42 is about one of the greatest sports figures of the 20th Century. Jackie Robinson not only changed baseball but sports in general and perhaps even influenced the country as a whole. People who never followed baseball or who were born after Robinson retired still remembered his story.

The word most often used to describe Robinson was "gentleman." He suffered abuse and ridicule but rose above it. And he was a fantastic player.

The film gets at most of this--about how Robinson had to rein in his natural disgust at racism, how he had to turn the other cheek. When people threw insults, when they belittled him his reaction was, legendarily genteel. He not only was a great player; he had class.

The film also shows Robinson's rise and the adversity he faced. It shows him as a man, a teammate and a husband.
Chadwick Boseman turns in a fine performance as Robinson. He is charming anddoesn't play Robinson as an icon but rather a human being. He gets angry. He resists the notion that he shouldn't fight back. He struggles.

There isn't a great deal bad to say about the movie. It is professionally done, never lags and the acting is pretty solid throughout--with one surprising exception.

Harrison Ford turns in a truly uneven performance. He occasionally delivers in scenes with Boseman but just as often he is mannered and overacts. He also gets a great deal of screen time. It is a strange performance for Ford.

Unfortunately Christopher Meloni as Leo Durocher doesn't get very much screen time.. He stands out as the flamboyant Dodgers manager but is there and gone. That has something to do with reality--Durocher was suspended during Robinson's rookie year.

The movie doesn't totally work however. Somehow it is a little flat which is odd considering the subject matter. It all just seems sort of "matter of fact." We know Robinson's story and we have seen baseball movies before. The movie only follows Robinson through his first year. There has to be a "climactic game" in the movie right? Of course there does!

It seems a little forced, especially since Robinson's Dodgers didn't win the World Series in his first year. It wasn't the culmination of his career. Why didn't the movie focus on his Rookie of the Year award? It was the first ever such award. Or how about more time in spring training? More spring training would have given more potential interaction between Robinson and his teammates. Even some more mention of Robinson's struggles on the field when he moved from short to second base would have been welcome and add a new (and true) dimension.

Even the titles at the end don't mention that Robinson played in six World Series, six All Star Games and was MVP in 1949.  It does mention the Dodger's win in the 1955 World Series and his election to the Baseball Hall of Fame, of course. Somehow it seems to add up to less than Robinson actually meant.

The movie works because of Robinson's story. It is moving in any form.  The acting is mostly good, the direction professional and the writing mostly doesn't fly off the rails (some of the lines Ford has to articulate could be the issue with his performance though). It is a movie that would be a great way to introduce young people to Robinson and his story but doesn't offer as much for the older folks who already know it.

Probably the best approach to seeing The Evil Dead (2013) is to forget it is called Evil Dead. Think of it instead as “People, For Dubious Reasons Go Into The Woods And Inexplicably Read An Evil Book They Shouldn’t And Gross Things Happen”. If you do this? Your viewing experience will be improved.

This isn’t to say this is a bad movie. It isn’t at all. It is a stylishly directed film whose actors make the most of the script they were handed. It looks great, it is way more disgusting than the original but it doesn’t spend so much money as to profane the original film’s low budget roots.

There are changes in the plot that are nowhere near drastic enough to be called “twists.” There is also something really promising in the work of first time director Fede Alvarez.  It is just a professionally done horror film that, if not perfect, never lags. It isn’t exceptionally scary, as the ad campaign claims but the original wasn’t really scary, even at the time. It was gross and it was sort of creepy. This film is, as mentioned, far “grosser” and almost manages the creepy thing as well.

There is also something to recommend the film in how a first time director like Alvarez, was the one picked to work this film. It was, way back when, producers Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell’s first movie (as director and lead actor respectively).  The reason the film was lifted from obscurity was the attention paid by Stephen King. In a way, this remake is the duo’s way of “paying it forward” and, from this film, Alvarez, seems a really promising horror director.  He is a far better horror director than some hacks that have tossed out horror movies in recent months.

And who wants to step into the remake of a film that, pretty close to, invented a genre? It takes some guts but when you get the offer, you take it. Alvarez deserves credit.

The film actually develops characters a tiny, tiny bit more than the first film which, frankly, doesn’t bother developing characters at all. Jane Levy (Shameless), as Mia, is a drug addict brought to the cabin by friends and family (estranged friends in part) to help her rehab.  Betty Ford might have been a better choice but there you might run into Lindsey Lohan.

So we get she is damaged and why, when weird things happen, no one believes her. It is a good adaptation of the original plot. We get her brother abandoned her and we get she and some of the friends resent him. We don’t need a great deal of back story to bring the plot to a grinding halt via flashbacks and poignant conversations about lost youth. This movie is called EVIL DEAD not The Cider House Rules.

There is no bad acting in this film. The special effects are all professional and disgusting. The plot is something they at the VERY least try to make coherent.  Even if it doesn’t bear close inspection, it does so better than the original. But this is never as original as the 1981 film. But how could it be?

Go see this if you are a horror fan and think about how they could make an Evil Dead II with the last survivor at the helm that WOULD break new horror ground. That would be fantastic.