L'opéra de la terreur

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.

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.

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 do understand that some people are angry with this movie for various reasons. People are eager for the Evil Dead series to continue, so while there was always talk of that happening (right now there is an entry for Army of Darkness 2 for a 2016 release), a remake came first. A remake that the director didn't want Bruce Campbell to be associated with, so he could do his own thing. Something some fans surely didn't appreciate either of course.

But cutting ties does make sense in this case. And while I'm a big fan of Bruce Campbell and would have loved to see him in here somewhere, I do respect the directors choice of not wanting that to happen. There is also the fact, that the movie tries to be as serious as possible. So it's more like the first Evil Dead than the movies that came after it. And it sort of works too, if you let yourself into it. Is there one particular character that is more than annoying and does things you could/should kill him for? Yes, but judging the whole movie just on that premise would be unfair to it and wouldn't help your viewing experience. Whatever the case, the movie has good effects, it's nicely told and acted too. Try to be open minded (not literally)