Editorials
Why ‘Evil Dead’ and ‘My Bloody Valentine 3D’ Make for a Perfect Remake Double Feature
According to some, remakes do untold damage to childhoods the world over, leaving nothing but tears, regrets, and crumpled up memories in their wake. Obviously, the idea of redoing a beloved movie is a touchy subject for film fans as the results are sometimes less than stellar. In some cases, they’re not even adequate. But horror remakes fair a little better. Specifically, ones with a creative team with something on their mind or a singular perspective.
Every week in October, I’m suggesting a double feature of remakes for your Halloween viewing pleasures. The movies are connected and never random, even if the connection is not-so-obvious at first sight. Besides the fact we’re all dying for horror to watch during the spooky season, double features are great introductions to movies for the uninitiated. And for seasoned vets, watching two movies back-to-back can sometimes put them in a different light.
So, without further ado, let’s get to the picks.
What Are the Movies?
Here comes the blood. While the previous four movies we profiled in this column aren’t short on bodily fluids squirting out of every possible orifice, Evil Dead and My Bloody Valentine 3D put them to shame. And yes, you should watch them in that order.
2013’s Evil Dead is a nasty piece of filmmaking. And I mean that in the best way possible. Fede Alvarez‘s remake sticks to the more serious tone of the 1981 original movie. It forgoes the comedic nature of its sequels. Of course, Evil Dead is still more than a tad over-the-top with the sheer amounts of blood the film wants us to believe exists within the human body. But there’s barely a wink or smile to the proceedings. To be fair, when the marketing says it’s “the most terrifying film you will ever experience,” that doesn’t leave room for sight gags. And it definitely doesn’t have time for Raimi’s trademark slapstick. We’re left with a very visceral and, dare I say, squeamish experience.
Evil Dead inverts the premise of the original just enough while focusing on a brand-new cast of characters. Without giving too much away for the uninitiated, the kids aren’t spending time at a cabin in the middle of nowhere just for fun. When we meet them, they’re already on edge, which is never a good sign for survival. You know that part in horror movies where the bad things start and no one listens to the character telling them about said evil? Well, that happens here too, but because of the setup, it’s easy to understand their skepticism.
Once they accept the truth, it’s way too late, and the movie begs us to watch the resulting carnage without covering our eyes. There’s that tree in the woods, that incident in the bathroom, that maiming in the kitchen, and of course, all the violence in the basement. Every major scare in this flick feels like it was created on a dare.
Evil Dead is as earnest as a movie about possession, curses, and demonic trees can be. My Bloody Valentine 3D is the complete opposite. With tongue firmly in cheek, the remake takes a tonal departure from the 1981 original while fully embracing the 3D phase of the late 2000s. The 2009 flick remixes the original, using most of the same characters but presenting them differently. Director Patrick Lussier and writer Todd Farmer tag team for the ultimate valentine—pun very much intended—to slashers and a bygone era. Plus, not many movies have a pickaxe and an eyeball coming right at you, complete with blood droplets.
Yes, a lot of it is over-the-top because, well, it’s in 3D, but that excess gore helps separate it from the original. Having a bigger budget doesn’t always create a quality product, but that’s the case here. The 2009 version attains a level of carnage the 1981 movie couldn’t reach. Going bigger and bolder can hurt remakes, but that ethos makes My Bloody Valentine 3D memorable. The soap opera at the heart of the film, along with a whodunit, tries to ground the surroundings in some semblance of real human emotion. The directors walk a fine line portraying those storylines with sincerity while never forgetting this is still a movie about a guy dressed like a miner who kills people with whatever tool at his disposal.
Okay, Why These Two?
Evil Dead and My Bloody Valentine 3D are adaptations of their respective source materials. Most remakes follow the same beats as the originals and maybe add one or two additional story elements. But these two flicks take premises and alter the settings, change some characters, and throw in wrinkles to make something that stands on its own two feet. Without spoiling too much, both movies feel like mirror universe versions of their ’80s counterparts. Those who love the classics won’t have to shield their eyes or weep for their childhoods because the modern equivalents are on their own wavelengths. They’re love letters—no pun intended— to what came before. The filmmakers use every penny possible to make the movies as they envisioned them as kids who were way-too-young to see them in the first place. This attitude brings ’80s sensibilities like practical effects, gore, and 3D into the 2000s.
Evil Dead and My Bloody Valentine 3D push the envelope just like their predecessors, fully embracing the “anything goes” mantra of the genre’s most hallowed decade.
The problem with filming sequels back-to-back is that, unless you can afford expensive reshoots, there’s no easy way to adjust course in between movies if fans react badly to where the story is headed. That’s why it’s important to have a complete narrative thought out well in advance lest you accidentally kill a budding franchise.
However, this isn’t always the case. Every once in a while, it seems like the cinema gods smile upon certain chaotic productions and gift moviegoers with complete franchises that feel like more than the sum of their hastily produced parts. Ted Nicolaou’s Bloodlust: Subspecies III is precisely one of these miraculous pictures, with the raw talents of the artists involved (as well as the continued support from Romania) turning the feature into an effective conclusion for a series that kind of made things up as the filmmakers went along.
That’s why I’d like to invite my fellow readers to join me on this third part of our journey through the Subspecies franchise as we look into Bloodlust and talk about how it remains a surprisingly satisfying finale to the original trilogy.
A Trilogy Planned on the Fly
Released only a year after Bloodstone found plenty of success in rental stores and mail-in VHS catalogues worldwide, 1994’s Bloodlust was produced at the same time as its predecessor in (mostly) the same locations and with the same team. This means that the movie benefited from all the same upgrades as Bloodstone, with the crew now being more experienced with the ins and outs of surviving a low-budget Romanian production and the cast really settling into their characters.
At this point, everything from location scouting to the makeup process had been streamlined, with Wayne Toth and Norman Cabrera, the main duo behind special effects, even switching out time-consuming prosthetics for latex gloves in order to speed up Anders Hove’s monstrous transformation. The titular “subspecies” demons were also once again relegated to a mere cameo appearance due to the laborious puppetry required to bring them to life.
The only real hiccup came from the fact that actress Denice Duff had replaced the first film’s Michelle (Laura Mae Tate) and was immediately expected to portray the character as both an innocent victim in part II and as a secondary villain in part III. According to behind-the-scenes interviews, the hectic production schedule that blended two different movies meant that Duff would often find herself having to alternate between two incredibly different versions of Michelle during the same shooting day – though it’s obvious that she’s having more fun with Bloodlust’s more traditionally vampiric version of her character.
In the finished film, we pick things up immediately where the previous entry left off as Rebecca (Melanie Shatner) is forced to leave her vampire sister Michelle (Duff) behind in the dungeons of Castle Vladislav due to the rising sun. This allows Mummy (Pamela Gordon) to use Michelle’s blood to revive the vicious Radu (Hove) so that he may continue his quest for the coveted Bloodstone – a magical artifact that perpetually drips the Blood of Saints.
Meanwhile, the dreamy US embassy agent Mel (Kevin Blair) agrees to help Rebecca plan a rescue mission, though they’re unaware that Radu has become infatuated with Michelle during his attempts to guide her growing bloodlust. This all culminates in a climactic confrontation meant to tie up all of the series’ loose ends in one of Full Moon Pictures’ most ambitious productions.
The Evolution of Radu
Like its predecessor, Bloodlust: Subspecies III was also warmly received by fans who argued that the series was an even bigger success than Full Moon’s other major horror franchise, Puppet Master. This praise wasn’t unanimous, however, as 1994 had seen the rise of a more modern breed of sexy vampire popularized by Anne Rice, with old-school Nosferatu like Radu being viewed as obsolete when compared to the likes of Lestat and Gary Oldman’s take on Dracula.
In a way, one might argue that Nicolaou’s film is something of a swan song for the classic vampire story, as Bloodlust combines all of the traditional elements we tend to associate with these tales into a single tragic yarn that ties a neat little bow on Radu’s story as well as the old-fashioned monster movies that he represents. The finale remains shocking despite the fact that this is the third time we see Radu get brutally killed onscreen, with the brief tease that he may one day return feeling more like a nod towards the nature of evil rather than sequel bait.
The film dabbles a bit in gothic romance and even explores the inherent power fantasy behind transforming into an immortal creature of the night, but the filmmakers never lose sight of Radu as a demonic force even when he’s willing to betray his beloved Mummy for Michelle’s sake. In fact, his twisted “love” for his fledgling makes him even creepier as we get the feeling that his passion comes from a dark and disturbing place.
Anders Hove is at his absolute best in this film, with the effects department boosting his moments of what the younger generation would call “aura farming” whenever Radu emerges from shadows like a 90s version of Count Orlok. There are even a couple of surprisingly effective jump-scares here, which is why I’d argue that Bloodlust cements Radu as one of the most memorable cinematic vampires of all time despite his humble origins.
Subspecies Saves Its Best For Last
Nicolaou and Vlad Panescu also saved the best for “last” (more on that in a bit) regarding the film’s visuals, with the cinematography and overall atmosphere of Bloodlust absolutely surpassing what we saw in the previous films. Everything feels appropriately climactic this time around (including the wonderful soundtrack that was co-composed alongside an authentic Romanian orchestra), and I appreciate how this is the fastest-paced entry in the trilogy since the film doesn’t need to waste time setting anything up.
Bloodlust still suffers from some of the same low-budget blemishes as its predecessors, but there’s so much creative passion here that no amount of wonky effects work or stilted dialogue can get in the way of appreciating the flick’s gothic grandeur. That’s why it’s not surprising that the movie’s definitive(-ish) ending would later be retconned as fans begged for more Radu.
Of course, the next entry in this series would be a different kind of vampiric endeavor altogether, with the filmmakers attempting to engage with the same trends that ultimately killed Radu and his antiquated kin. That, however, is a story for another time. For now, I’ll merely insist that Bloodlust: Subspecies III remains a highlight of Full Moon’s expansive catalogue and is definitely worth seeking out today.
You must be logged in to post a comment.