Anthology movies are very tricky to pull off. Naturally, some segments, especially if each segment is done by different filmmakers, are going to be better than others. The ABCs of Death, when I first heard about it, sounded like an interesting concept. You get twenty-six directors from around the world, give them each a letter of the alphabet and some money, and let them make a short film segment (that involved death). The big problem with this conceit is you know going in a death is coming within all twenty-six shorts. Therefore, the suspense of the segment is diminished, and the directors, instead, have to come up with an interesting or stylistic way of killing someone. Movies that are heavy in style and lacking in story conflict don’t really do much for me.
Consequently, I liked about four of the segments in that first film. I remember “Q is for Quack” being my favorite, directed by Adam Wingard (The Guest), which injected some much needed levity into that first film. So, stepping into ABCs of Death 2, I was not particularly excited to sit through two more hours of death shorts and, to little surprise, I ended up enjoying only three of the segments this time around. That, by my math, is not a very good ratio. I actively disliked five segments, and the remaining eighteen ranged from mediocre to bad. Nice thing is, a short rarely goes over five minutes. So, if you don’t like one, the next one isn’t too far away. I just wish there were more I liked.
I will start with the positives. “O is for Ochlocracy”, directed by Hajime Ohata, was the first one to really get to me. It takes place in a world where zombies have taken over, and humans are on trial for killing zombies. It is darkly hilarious, opening with a frantic zombie wrapped in bandages, screaming “Death!” while pointing directly at the camera. The zombie makeup is not too over the top. The special effects are practical and grounded, and when they add some computer imagery, it is knowingly campy. It also has a real dark heart to it, which I think suits the humor very well.
Moving on, the mere idea of Russian Roulette freaks me out. Leaving your life up to complete chance is something my highly neurotic and controlling brain cannot handle. Marvin Kren‘s “R is for Roulette” had me grasping for air because of its intensity. Three Germans are locked in a cellar and must play Russian Roulette in order to get out. It is shot in gritty but great looking black and white, taking the scene out of time in a really effective way. The three actors are all believably terrified and prepared for what they have to do. I would say this was my favorite sequence of the film.
My final dose of praise goes to “S is for Split” by Juan MartÃnez Moreno. On a story level, it is a basic home invasion murder, with the husband and wife talking over the phone. He is in France, and she is back at home, dealing with a hooded person trying to kill her. The entire short is done in split screen, so you are able to see every second from every point of view in the story. When the wife is hiding in a bedroom, you can still see the killer waiting outside for her in the hallway and the husband panicking over the phone. It is great visual storytelling using a device that can look pretty terrible if done wrong.
The segments I downright hated were “E is for Equilibrium”, “G is for Grandad”, “H is for Head Games”, “M is for Masticate” and “W is for Wish”. If I had to find a common problem with them all, it would be each wanted to be weird for weird’s sake. They had nothing to say and decided to do something wacky without anything holding their individual plots together. “M is for Masticate”, in particular, made me want to stop watching the film entirely. It’s a fat, hairy guy running down the street wearing pee-soaked underwear. That’s it. Why do I need to watch that?
I am so not the intended audience for this film. Horror is one of my least favorite genres, as you can probably tell by how two of the three I liked are not horror premises. The eighteen in the middle are mostly horror, and if you like horror, they may be your cup of tea. I was mainly bored sitting through them. Zombies, ghouls, and whatnot do nothing to scare me because of how far removed from reality they are. That Russian Roulette segment scared me because that is a tangible concept I could participate in.
If you saw the first in this franchise and enjoyed it, this sequel will definitely be up your alley. It has all the same kind of stuff in it. For me? It did very little to entertain me, and in an anthology movie where it takes over half the running time to get to a segment I liked, that’s a huge problem that cannot be ignored. The two hours spent watching this felt laborious. If there were a way to view the segments individually at some point, I highly recommend “O”, “R” and “S”. The rest you never need to see.
