Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods.Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods.Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 6 wins & 20 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
This is not the most terrifying film you will ever experience.
Now the original Evil Dead was an experience. You were scared, disgusted, and exhausted by the time the film ended. It was a low budget gore-fest. The remake is packed with gore, but almost to the point of exaggeration, and that's about the only positive I can give the film. It wasn't scary, it wasn't brutal, it wasn't "Evil".
The remake features pretty looking hipsters going to the cabin as part of a drug intervention. Of course, possessions and killings ensue. Good acting isn't expected in this kinds of films, but the fact that the "heroine" is one of the worst actresses I've seen in a while (her delivery of a one-liner towards the end of the film had me almost throwing up in my mouth in disgust), doesn't help matters. The remake is very predictable. One character pops up out of frame to save another character at least 3 times. It becomes expected and comedic. For some reason the "demon voices" all sound really stupid. Hakf the audience was laughing when someone possessed would start talking in demon voice.
"Evil Dead '13" is like the countless other remakes that have come before it, it has no soul. But this remake does, however, have the blood and guts. The film tries to redeem itself in the last 15 minutes but it just feels like you're watching a completely different movie at that point.
Overall, it's a bloody deja vu. If feels like you've seen it all before...and not in a good way. Evil Dead '13 is not going to be a classic and if a sequel comes out, count me out. Unless that sequel is Army Of Darkness 2 with The Chin.
Now the original Evil Dead was an experience. You were scared, disgusted, and exhausted by the time the film ended. It was a low budget gore-fest. The remake is packed with gore, but almost to the point of exaggeration, and that's about the only positive I can give the film. It wasn't scary, it wasn't brutal, it wasn't "Evil".
The remake features pretty looking hipsters going to the cabin as part of a drug intervention. Of course, possessions and killings ensue. Good acting isn't expected in this kinds of films, but the fact that the "heroine" is one of the worst actresses I've seen in a while (her delivery of a one-liner towards the end of the film had me almost throwing up in my mouth in disgust), doesn't help matters. The remake is very predictable. One character pops up out of frame to save another character at least 3 times. It becomes expected and comedic. For some reason the "demon voices" all sound really stupid. Hakf the audience was laughing when someone possessed would start talking in demon voice.
"Evil Dead '13" is like the countless other remakes that have come before it, it has no soul. But this remake does, however, have the blood and guts. The film tries to redeem itself in the last 15 minutes but it just feels like you're watching a completely different movie at that point.
Overall, it's a bloody deja vu. If feels like you've seen it all before...and not in a good way. Evil Dead '13 is not going to be a classic and if a sequel comes out, count me out. Unless that sequel is Army Of Darkness 2 with The Chin.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaAlthough he has a background in CGI, director Fede Alvarez chose to go with practical effects for the film's visuals, mainly out of tribute to what Sam Raimi achieved on a very limited budget back in 1980.
- GoofsAt the beginning of the film a woman is speaking a foreign language, according to the subtitles she is speaking Turkish, she is actually speaking in Welsh.
- Quotes
Abomination Mia: I will feast on your soul!
Mia: [revs the chainsaw] Feast on this, motherfucker.
[Mia shoves the chainsaw into the Abomination's face]
Mia: Die.
[Mia defeats the Abomination by slice the head in half as the creature begins to sink into the ground]
Mia: Go back to Hell, bitch.
- Crazy creditsIn reference to a term coined by Sam Raimi after The Three Stooges, the actors which appear in bit parts as "really good people" (Bill Vincent, Judah Tapert, Terri Donaldson, and Alan Breslau) are credited as "Fake Shemps".
- Alternate versionsWhile the theatrical release was uncut, the German DVD release was cut by ca. 1 minute to to keep its "Not under 18" rating from the FSK. The uncut version was released with a SPIO/JK approval (resulting in various sale restrictions).
- ConnectionsFeatured in Face Off: Mummy Mayhem (2013)
- SoundtracksBaby, Little Baby
Written by Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues
Performed by Jane Levy and Shiloh Fernandez
Published by Fede Alvarez (ASCAP) and Rodo Saygues (ASCAP)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- Posesión infernal
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $17,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $54,239,856
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $25,775,847
- Apr 7, 2013
- Gross worldwide
- $97,542,952
- Runtime
- 1h 31m(91 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content






