[deamonfruba]

**I'm thinking about how to ask this question and not be seen as a troll. I swear, I'm not. I'm just legitimately curious.**

I'm not a newbie to horror. Growing up, I wasn't allowed to watch anything rated beyond PG-13 but once I hit college, I started absorbing movies at an alarming rate. A few years have passed and I've slowed down a bit as my appreciation has grown and now I'm trying to build up my understanding of the horror "canon" from Friday the 13th to Bela Lugosi films. I watched "The Evil Dead" a while back and very much enjoyed it but only tonight sat down for what was supposed to be a marathon of all three original movies. I didn't make it past the first 30 minutes of the third and I doubt I ever will because I was a bit too annoyed. This is where my questions come in.

My first problem was the inconsistent story line. I understand the disparity between I and II: Sam Raimi couldn't get through the red tape and get footage of his original film. I stumbled a bit but decided to go with Ash being insane and an unreliable narrator, which could have been really fun to see played out. (I'm disappointed that I didn't see THAT film but Raimi does not exist to serve my odd whims.) But then the second film was just BORING. It had been built up in my mind as this amazing piece of iconic horror when really nothing very new or interesting happened. The gore was so-so, the laughs were pretty dull (except when Ash starts dancing with the lamp - that was great), and the characters were flat. The main chick didn't even seem to give a crap that her father, mother, and husband/boyfriend/whatever were brutally killed and dragged to hell. Then, film III begins with yet another plot shift and I've lost any sense of WHY.

So here's my first direct question: Why is II lauded as so much of an improvement? The first was genuinely creepy and Ash was pretty stellar as a realistic guy pulled into a terrible situation. But the second was nothing to write home about. Is it possible that some of this is a nostalgia thing? A lot of people grew up watching the film which I know for certain colors your appreciation (here's looking at you, Goosebumps). The stop-motion animation (I think?) or puppeteer was neat and I'm not tuned in enough to know whether that was groundbreaking. And the humor was just bland. They played the same tricks on the characters (demon in the cellar allowing its host to speak to their loved ones, for example) and Ash was no longer this normal guy but instead a walking vessel of testosterone who no longer seems human.

Here's my second question: What is the reason for such stark differences between each film's plot? As I said, I first chalked it up to Ash's fragile mental state but then he kind of stopped HAVING a mental state. And he's not exactly telling this story to anybody so I don't understand why we are given a continuous plot if the plot does not remain continuous. It may not have been as much of a choice between I and II but between II and III, it definitely was. I don't trust Raimi as a writer enough to believe that there's some greater reason but this doesn't seem to disturb anybody else. Is it easy to brush off because the series is such a fun time that channels a craving for action and blood? (If that's the case then I think I'm up a creek with this one since that does about nothing for me.)

If anybody has theories, I would be really happy to hear them. Even something that I could build a foundation on would be wonderful so I can try looking at things a little differently.

Thanks a bunch!