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.

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)

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.

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.

I have to say, starting out, that Sam Raimi's original EVIL DEAD trilogy has been a favourite of mine ever since I saw it as a teenager. While EVIL DEAD 2 was the best of the three films, for me, a pitch-perfect comedy/horror, and ARMY OF DARKNESS was a funny, cheesy comedy, the first film was a gruelling terror flick made on a teensy budget...and it worked. Everything about it gelled, and it remains effective to this day, despite the cheesiness of the low-budget effects work.

This remake thankfully changes things around a bit story-wise, so that even the many fans of the original movie will find themselves guessing as to what's about to happen next. It's a film made very much in the spirit of the first film, and that makes it pretty good for a remake. The same suspense is there, the pulse-pounding question of who's going to be affected next by the curse, while at the same time it's given some Hollywood slickness to offset the original's grubby, zero-budget charm.

And, perhaps most surprisingly of all, the gore quota has been ramped up considerably. This is one of the most extremely vicious and nasty films I've seen in a long time, in which the various set-pieces of gore are difficult to watch; let's just say that the chainsaw stuff hinted at back in the 1980s is shown in full force here. Production values are more than adequate and the cast are pretty good, too. Is this as good as the original? No, it lacks the genuine fright-factor even if the ickiness is there...but at the same time it won't disappoint modern horror fans with its blend of demonic possession and outrageous violence.