Evil Dead (2013)

[jonathancrane]

Yeah I'm kinda baffled why people seems so surprised at the seriousness of this film The first Evil Dead is one of the most hardcore straight up horror flicks made, it's dark bloody and violent and it's great because of that.

My own favourite is the second one, but you cant really compare any one in the series to any one. I see them as this:
The Evil Dead: Horror
Evil Dead II: Horror Comedy
Army of Darkness: Dark Adventure Comedy

This.

And I am excited about the film.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

SO you all can get over yourselves

OR they can continue to have their own opinions. And express them.

Amazingly, not everyone prefers the campy sequels over the first one.

 

[Marvolo]

A LOT of people have not seen the first one ..In fact the second movie is debatable as a simple re-make with more Raimi humor...(IE a more completed vision)

EVIL DEAD I was an insignificant film..it would have largely been forgotten save for its famed "tree scene" and the subsequent Evil Dead 2 popularity and the controversy with that. I'll get flamed for this but you go ask 100 horror fans what they think of EDI and of the 10 percent that have even seen it will mostly agree ED2 is the defining film.

EVIL DEAD 2 was what made Raimi and made this into a "franchise" potential..so this reboot looks like , yeah it may be true to the tone of the original..but its not true to what made the Evil Dead work. (and it's honestly never worked as a huge box office seller)

SO you all can get over yourselves and how EDI is some sort of hidden gem...it's a pretty bad flick.

PS and it IS hypocritical to damn a remake within the ED films when the best movie came from a remake of the prior film.

Well im not damning it for being a remake. Moreso im saying the charm that the original has is it being able to do a lot with a small budget. Beyond that the film is pretty much **** and full of cliches and trite dumb ideas. Im just wondering why eveyone is falling over themselves for a remake.

This looks to be true to ED1, and like it will include all the dumb ideas and trite and worn out cliches the horror genre is already flooded with. That isnt a winning formula. It doesnt look like it includes any of Raimi's sensibilities or the things that made him popular. This is why im not yet sold on this film.

 

[terry78]

I'm curious, but I wasn't clamoring for it. There are a few films out there where they just don't need to be remade. I get Raimi and Campbell gave their blessing, but still. I do like Jane Levy, though.

 

[def28]

What's the budget on this new film anyway?

I think its between 10-15 mill. From the interviews it sounds like they worked really hard to find new practical ways to make the effects and gore work. Instead of just adding cgi later.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Well im not damning it for being a remake. Moreso im saying the charm that the original has is it being able to do a lot with a small budget. Beyond that the film is pretty much **** and full of cliches and trite dumb ideas. Im just wondering why eveyone is falling over themselves for a remake.

So for argument's sake would your opinion change if you were to learn that the remake's budget was small - and therefore the crew were "able to do a lot with a small budget"? Not trying to be snippy, just attempting to understand where you're coming from.

It doesnt look like it includes any of Raimi's sensibilities or the things that made him popular.

One of Raimi's defining traits is his camera work. I saw a lot of his trademark camera work in the trailer, not to mention many re-imaginings of standout scenes and images that are what made the originals what they were. I see Raimi-inspired stuff throughout the trailer. Even still, we saw 1/100th of the movie. There's no way you can say there isn't any of Raimi's sensibilities in the movie when the movie as a whole hasn't been seen (and the fact that there IS evidence in the trailer).

I think that the problem is that the populace is split in two about Raimi. He's either the goofy/campy guy who made horror comedies and Spider-Man, or he's the guy who made the gory horror flicks. But in reality RAIMI doesn't matter here. This is a completely different director. I think it's ludicrous to expect the same EXACT film 30 years later.

 

[redhawk23]

As for the camera shots, while the trailer includes a few very Rami like shots, the director has stated how he refilmed several parts to try and bring more of his own style as he hated just aping the original film.

 

[Marvolo]

Guys im sorry but ill have to rejoin this conversation later. Im at work and its hard to multitask and articulate what it is im trying to say here. For fear of saying the wrong thing or my ideas being misconstrued im gonna come back later when i have more time to discuss and think about this.

 

[Spider-Who?]

EVIL DEAD I was an insignificant film..it would have largely been forgotten save for its famed "tree scene" and the subsequent Evil Dead 2 popularity and the controversy with that.

Evil Dead...insignificant? I think its safe to say that financially it could be considered that because it was a small, extremely low budget film with a limited release. And it was so gory that many countries BANNED the film from release in their countries. I'd hardly call a film treated like that insignificant. Evil Dead was also the film that put Raimi on the map. Without Evil Dead 1, there would be no others. There'd be no Raimi.

I'll get flamed for this but you go ask 100 horror fans what they think of EDI and of the 10 percent that have even seen it will mostly agree ED2 is the defining film.

You do realize that saying "go ask 100 people and they'll agree with me" is a waste of time to type and doesn't prove anything, right? Especially when I can counter that and give you examples that suggest ED1 is the preferred film.

Rotten Tomatoes list EVIL DEAD in second place in their Top 100 Horror films. EVIL DEAD 2 is #17.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/top_100_horror_movies/?category=10

Here, EVIL DEAD is listed as #9 out of 100. EVIL DEAD 2 isn't even on the list.
http://www.best-horror-movies.com/100-best-horror-films

You could argue that ED2 made more money, but any film with a larger screening (and less banning) will. Really doesn't equate to quality.

yeah it may be true to the tone of the original..but its not true to what made the Evil Dead work.

What? Have you ever even seen Evil Dead? What made Evil Dead work WAS it's horror and gore. What made Evil Dead 2 work was the combination of gore and comedy. What made AoD work was it's flat out ridiculousness. Each movie has it's own themes and style. You can't lay a blanket statement like that (without even saying what you think made it work), because each film is entirely different from the last.

SO you all can get over yourselves and how EDI is some sort of hidden gem...it's a pretty bad flick.

That's funny. I didn't realize people having differing opinions equates to superiority complexes. I don't think anyone would argue that the movies aren't bad flicks in some extent or another. That's one thing they all have in common. But there's certainly a difference between an enjoyable bad film and a baaaaad film.

 

[Tanin]

While The Evil Dead was intended to be and was a gore fest it ended up being quite campy in the long run. I do not know if this is because of bad acting or just a very low production but that it just the way it is now. Some people love it for the excessive horror and others because of how campy trying to be serious with such low effects ended up being.

I am just happy Sam Raimi is going to get the version of Evil Dead he seems to have intended but did not have the budget for.

 

[THANOSRULES]

Evil Dead...insignificant? I think its safe to say that financially it could be considered that because it was a small, extremely low budget film with a limited release. And it was so gory that many countries BANNED the film from release in their countries. I'd hardly call a film treated like that insignificant. Evil Dead was also the film that put Raimi on the map. Without Evil Dead 1, there would be no others. There'd be no Raimi.



You do realize that saying "go ask 100 people and they'll agree with me" is a waste of time to type and doesn't prove anything, right? Especially when I can counter that and give you examples that suggest ED1 is the preferred film.

Rotten Tomatoes list EVIL DEAD in second place in their Top 100 Horror films. EVIL DEAD 2 is #17.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/top_100_horror_movies/?category=10

Here, EVIL DEAD is listed as #9 out of 100. EVIL DEAD 2 isn't even on the list.
http://www.best-horror-movies.com/100-best-horror-films

You could argue that ED2 made more money, but any film with a larger screening (and less banning) will. Really doesn't equate to quality.



What? Have you ever even seen Evil Dead? What made Evil Dead work WAS it's horror and gore. What made Evil Dead 2 work was the combination of gore and comedy. What made AoD work was it's flat out ridiculousness. Each movie has it's own themes and style. You can't lay a blanket statement like that (without even saying what you think made it work), because each film is entirely different from the last.



That's funny. I didn't realize people having differing opinions equates to superiority complexes. I don't think anyone would argue that the movies aren't bad flicks in some extent or another. That's one thing they all have in common. But there's certainly a difference between an enjoyable bad film and a baaaaad film.

Well you came up with some decent counter points here...

First the "lists"
-That RT list is utter BS..it's calculated strictly off the tomatometer ratings of critics and the older films seem to get some different scoring scale..which favors them heavily. King Kong is # 2 on the list.

I understand ED is thought of by many Film critics (even beyond the horror genre) as some sort of triumph of 8mm eqse film and it has some sort of profound significance to "film"...maybe it does as some sort of evolution to Raimi's style but he hadnt hit his stride yet.

Most of that IMO came after the fact..in hindsight after Raimi's real success, which was really not mainstreamed until AoD. So yeah, it gets overblown, there is a lot to respect about it..even I'll admit that, but Film buffs..the kind of people that make ridiculous lists like the RT one, tend to over rate it. Most real live people tend to think ED2 is better, cept here i guess. SO some of "what made ED1 work" is after the fact overrated respect for a film that was some form of break through...although i dont feel it's that good.

ED2 was a also low budget flick. It wasnt like Raimi made zillions and earned world fame by ED1 that Hollywood gave him some monster budget. It was a cult film and largely insignificant as well. In general though it was an indicator of Raimi's style..his stamp and the feel of his film.

If ED1 was a satisfactory vision for Raimi..he wouldn't have re-made it, and used the same actor and even footage from ED1. ED2 Was the REAL version.

I'm only bringing up the "superioity complex" because you guys are ganging up on views like Marvelo like he's waay off base..which he's not.

Evil Dead 2 was the better film..and for those reasons of added humor, satire and ridiculousness mixed with the gore and violence. Perfect and genre re-defining..

ED1 was just gore and violence on a budget with a few neat Raimi esque shaky shots..nothing really transcending a genre. But some hollywood folks thougth he had some talent so they let him make a flick with more thought to it (ED2).

And lastly while I do think it is hypocritical to fear a reboot here based ont he fact ED2 was a reboot of ED1..I do understand the apprehension, as reboots in hollywood have been such a mixed bag.

EDIT: and so when I call ED1 "insignificant" I am referring to my thought that it was low budget mainly stock of some of the films of that time and NOT GENRE REDEFINING. It was only really "significant" in the fact it was Raimi's 1st, the budget, and the happy ending of where Raimi went. So IMO the movie IS ACTUALLY significant, but not because of what it is..more what it represents to movie makers.

 

[Balthus Dire]

I like how your bizarre argument is entirely based on your own personal opinions masquerading as facts.

 

[THANOSRULES]

I like how your bizarre argument is entirely based on your own personal opinions masquerading as facts.

Everything is subjective here and I dont think the notion that ED2 as a much better, significant, and genre defining than ED1 is that ridiculous.

and it's not based on just my opinion , it's based on my experiences asking people and listening to people..which is certainly subjective also but not what I perceive to be my personal opinions.

 

[Balthus Dire]

Not saying your opinion itself is ridiculous, but the way you are engaging with others as though your opinion is the "right" opinion is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

One thing to remember is that this is also a red band trailer so we're seeing a larger than usual amount of gore squeezed into a two minute video.

 

[redhawk23]

Well you came up with some decent counter points here...

First the "lists"
-That RT list is utter BS..it's calculated strictly off the tomatometer ratings of critics and the older films seem to get some different scoring scale..which favors them heavily. King Kong is # 2 on the list.

I understand ED is thought of by many Film critics (even beyond the horror genre) as some sort of triumph of 8mm eqse film and it has some sort of profound significance to "film"...maybe it does as some sort of evolution to Raimi's style but he hadnt hit his stride yet.

Most of that IMO came after the fact..in hindsight after Raimi's real success, which was really not mainstreamed until AoD. So yeah, it gets overblown, there is a lot to respect about it..even I'll admit that, but Film buffs..the kind of people that make ridiculous lists like the RT one, tend to over rate it. Most real live people tend to think ED2 is better, cept here i guess. SO some of "what made ED1 work" is after the fact overrated respect for a film that was some form of break through...although i dont feel it's that good.

ED2 was a also low budget flick. It wasnt like Raimi made zillions and earned world fame by ED1 that Hollywood gave him some monster budget. It was a cult film and largely insignificant as well. In general though it was an indicator of Raimi's style..his stamp and the feel of his film.

If ED1 was a satisfactory vision for Raimi..he wouldn't have re-made it, and used the same actor and even footage from ED1. ED2 Was the REAL version.

I'm only bringing up the "superioity complex" because you guys are ganging up on views like Marvelo like he's waay off base..which he's not.

Evil Dead 2 was the better film..and for those reasons of added humor, satire and ridiculousness mixed with the gore and violence. Perfect and genre re-defining..

ED1 was just gore and violence on a budget with a few neat Raimi esque shaky shots..nothing really transcending a genre. But some hollywood folks thougth he had some talent so they let him make a flick with more thought to it (ED2).

And lastly while I do think it is hypocritical to fear a reboot here based ont he fact ED2 was a reboot of ED1..I do understand the apprehension, as reboots in hollywood have been such a mixed bag.

EDIT: and so when I call ED1 "insignificant" I am referring to my thought that it was low budget mainly stock of some of the films of that time and NOT GENRE REDEFINING. It was only really "significant" in the fact it was Raimi's 1st, the budget, and the happy ending of where Raimi went. So IMO the movie IS ACTUALLY significant, but not because of what it is..more what it represents to movie makers.

As far as RT's access to reviews for ED1 and ED2, there wouldn't bee that much of a difference.

 

[mongoose-mania]

I'm terribly apprehensive right now. I just finished re-watching the entire trilogy today, and this... really did nothing for me. I'll wait till I see it to make a final judgement. After all, I thought the Cabin in the Woods looked like crap from its trailer, and I loved that film.

 

[THANOSRULES]

As far as RT's access to reviews for ED1 and ED2, there wouldn't bee that much of a difference.

I havnt quite figured out how they do the scores for older movies..especially ones that were not heavily reviewed.

 

[Lasirius]

I'm sold. Trailer was crazy, can't wait for this.

 

[bullets]

It looks like they got most of it right. Hopefully this leads to Ash coming back.

 

[Mike_D202]

The way this was described, it's a new story with new characters. So my conception is that Ash is running around somewhere while these new people play with the book.

 

[bullets]

The way this was described, it's a new story with new characters. So my conception is that Ash is running around somewhere while these new people play with the book.

That works for me. I don't expect Ash to show up but perhaps this could lead into that.

 

[SuperBatman]

At 1st I was like I really can't believe they are remaking this it doesn't need a remake. I then saw the trailer and you know it sold me. True it won't have Bruce Cambell in it which will be a shame but I really want to give this a chance.

 

[Cagefighterkip]

Hopefully it's good.
It looks like it could be but I'm apprehensive to say the least.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I kind of forgot the first was more horror like. I prefer the sequels and being that I'm not a huge fan if the first, if this can be good and be what perhaps Raimi had envisioned then cool. We gotta understand that the trademark things like Ash and the chainsaw were just apart if the first film. Take away the following of Ash/Campbell and the sequels right now and just look at it through the lens of when it first came out.