Evil Dead

A straight horror vibe, some extreme cringe-inducing gore and a surprise final act do enough to differentiate this from the original, but it can't top the raw charm of the cult classic. 'Evil Dead (2013)' is a commendable effort, though. It's certainly one of the better remakes I've seen. The film captures what it is that Raimi and company would have gone for if they had the budget and experience to do so back in 1981, achieving that over-the-top but seemingly 'realistic' gore-fest feel that makes it not for the squeamish. It's probably one of the goriest films I've seen, with powerful practical effects grounding everything in reality and capturing the spirit of the original. Having rewatched 'The Evil Dead (1981)' fairy recently, I think it's safe to say that it isn't just nostalgia that drives me when I say I much prefer the zaniness of the original to the more refined approach of this one. Though I would rather watch Raimi's picture, Alvarez's outing does more than enough to set itself apart from its source material and, as such, isn't actually competing for your attention. It's its own thing and all the better for it. It's a really solid effort, actually, despite some clunky dialogue and a cast of mostly generic characters. That's really impressive considering the lasting, palpable yet intangible allure of the original 'video-nasty' that everyone loved to hate and now just loves to love. 7/10.

We seem to be in a time where the remakes of remakes will be remade, even films like Cabin Fever aren't remaining sacred, the obligatory remake follows.

Evil Dead now is a remake with a bit of bite, of course it has every possible cliche under the sun ticked off. We have the obligatory character coming out of the ground with long stringy hair, we have the trapdoor, the book of death, and of course the vomiting. Despite all the blatant lack of any sort of imagination Evil Dead somehow manages to capture the imagination, and provide ninety minutes of quite thrilling entertainment.

The scares are plentiful, and the acting is such that you believe in the pain, physical and mental, it really is quite well made. Effective use of special effects and music.

Not a film I'd look to watch on a regular basis, but it's somehow rather refreshing. 7/10

Please enough with the remakes though.

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.

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.

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.