

A better script and perhaps a better director could have delivered a Hitchcockian experience. As it stands, Non-Stop is merely a popcorn film that despite the best efforts of Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore fails to live up to its potential. Still there’s fun to be had here, so long as you’re willing to forgive a couple of cringe worthy moments (found mostly in the film’s conclusion) and focus instead on what the film does well. And while Non-Stop may fail to live up to its name it delivers enough to keep you interested and entertained straight through the film’s disappointing ending.

Netflix Flick Pick: ‘Cabin in the Woods’

Well Halloween is here, which means the week long Halloween edition of Netflix Flick Pick is coming to an end. While my picks haven’t been done in any particular order I did put some thought into what film should end this list.  What I came up with is a film that has also been a Netflix Flick Pick previously but deserves to be revisited here on this list, Cabin in the Woods. On my previous post I was purposefully vague, in order to not give away anything important but now on Halloween night I think I can describe it in more detail.

Cabin in the Woods is not just a horror movie, it’s every horror movie. Both a love note to the legendary horror films that define the genre and a shot across the bow at its inability to do anything but remake the same movies (both actual remakes and films that just use the same plot). The film is an allegory that brilliantly makes the audience question why it continues to crave the same movie with the same rituals and even offering up characters who stand in for the audiences and the films producers who make sure we get the same movie.

As the title suggests Cabin in the Woods uses the genre’s most cliched plot but somehow uses it to tell a frighteningly original story. This becomes less surprising when you realize that Joss Whedon cowrote the script, he has literally made a career of subverting genre conventions. This is the guy who made Buffy, Firefly, and Dr. Horrible after all. There is so much going on here that you might just glance over the horror as you try to figure out what the hell is going on but horror is there in all its cliched original glory. Best enjoyed if you’ve seen every horror movie ever made, even the god awful remakes that include unicorns for reasons beyond my comprehension skills. I mean c’mon, UNICORNS, in a freaking horror movie! If you don’t know what I’m talking about then you won’t get the funniest shot fired at horror remakes but that’s okay, if you’re a fan of the genre there will be more than enough for you to enjoy.

Happy streaming and Happy Halloween!

Netflix Flick Pick: ‘Carrie’

The week long special Halloween edition of Netflix Flick Pick is winding down and for the penultimate pick we’re going with a film so good Hollywood has remade it twice in the last 11 years. I’m of course talking about the film that introduced American movie going audiences to telekinesis, Carrie. Based on the Stephen King book the film tells the story of an outcast teenage girl who gets asked out to the prom and well you know the story.

Brian de Palma brilliantly showcases the horrors of high school in Carrie, which despite two modern day remakes remains the definitive version of the film. While we all know the story, it’s become part of the shared American culture, the film still manages to make the well known climax tense and keeps you in suspense and hopeful that things turn out okay for Carrie. To be honest the film doesn’t turn into a full out horror until the last half hour. The moments up until the film’s climax are filled with some rather vicious bullying of Carrie. She gets tampons thrown at her in the shower, her mother locks her in a closet to pray, and she gets set up on a prank date to the prom.

When the horror does come it is really intense as the put upon Carrie has finally been pushed too far by the school’s sadistic bullies and murderously snaps in a frighteningly prescient cinematic moment. Turns out dropping pigs blood on a girl on her prom night is not a good idea. If you know the story but haven’t actually seen the film it’s time to start streaming, because mere words do not do the film justice. Religious fanatacisim, pig slaughtering, bullying and telekinesis are the ingredients for this horror film classic but one of the film’s lesser talked about elements is its visual style. de Palma delivers a film that is shot brilliantly, contrasting a dream like state with a darker more traditional horror atmosphere when the time comes making it all the more intense. So stay home and enjoy the original before you go out to see the remake, when you’re done you might not feel the need to.

Netflix Flick Pick: ‘Ghostbusters’

It’s day 4 of the special Halloween edition of Netflix Flick Pick and I think it’s time to shift gears a little bit. So far I’ve given you a selection of straight Rated R horror films but what if you wanted to watch something with the kids. Don’t worry tonight’s Netflix Flick Pick, Ghostbusters, has got you covered.

Written by Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramos, and directed by the legendary Ivan Reitman this paranormal comedy delivers ghosts, demons, gods and a giant monster intent on destroying the city. Best of all it does it all while staying family friendly so you don’t have to put the kids to bed in order to watch. Heck dress them up as Ghostbusters and turn it into a full blown Halloween party.

Starring Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Sigourney Weaver, the all star cast delivers even beyond lofty exoectations. Bill Murray especially delivers one of his funniest performances ever, which should be enough to make you run to your TV and start streaming immediately. It’s not just Murray though, Aykroyd and Ramis’ script allows for everyone to shine and Reitman deftly balances the inspired comedy with enough horror to make things tense and keep the stakes high.

Dan Aykroyd is working on a script for a third installment in the franchise but it’s been confirmed that Bill Murray will not be a part of any such endeavor. Not sure that it can be done without the legendary actor and star of the first two films but here’s hoping it turns out well. Until then enjoy the original classic with all four members of the Ghostbusters that taught you the lesson to one of life’s most important questions, “Who you gonna call?”

 

Netflix Flick Pick: ‘Scream’

Day 3 of the special Halloween edition of Netflix Flick Pick brings us a major turning point in horror history. The film that made meta cool, tonight’s Netflix Flick Pick, Scream. Directed by horror legend Wes Craven and written by the sometimes brilliant Kevin Williamson, Scream changed the rules of horror in the 90s. It was no longer enough to be scary or gory, you had to be funny and self referential.

What makes Scream so endearing is the fact that it was clearly written by someone who loved and grew up with horror movies. It’s not just the film nerd in the movie who knows the rules of the horror genre but all the characters have passable knowledge. Even the characters who hate the genre know enough to point out its cliched flaws. This referencing of horror films also serves as the main, though not the only source of humor in the film and the fact that everyone knows so much about horror films leads to some interesting developments.

Scream is still technically a slasher film but it adds the extra layers of meta and whodunit mystery to it. The film offers several feints, unsuspected twists and turns and famously unsuspected deaths. (Spoiler Alert) For those who don’t know Drew Barrymore was originally billed as the film’s star but was immediately killed off, leaving audiences anxious and in great suspense as it was made clear that no one was safe. While Scream is no longer marketed in this way it was quite an impressive bit of dedication on the parts of everyone involved to keep this lie up through the film’s initial run.

Drew Barrymore describes it best, “I loved that it actually got tongue and cheeky but it was still scary and it was this great game that sort of described genres and revived them at the same time and redefined them all in one script.” This continued with Scream 2 and 3 (also available on Netflix) and countless other copycats but it’s the original that still shines brightest.

 

Netflix Flick Pick: ‘Evil Dead’ ‘Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn’

Day 2 of the special Halloween edition of Netflix Flick Pick continues with a 2 for 1 special. These films clearly have fans of blood and gore in mind but sacrifice nothing in terms of pacing and horror. I’m talking of course about the films that made Bruce Campbell a cult icon, tonight’s Netflix Flick Picks, The Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn. I’ve already written about The Evil Dead as the subject of an earlier Netflix Flick Pick and you can read that in its entirety here. If not enjoy this snippet:

“The film is steeped in lore. As the story goes the film got financing after being shown as a short before The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Then, the extremely low budget independent film got made but couldn’t get US distribution until Stephen King saw it and wrote a rare review that raved it was the ‘most ferociously original horror film of the year.’ This of course led to one of the most iconic horror franchises of all time and oh yeah it launched the careers of the Cohen brothers who worked as editors on the film.”

The Evil Dead is an intense, horrifying, bloody gorefest but Evil Dead 2 is the rarest of things, a sequel that is actually better than the original. Dead 2 tells essentially the exact same story as the original, only it does everything better. Better script, better directing, better acting, better special f/x, more horror, more blood, more gore, more action and it even throws in some fantastically dark comedy throughout the movie to balance out the intensity of the horror. It also wins the award for best use of a chainsaw ever. What am I talking about? Just watch and find out.

In fact watch them both, back to back even. It’ll take less time than watching a Lord of the Rings movie. No knock on Tolkien, I’m just saying these films are a good investment of your time as director Sam Raimi is at his creative best in these films, showing an incredible combination of resourcefulness and visual mastery the likes of which have rarely ever been seen. While the franchise has just been rebooted, it appears Raimi will be bringing the fourth installment of the original franchise, Army of Darkness 2 to theaters. Here’s hoping it’s as good as Evil Dead 2.