All right, with the new house I bought a big tv and got with the digital cable. Well since I want my money's worth I have been watching a lot of stuff on the free "on demand" and there's one that just confuses me to no end. Evil Dead II: Okay so I had seen the first film, and Army of Darkness and really didn't think much of them. The horror-comedy genre isn't really my style just as the torture-porn that has further developed out of it. But this film has garnered so much respect that folks now talk of it's near legendary status and before last week I was actually embarassed that I hadn't seen it. On IMDB, it scores the same ranking as Ikiru and The Searchers. Now if you know me you know that I'm all for different angles and don't ever think that any opinion, well stated is wrong. But here's a phenomenon that I just don't get. Let me relate this review from IMDB . . . Now this is average for reviews of this movie, people saying it's "awesome!" and shooting out "Grooooooovy!" Roger Ebert tries better in his Three Star review . . . Now maybe since I haven't come into this fresh, and I have seen the reprecussions of this have really come to no good (Eli Roth, I'm looking at you), but I guess I'm missing the asthetic of the subtext. Often when I see this mentioned Peter Jackson's crapfest Dead Alive is mentioned as the superior version of the same thing. I saw that early on and still wonder why anybody would watch that thing a second time for. But again, different tastes, that I get. What I don't get is how these films are currently being held up as THE superior product and movie savy folk are better watching them than say John Ford or Kurosawa. Nobody rips your movie cred if you haven't seen Stagecoach or High & Low. How is it that this little nothing of a film is the cannon upon which most of current cinema is built on? In the same vein, I also watched They Live and Big Trouble In Little China (I hadn't seen the former before) and laughed my ass off without having the airs of finally seeing something which I could finally converse through the lexicon of film with my peers. That's the best part of John Carpenter, subtext without pretension (allthou the love for The Thing is starting to approach it). He wraps his arms around his B-Movie status and stays there happily Not that I hink Raimi makes Evil Dead II a standard bearer for lowbrow might, its legion of followers screaming out lines and drowning all discussion on the intrawebs do. I guess I just don't understand *at all* what makes it a good movie in the first place. Please discuss . . . . Oh yeah I also watched Fantastic Four 2, which BLEEEEWWWW!!!! "Does it have a Hemmie?" "Of Course!" Why do people pay actual money for this crap?