TheRetroCritic

After Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland received mostly unimpressed reviews from critics and audiences alike, that the studio jumped right into yet another fantasy classic reboot/sequel/prequel/whatever is surprising and somewhat risky. Then again Alice In Wonderland made a badgillion dollars at the box office... So yeah, never mind. It makes perfect sense lol This time around, we get Sam Raimi taking on the works of L. Frank Baum, and when I say that I mean it very loosely because we don't get a sequel involving Dorothy and co or even an amalgamation of Baum's third and fourth Oz books (tackled brilliantly in the 80's by Return To Oz ). No, we're following the wizard himself! Not quite what you'd expect but an interesting take on the whole thing, let's see if it works. After all, the first film was called The Wizard Of Oz not "Dorothy's Big Adventure". Mostly... yes. It does work. Ok, I'll get the bad stuff out of the way

Widely recognised as THE worst Spider-Man film to date, Spider-Man 3 was Sam Raimi's final outing as the Marvel hero's puppetmaster. Watching it back when it came out I was left entertained but a little bit confused to say the least. It looked like a decent Spider-Man movie and yet... Something was a bit off. Spider-Man 3 sees Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) yet again screwing things up with Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) and donning the black Venom suit as a million other things happen. You've got Thomas Haden Church turning into The Sandman and causing havok around the city for whatever reason, you've got James Franco's Harry Osborn finally taking over the Goblin suit (well, a  snowboard and a Cobra outfit), you've got Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) being introduced... it's certainly a handful and much more than just the usual mad-scientist-goes-nuts scenario. By the end you'll be wishing for a straight-forward mad scientist plot though... A lo

Sam Raimi may not have seemed like the most obvious choice as director for this first proper Spider-Man movie at the time but he proved everyone wrong creating a popcorn movie with enough entertainment, humour and faithfulness to the comic books to feel like a worthy attempt. The film begins with tedious narration more suited to a Dr Seuss animation and closes with it as well so not the most promising of starts but from the moment we actually meet Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker things start making sense. Raimi goes for a lighthearted tone actually well suited to the character and the whole film feels very much like a comic book. The build-up to Parker becoming Spider-Man is perfectly handled with the film ticking all the right boxes in terms of superhero origin stories: teen romance, tragic family crisis, growing powers/puberty, bullies, clear villain... It's cliched but in a good way. There's a sense that it's all very self-aware and knows what it's doing. I sh

Absolutely brilliant reimagining of the first Evil Dead as a slapstick comedy. Consistently creative and hilarious, Sam Raimi clearly has the time of his life here as Bruce Campbell gets drenched in every bodily fluid known to man whilst giving cinema some of its best and least subtle one liners ever. "Groovy!" indeed this is. And as if the first Evil Dead wasn't insane enough we now have evil hands, laughing deer heads, headless dancing corpses and god knows what else to worry about. Evil Dead 2 is probably one of the most chaotic films you'll ever experience but if you have a slightly twisted sense of humour and enjoy a good horror film, this is a treat. This sequel has a notably more significant budget than the first Evil Dead which relied mostly on DIY practical (and make-up) effects not to mention lots and lots of screaming to create the required atmosphere. Here, Raimi spends the dough wisely and makes this second instalment the best and most