鬼玩人2

《鬼玩人2》电影虽然是一部经典幽默的黑色恐怖片，虽然看着恐怖，但是幽默搞笑，不愧是导演所指导的影片。

而且在选角上也是选得好，另外，鬼玩人的 鬼追人，男主则是除魔英雄，灭鬼英雄，因为一本死灵之书引起世界末日，虽然打斗场面有点血腥，但是是一部好的电影。

以后的电影其实拍摄手法也有所讲究，虽然那个时候的设备没那么先进，但是足矣完成一部电影。

而鬼玩人系列电影虽然拍摄了三部，延续下去承接的续集就是以电视剧形式来延续故事的发展也是不错的选择。

《鬼玩人2》影评 一对年轻情侣来到一座坐落于森林深处的小屋，好奇的男主角艾什在无意之间解放了小屋中的死亡之书的邪灵，邪灵们不仅吞噬了他的女友还让他失去了右手，在他与邪灵周旋时又有一群人来到了此地，于是一场人鬼大战再次开始······ 这部电影的剧情十分老套，而且投资也十分低。但是低廉的成本靠着导演对画面的掌控以及各种运动镜头使成就了这部电影，用着让人紧张的氛围撑起了这部电影。比如每次邪灵出现时都是长镜头和主观镜头，在黑夜之中穿过一片漆黑的丛林，同时伴随着如同引擎发动声的杂音，让人紧张感十足。而且随着主角的移动，镜头时不时晃动，与邪灵的对抗中血浆四处喷射，紧张的同时也不断插入黑色幽默，使观众在不断起伏的情节陷入层层的恐怖感中。而其中的一些镜头也不断被其他恐怖电影所模仿。 比如艾什的女友在邪灵附体时艾什砍头后的再次复活。月光下，两根树枝交叉而成的十字架缓缓倒下，在十字架倒下处的石堆里一只手突然伸出，一具干枯的无头尸体不断扭动着她不再丰满水灵的肉体，在这苍白的月光下不翩翩起舞。从远处一颗头颅伴随着笑声从远处滚动而来，枯涸的身体弯下腰，身体断面与头部断面结合在一起，再次在这黑夜中起舞。干尸随着典雅的音乐不断跳舞，这莫名让人觉得喜感却由使人惊悚的画面也深入人心。 是其中一段邪灵追逐着艾什的长镜头也十分惊心动魄，从屋外到屋内，客厅到厨房，再练穿两个卧室到达浴室，接着再到一段曲折的走廊的尾随到厨房，再回到客厅，接着慢慢退回到屋外。短短一分钟不断穿过各种场景，使人产生紧张感与压迫感，再突然使人放松接着再一次让危机袭来，让观众沉浸在观影过程中。 在音乐上这部电影的配乐也只能算的上能听，并无可圈可点之处，但是导演却使这些配乐配合上各种诡异的情节，使这毫无亮点的音乐成功融入电影之中，特别是邪灵出现的引擎声，让那些杂音更加突出了邪灵诡异的特点，增加了画面感染力。 虽然本作的剧情依旧十分简单，但相比前作更加补充了故事的设定，特别是电影进入高潮时，主角将断掉的右手接上电锯，背后背上双管猎枪打算与邪灵来一个了断时，伴随着音乐的烘托一个不输给超级英雄的形象由此诞生，而电影最后主角穿越到中世纪与之前救世主的图画相应时不禁使人宛然一笑。 这部电影在拍摄时正值美国恐怖电影的低迷期，但是就这种简单粗暴，毫无内涵的剧情在上映后给当时低迷的美国恐怖电影业带来一场新风，也成为当时“cult”片的代表作之一。而现如今，中国大陆恐怖电影一蹶不振，靠着三流的剧情以及各种名不副实的噱头吸金，无论是从电影的剧本上还是拍摄手法上都让人感觉无聊透顶，真希望有朝一日能在大陆看见一部优秀的恐怖片。

这个在哪里看啊，大神告诉我嘛，大神，告诉我在哪里看，大神大神大神。。。。。。。。就是找不到，谁告诉我在哪里看嘛。。。。。。www。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，。，

看了Roger Ebert在上映当年写的影评，发现是这一部电影启发了一种新的类型，披着恐怖片外衣的血浆喜剧片。Sam Raimi把血腥的镜头大杂烩之后营造的黑色幽默非常天才。Roger Ebert说这是一部“about bad taste”的电影，很精妙的评论。

顺手搬一下原文。 Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn movie review (1987) | Roger Ebert

"Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn" is a comedy disguised as a blood-soaked shock-a-rama. It looks superficially like a routine horror movie, a vomitorium designed to separate callow teenagers from their lunch. But look a little closer and you'll realize that the movie is a fairly sophisticated satire. Level One viewers will say it's in bad taste. Level Two folks like myself will perceive that it is about bad taste.

The plot: Visitors to a cottage in the Michigan woods discover a rare copy of the Book of the Dead and accidentally invoke evil spirits. The spirits run amok, disemboweling and vivisecting their victims. The hero battles manfully with the dread supernatural forces, but he is no match for the unspeakably vile creatures in the basement, in the woods and behind every door.

This story is told with wall-to-wall special effects. Skeletons dance in the moonlight. Heads spin on top of bodies. Hands go berserk and start attacking their owners. After they are chopped off, they have a life of their own. Heads are clamped into vises and squashed. Blood sprays all over everything. Guts spill. Slime spews. If nauseating images of horrific gore are not, as they say, your cup of tea, the odds are good you will not have a great time during this movie.

On the other hand, if you know it's all special effects, and if you've seen a lot of other movies and have a sense of humor, you might have a great time at "Evil Dead 2." I did - up to a point. The movie devours ideas at such a prodigious rate that it begins to repeat itself toward the end, but the first 45 minutes have a kind of manic, inspired genius to them.

Consider, for example, the scene where the hero severs his hand from his body and the hand takes on a life of its own, attacking him. Leave out the blood and the gore and a few of the details, and this entire sequence builds like a tribute to the Three Stooges. Consider the scene where the hero attaches a chain saw to what's left of his amputated arm. Disgusting, right? But the director, Sam Raimi, approaches it as a sly jab at the way Robert De Niro armed himself in "Taxi Driver."

I'm not suggesting that "Evil Dead 2" is fun merely because you can spot the references to other movies. It is because (a) the violence and gore are carried to such an extreme that they stop being disgusting and become surrealistic; (b) the movie's timing aims for comedy, not shocks, and (c) the grubby, low-budget intensity of the film gives it a lovable quality that high-tech movies wouldn't have.

There is one shot in the film that is some kind of masterpiece. There is a force out there in the woods. We never see it, but we see things from its point of view. In one long and very complex unbroken point-of-view shot, this force roars through the woods, flattens everything, crashes through the cabin door, and roars through room after room with invincible savagery, chasing the hero until.... But I wouldn't dream of giving away the joke.