Evil Dead

So I've read here and there that this remake lacks the camp of the original. And I look back over 20 years ago, watching The Evil Dead on a crummy rental VHS, in the dark of my teenage bedroom one night. The camp? The original Evil Dead was a terrifying experience, even with Bruce Campbell's over the top performance, the film was a scare-fest, a terrifying trip even nearly ten years after its release. The camp was in Evil Dead 2, an horror comedy remaking the original already, technically.

This remake finds many way to bow to the original, aside the obligatory visual quotes. The use of practical effects, notably, in an era of CGI- filled movies, is extremely refreshing. The gore feels painful, makes you cringe, churned my stomach. It successfully palliates a somewhat shallow characterization that makes it difficult to root for the characters (with the exception of Mia, who owes a lot to a really visceral performance by Jane Levy.)

And this is where Evil Dead 2013 took me by surprise. After roughly a first half of the movie taking Evil Dead fans by the hand towards hashed and rehashed territories, making them doubt that this was a good idea at all, the movie lets go of your hand and you're alone, in the middle of the woods, and it's dark and there's strange noises all about... and then limbs start flying.

I won't get into conjectures that the highly conventional and overly familiar first half was made that way with the sole purpose of placing the audience in their comfort zone, only to give more impact to the second half... but I would surely ask Fede Alvarez if I was to interview him.

Evil Dead 2013 is a treat for the fans of gore and horror, in any case. Another reminder that out of ten awful remakes, sometimes one rises to the top and delivers. Not for the faint of heart, for sure, but if you're a true horror fan, and even more, if you miss your old school, gruesome gore rides, this one is for you.

The story is basically the same with a couple of differences. I like how the movie does a good job building up the atmosphere that is still effective. The movie contains brutal attack scenes that are both disturbing and painful to watch. Also the movie is still suspenseful throughout and I really like the climax too. Just like the original, the effects are really well made. The makeup effects on the demons looks really good, but I didn't like the eyes on them because it makes them less creepy. The practical and gore effects are still great in the movie. And the death scenes are both brutal and great.

Unfortunately this movie is kind of predictable and the opening feels unnecessary. The side plot about Mia drug problems doesn't go anywhere interesting. And I didn't like the dialogue that the demons said in the movie.

I approached the Fede Alvares remake of Evil Dead with both trepidation and curiosity. My concerns were simple - Who could possibly improve on a Sam Raimi film? How can you call it Evil Dead without Bruce Campbell?

My concerns began to evaporate when I noticed Raimi's involvement in the opening credits and were completely dispelled when I realized that the new film shared only the most fundamental plot structure with the original. Both films are about friends in a cabin in the woods fighting a mysterious, purely evil, and incomprehensible force triggered by a mysterious ancient book. Otherwise, the films are only vaguely connected.

So this answered my first question - about remaking a Raimi film. You don't, you simply do something new on the same foundation.

The new Evil Dead is much more of a straightforward horror film and the differences go way beyond the disturbing addition of a crack addict as a central character. Most of the central characters aren't even likable, let alone funny. So much for my question about replacing Bruce Campbell. Again - you don't.

In 1981, Sam Raimi, his brother, an aspiring actor (Campbell) and a group of non-actors and amateur film makers made a horror classic with almost no budget and a great deal of debt. It took more than a decade for them to recoup the costs of this near-instant cult classic though the film was viewed as a "break-through". More recently, as one of Hollywood's most respected directors and producers, Raimi gave young Uruguayan writer / director Fede Alvares a shot at creatively re- imagining the film that made Raimi a contender.

The acting is better than that of the original (which should be no surprise since there were really only two actors in the Raimi film), the effects are more sophisticated, but cleverly reminiscent of the Raimi tradition of clever simplicity, and the film, like the original delivers a few good scares despite its ridiculous premise.

Shot for about $17,000,000 (which is not much these days), the Alvares re-do netted a 300% profit before it left theaters. Profitability has very little to do with quality these days, but I say good for them!

The new Evil Dead is worthy and a credit to the original.

I have to start by saying that Sam Raimi's original EVIL DEAD trilogy has been a personal favorite since my teenage years. EVIL DEAD 2 stands out as the best of the three for me, striking the perfect balance between horror and comedy, while ARMY OF DARKNESS leans more into its goofy, cheesy charm. But it's the first EVIL DEAD that delivers a relentless, low-budget terror that still packs a punch today, even with its undeniably campy effects.

This remake, thankfully, shakes things up just enough in the story to keep even hardcore fans of the original on their toes. It manages to stay true to the spirit of the original film while adding a modern touch. The same suspense lingers throughout, that heart-pounding question of who's next to fall victim to the curse. However, it's all slicked up with a Hollywood polish that contrasts with the scrappy, zero-budget feel of the original.

What really took me by surprise was just how much the gore has been cranked up. This is one of the most brutal, visceral horror films I've seen in years, with several scenes so intense they're hard to watch. The chainsaw scenes teased back in the '80s? They're here in full, bloody force. The production values are solid, and the cast does a decent job with what they're given.

Is it as good as the original? No, it doesn't quite capture that raw, terrifying edge, but it sure does deliver on the gross-out factor. For modern horror fans, it's a blood-soaked thrill ride, mixing demonic possession with over-the-top violence in a way that won't disappoint.

One of my favourite horror movies. It satisfies my need for horror from the beginning till the end . Watched it several times 😄 Was surprised the first time I saw it.