Who would've guessed that low-budget horror from the 80s wouldn't age well?
I guess Evil Dead 2 is the middle child of the trilogy. I think it tries to do too much. It tries to retell part 1, but then advance the plot more, and then it tries to set-up a sequel. It's trying to be scary, but also funny. it feels forced and rushed. Bruce Campbell never really had "chops" (although he's good as plucky comic relief or a lead in a light comedy), so it's a tall order to have him carry a film as the lead
I don't recall Within the Woods. Was that full-length feature or a sort reel/proof of concept?
Yes, the 1980s were a relatively fruitful time for B-class horror films, gore/slasher films gained popularity, even though the quality was poor in most of the these movies, for example the Friday the 13th film series. Hoober's Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Carpenter's Halloween (1978) from the 1970s are the mainstays of the genre's rise in 80s.
I agree, I also think that Sam Raimi tried too hard to with the second part by adding elements that he obviously would have liked to present in the 1981 version, and especially the presentation of the effects was important to Raimi. The story of Evil Dead 2 is building a bridge to the sequel, so in reality the film was a prequel to the Army of Darkness film.
Within the woods was a 32-minute amateur film, budget $1600, with which Sam Raimi raised financing ($375,000) for the 1981 Evil Dead film, so it really served as a kind of POC that was presented to potential financiers. Understandably, the short film does not contain the breadth of the Evil Dead film's story, but it does have plenty of elements that are repeated in the Evil Dead films.
Qualitatively, Within the Woods is poor, it is 100% amateurish and therefore painful to watch. But for the fan of the Evil Dead films, Within the Woods offers an interesting presentation of where it all began. At the same time, the film proves the model for how to achieve a career as a film director and filmmaker in Hollywood, although I think that without Stephen King, Sam Raimi would not have achieved the same result.