Evil Dead (2013)

[Rodrigo90]

That's all cool

And I rather not have humour in the sequel. Stick to their guns and ignore the nags of critics.

I'm sure Bruce and Jane together will give us some good laughs anyway lol

 

[DACrowe]

I just assumed once she was "cured" she reverted back to her pre-demon form, ie: no post-possession mutilation.

I actually wish they left the tongue split. Just as she only has one arm now, it could easily be done in sequels where she talks normally and then there is some surprising humorous shot of her tongue that could freak other characters (meat for the deadites) out.

It does seem like a cop out that basically everything bad went away. Then again, I do not think that arm is coming back.

 

[DACrowe]

Early word was very positive but overall this film has had mixed reviews even from the hardcore horror fans. I'd rather this be well received for the GA then the other crap remakes, Saw films or PA flicks. Studios have already destroyed enough horror franchise's in the past 5 years. At least this flick respected the source and gored it up.

Well, I feel if most people saw the original trilogy, they would hate it. Most of the GA cannot stomach well made indie fare, much less low budget amateur hour that is the first film, even if Raimi's visuals and camera set-ups are still more inspired than any big budget horror movie released in the last 10 years or so.

And the sequels are too goofy for the mainstream who thought the remake was also too goofy and "not scary" enough.

I do think the remake could have been better, though it is quite good. I think the recognition by a majority of critics shows that it has some merit. But while it played up the horror elements more than Raimi did, while downplaying the camp and surrealism, it still is mostly about fodder being served up to death in the most absurdly gory and OTT ways. It is still a mean spirited joke, even if the punch line is a bit muted.

In retrospect, it is not surprising a wider audience would be turned off by that in a movie.

 

[DACrowe]

Which was exactly my point. It is serving a different purpose now. It is a cannonized 'iconic moment' of which the inclusion is meant to play upon the familiarity as fan service.

At the very least it is a missed opportunity for this new film to define its self.

And cruel and mean spirited and bizarre is not the same as "tongue-in-cheek" which is what the sequels are known for but is not really a good way of describing the first film by any means but is the way you described it in the post that I was responding to.

The first film is tongue-in-cheek. So much so that investors in Michigan chewed Raimi out after they saw the finished product because they thought they were getting a horror movie and were upset it turned out to be a (pitch black) dark comedy instead.

The rape is shown in no less of a subversively, raised eyebrow tone than when Ash has to beat his undead girlfriend back to death with a beam or when Cheryl floats above them all, saying they are doomed.

It is all done in a very self-aware, mocking way. Yes, in the remake they know that hardcore horror fans expect the scene (though much of the GA likely did not), but now you are just getting into semantics about remakes. I am not a fan of the general practice myself, but what you are saying is that no remake should ever callback a scene from the original because it is expected. For example, should Peter Jackson have ended King Kong differently than Kong getting shot off the Empire State Building and being used by the producer for the quote, "It was beauty who killed the beast?"

If you are going to remake Evil Dead, you are going to do that scene just as if you are going to remake Halloween, there will be a scene of Michael Myers stalking Laurie on the streets of autumn suburbia. It is just the nature of the beast.

And again, I do not think the remake presented the scene any less horrifically than the original. Actually, I think one could argue that it was done in a less exploitative way. There is no nudity in the remake nor are the sound effects so creepy or misogynistic. Instead, it is presented as a complete no-joke nightmare for Mia.

So again, I think Devin has his head up his ass in his attempt to instill misjudged political allegories onto movies that do not have them. Or sometimes he just willfully misses the point like how he claimed the third Nolan Batman is a film endorsing fascism. I am serious.

 

[chelo248]

So now that the Evil Dead remake took the top spot at the box office this weekend, what is next for director Fede Alavarez and his writer Rodo Sayagues? I’m hearing they’re developing a Marvel movie and sources suspect it’s Doctor Strange

http://latino-review.com/2013/04/08/evil-dead-doctor-strange/

]http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=455747

 

[DarkSovereignty]

]http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=455747

 

[Legion]

I can see where that would be interesting, but I would prefer to keep it rustic and in the mysterious lands of the woods. Keep it grounded for another movie, then have Ash show up at the end of that one, after AOD2.

I imagine something like Mia wandering the woods, trying to make it back home, constantly losing blood. She's delirious and confused. She passes the car from the first that she drove into the water. As she makes her way through the woods, she comes up on the same cabin. Everything is the same, only the cabin is not damaged. The jeep is there, tipped over. Everything is the same, with the exception of the fire damage. She panics and runs back into the woods. She again, passes the car in the water again (angled the opposite way of the first pass, showing that she is passing it in opposite directions). She again gets to the cabin, same set up. Everything is the same, only no fire damage.

This would set up the idea that while she thinks she's free and safe, the demons are still tormenting her, giving her false hope. This also gives the opportunity for the sequel to be a similar tone to the first, but more psychological.

From there I'm thinking have her family come up after not hearing from them on the detoxing, only to find David and their friends murdered, Mia sitting in the cabin floor, crying without her hand, bleeding out and in shock. They try to rush her out from the cabin to a hospital, obviously can't get away, and the nightmare starts again.



While I liked that concept for Evil Dead 2, that's a BIG no for this sequel in my book. If they indeed plan on combining the storylines, keep this one horror based. Let Raimi's world be a little more slapstick, while still scary and have Fede's be straight horror. Then, as they combine for a potential Evil Dead 7, go with a film that's about 85/15 horror. A ratio like Drag Me to Hell, but better, and the scary scarier and the funny funnier.

I was so excited for this movie because it focused on the horror elements of the original Evil Dead. I saw the movie this weekend and loved it. There's no need to change the formula and inject slapstick humor just because that's where Raimi took the franchise...

 

[Venom75]

I really liked the movie,but Evil Dead 2 is still my favorite. Which,reminds me. I wish they had more supernatural monsters make appearances in a sequel(if they do one).

Spoiler

That's one thing that disappointed me about the final "monster" in the remake. She was just a possessed girl,not some kind of otherworldly creature like at the end of Evil Dead 2.

 

[redhawk23]

The first film is tongue-in-cheek. So much so that investors in Michigan chewed Raimi out after they saw the finished product because they thought they were getting a horror movie and were upset it turned out to be a (pitch black) dark comedy instead.

The rape is shown in no less of a subversively, raised eyebrow tone than when Ash has to beat his undead girlfriend back to death with a beam or when Cheryl floats above them all, saying they are doomed.

It is all done in a very self-aware, mocking way. Yes, in the remake they know that hardcore horror fans expect the scene (though much of the GA likely did not), but now you are just getting into semantics about remakes. I am not a fan of the general practice myself, but what you are saying is that no remake should ever callback a scene from the original because it is expected. For example, should Peter Jackson have ended King Kong differently than Kong getting shot off the Empire State Building and being used by the producer for the quote, "It was beauty who killed the beast?"

If you are going to remake Evil Dead, you are going to do that scene just as if you are going to remake Halloween, there will be a scene of Michael Myers stalking Laurie on the streets of autumn suburbia. It is just the nature of the beast.

And again, I do not think the remake presented the scene any less horrifically than the original. Actually, I think one could argue that it was done in a less exploitative way. There is no nudity in the remake nor are the sound effects so creepy or misogynistic. Instead, it is presented as a complete no-joke nightmare for Mia.

So again, I think Devin has his head up his ass in his attempt to instill misjudged political allegories onto movies that do not have them. Or sometimes he just willfully misses the point like how he claimed the third Nolan Batman is a film endorsing fascism. I am serious.

Agree to disagree. Nods in remakes are okay, I just think that if they don't do more to strike out on there own there is basically no point. Fede Alvarez himself was sick to his stomach (his words not mine) with how many shots and things that he had too slavishly copied from the original and went as far as to reshoot and rework some of them.

Again, I simply question the specific practice here of using a rape scene as fan service. Its in fact been a major selling point of the film, alluded to in most of the trailers.

Am I saying the film is necessarily bad because of it? No. Do I think it could have done better by doing more of its own thing? Certainly, especially since they are now trying to have their cake and eat it to by having the film be more of a soft reboot.


Side note: Mike Meyers stalking Laurie Strode in October is the premise of the film, not a specific scene. That is what the film is ultimately about. However, the halloween remake does indeed end up being overly slavish, squandering the original contributions the film does make to the series earlier on in the film.

Side side note: While I agree Faraci goes a little too far a lot of times in trying to place films in a political context his description of TDKR as 'facistic' is not entirely unfair.

Spoiler

Ultimately, TDKR is too muddled to actually be advocating for much of anything, but Faraci is not alone in his qualms on this front. Basically the way I've seen it laid out is this. Bane draws upon a lot of the same rhetoric and populism that a lot of social movements have drawn on for the past few years but also throughout history when challenging strong central governments. Ultimately though his rhetoric is hallow and he is just tearing apart society. A major throughline in Nolan's batfilms is a restoration of the police force and governmental authority. This all comes to ahead with the police all in dress uniforms going head to head with Bane's forces, many of whom were recruited from Gotham's population. Its a glorification of police power over the populist masses. Coming at a time when police are pepper-spraying Occupy protesters and protesters in other countries are straightup being shot at, the film puts off a bad vibe for some people.

 

[DACrowe]

Agree to disagree. Nods in remakes are okay, I just think that if they don't do more to strike out on there own there is basically no point. Fede Alvarez himself was sick to his stomach (his words not mine) with how many shots and things that he had too slavishly copied from the original and went as far as to reshoot and rework some of them.

Again, I simply question the specific practice here of using a rape scene as fan service. Its in fact been a major selling point of the film, alluded to in most of the trailers.

Am I saying the film is necessarily bad because of it? No. Do I think it could have done better by doing more of its own thing? Certainly, especially since they are now trying to have their cake and eat it to by having the film be more of a soft reboot.


Side note: Mike Meyers stalking Laurie Strode in October is the premise of the film, not a specific scene. That is what the film is ultimately about. However, the halloween remake does indeed end up being overly slavish, squandering the original contributions the film does make to the series earlier on in the film.

Side side note: While I agree Faraci goes a little too far a lot of times in trying to place films in a political context his description of TDKR as 'facistic' is not entirely unfair.

Spoiler

Ultimately, TDKR is too muddled to actually be advocating for much of anything, but Faraci is not alone in his qualms on this front. Basically the way I've seen it laid out is this. Bane draws upon a lot of the same rhetoric and populism that a lot of social movements have drawn on for the past few years but also throughout history when challenging strong central governments. Ultimately though his rhetoric is hallow and he is just tearing apart society. A major throughline in Nolan's batfilms is a restoration of the police force and governmental authority. This all comes to ahead with the police all in dress uniforms going head to head with Bane's forces, many of whom were recruited from Gotham's population. Its a glorification of police power over the populist masses. Coming at a time when police are pepper-spraying Occupy protesters and protesters in other countries are straightup being shot at, the film puts off a bad vibe for some people.

Eh, it is an agree to disagree. I think what you are describing is the flaw with many remakes. How much can you stray without being seen as unfaithful? You say Zombie was too slavish but most fans accused him of taking huge departures from the original and making the film too much his own. Simultaneously, there are people like me who despised the Friday the 13th remake because it offered literally nothing new except a bigger budget and glossy cinematography.

As for Evil Dead, I do think "tree rape" is critical to its lore. Similar to, yes, Laurie being stalked or King Kong falling off the Empire State Building. Which brings me back to my original point, if you are going to complain about tree rape, take it up with Raimi circa '81 and circa '13 as he put it into both films. Because it is one of the most iconic things about the franchise and one of the most defining things. If we want to talk about that saying something negative about the '13 film for being sexist or about the ED fanbase for wanting to see that, then one must REALLY take offense to the same fanbase making the scene so "(in)famous" for the last 30+ years.

And again, it is shot in a far less exploitative or arguably misogynistic way than how it is presented in the 1981 original.

As for The Dark Knight Rises...

Spoiler

Devin has always had an axe to grind with Nolan and TDK films in particular. In his post-fanboy glowing love for The Avengers, he was looking for reasons to hate TDKR.

I will agree that it is more thematically muddled than TDK, but it is hardly difficult to read. It is certainly a series that is in support of the role of government and authority within society, just as the Batman character has always represented.

But there is a reason it is so heavily modeled directly on A Tale of Two Cities and the French Revolution. Bane is a populist who uses rhetoric that while, yes, can be found similar to OWS, it also sounds a lot like Glenn Beck and other Tea Party extremists' populist rants. It is always about "us vs. them" and taking down elites against the massive population. But does that mean Batman is anti-tax reform or, equally plausible by such logic, a hater of the Tea Party?

Nolan is saying neither. Bane is based on a long history of populists who uses massive anger over sincere injustices to push their own agendas, in particularly Robespierre of the French Revolution. He co-opted a revolution for democracy into a power grab that became known as "The Reign of Terror" where he sent thousands to the guillotines before he himself was finally turned on and put under the blade.

I hardly doubt anybody would accuse Charles Dickens, who wrote A Tale of Two Cities, to be a supporter for the right of the state and rich elite over the poor and disenfranchised. The man who wrote Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol is about as far as one can get from pro-state authoritarian. However, his book about what happened in Paris is, at most, small-c Burkian conservative in its assertion that reform should be incremental and obtained through the institutions as opposed to be the rabble of a mob.

Likewise, Nolan presents most of the Gotham elite as indifferent and decadent. The party Bruce follows Selina too; the Wall Street bankers who do not even look at the help they toss money on the floor for; Daggett who sneaked a terrorist into Gotham to help him with a hostile takeover; Tate/Talia herself being part of the terrorist group.

It is a broad generalization to say Nolan's film is jackbooted and would make about as much sense as to say Dickens is a defender of the British aristocracy. It is a cherry-picked argument that holds no weight under scrutiny. That goes for much of Devin's writing. Just my opinion.

 

[Patzo3000]

Just so you guys know, in that interview with Fede a couple of pages back, he says that ED2(Though he does not want to call it that since ED2 is so cherished and he says that it will probably be called "Evil Dead Something") will have a drastic tone change because he feels that is an important part of the series. He also said it would not be horror comedy as he.wants to do his own thing and that "Raimi is the king of horror comedy" and he feels he wouldn't do it well. He also says he is discussing the script, and where to go, with Raimi, Campbell, Tapert and Rodo. He says he has his mind set on the tone but wants it to be a secret until the first trailer.

http://m.craveonline.com/film/inter...iew-fede-alvarez-on-evil-dead-and-evil-dead-2

 

[Rodrigo90]

Yeah...I'm in discussions

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Why the hell are people typing manuscripts about the dark knight rises?

 

[Patzo3000]

Yeah...I'm in discussions

That's right! I dun found you out!

But no, the Rodrigo that cowrote the new film with Fede. And the next one it seems.

EDIT: Oh, the name of the guy is actually (F)Rodo.

Whoopsie!

 

[Figs]

Just so you guys know, in that interview with Fede a couple of pages back, he says that ED2(Though he does not want to call it that since ED2 is so cherished and he says that it will probably be called "Evil Dead Something") will have a drastic tone change because he feels that is an important part of the series. He also said it would not be horror comedy as he.wants to do his own thing and that "Raimi is the king of horror comedy" and he feels he wouldn't do it well. He also says he is discussing the script, and where to go, with Raimi, Campbell, Tapert and Rodrigo. He says he has his mind set on the tone but wants it to be a secret until the first trailer.

http://m.craveonline.com/film/inter...iew-fede-alvarez-on-evil-dead-and-evil-dead-2

Great news! I like that he's not going to try to outdo Raimi with the horror/comedy aspect.

I was slightly disappointed leaving the theater because I thought the movie was going to be way more violent than it turned out to be. After thinking about it over the past few days, I really liked it, but the original is still my favorite.

 

[redhawk23]

Eh, it is an agree to disagree. I think what you are describing is the flaw with many remakes. How much can you stray without being seen as unfaithful? You say Zombie was too slavish but most fans accused him of taking huge departures from the original and making the film too much his own. Simultaneously, there are people like me who despised the Friday the 13th remake because it offered literally nothing new except a bigger budget and glossy cinematography.

As for Evil Dead, I do think "tree rape" is critical to its lore. Similar to, yes, Laurie being stalked or King Kong falling off the Empire State Building. Which brings me back to my original point, if you are going to complain about tree rape, [take it up with Raimi circa '81 and circa '13 as he put it into both films. Because it is one of the most iconic things about the franchise and one of the most defining things. If we want to talk about that saying something negative about the '13 film for being sexist or about the ED fanbase for wanting to see that, then one must REALLY take offense to the same fanbase making the scene so "(in)famous" for the last 30+ years.

That is precisely what I am doing. Its always been problematic. Doing it again is more so.

If the producers so insisted on its inclusion then that's their problem, especially considering it was not in Fede's original script which instead featured a combination of moving trees and a deadite coyote which vomited into her mouth.

You argue that it was needed because it is so iconic and yet we're talking about an Evil Dead film with no Ash Williams. Think on that.

Would anyone care or remember The Thing if it were so focused on recreating The Thing From Another World?

RZ's Halloween starts of crafting its own thing but then half way through shifts to just recreating scenes pretty much shot for shot. It doesn't graft and the movie fails because of it. Myers stalking strode is basically the premise of Halloween. The premise of Evil Dead is young people in a cabin in the woods encounter demons. Neither premise necessarily calls for any specific scene.

I wanted to be sure that it didn’t repeat anything. There was a couple of moments in the movie where I was quoting something too literally and I felt bad to my stomach, really, honestly. I was like, “Why am I doing this?”

 

[def28]

I do think the remake could have been better, though it is quite good. I think the recognition by a majority of critics shows that it has some merit. But while it played up the horror elements more than Raimi did, while downplaying the camp and surrealism, it still is mostly about fodder being served up to death in the most absurdly gory and OTT ways. It is still a mean spirited joke, even if the punch line is a bit muted.

In retrospect, it is not surprising a wider audience would be turned off by that in a movie.

I agree it could have been better. I was hoping for some more scenes of deadites messing with peoples minds as well as the Cabin itself. Ash is harassed to a greater extent in the first one imo. Feels more like the Cabin is an actual character. In this one the deadites just mostly cut themselves and say a few insults. Still dug it though, especially compared to most of the newer horror flicks.

As far as a wider audience being turned off by the film, I guess I find it odd they would welcome the Saw films which is basically only good for extremely gory traps and not be into this. Horror films on Demon possession and films with elaborate deaths still seem to rake people in. Since this is a combination of the two and was better made then most of the other modern films I figured they would enjoy it.

 

[DACrowe]

That is precisely what I am doing. Its always been problematic. Doing it again is more so.

If the producers so insisted on its inclusion then that's their problem, especially considering it was not in Fede's original script which instead featured a combination of moving trees and a deadite coyote which vomited into her mouth.

You argue that it was needed because it is so iconic and yet we're talking about an Evil Dead film with no Ash Williams. Think on that.

Would anyone care or remember The Thing if it were so focused on recreating The Thing From Another World?

RZ's Halloween starts of crafting its own thing but then half way through shifts to just recreating scenes pretty much shot for shot. It doesn't graft and the movie fails because of it. Myers stalking strode is basically the premise of Halloween. The premise of Evil Dead is young people in a cabin in the woods encounter demons. Neither premise necessarily calls for any specific scene.

I guess my point is that the 1981 film is more culpable in its context and presentation than the 2013 version. I did not like how Devin performed an absurdly silly game of mental gymnastics to read a version of feminist theory that depicts women as a victim of male misogyny in the original (a point which he admitted was stretching it, but he still stood behind in tone) while implying the original is sexist for including it. I just found that argument really to be really intellectually dishonest.

If we are arguing that it should not be in a remake simply because it was in the original, I counter that this is the problem with all remakes. Every famous moment that is or is not put into a remake is criticized. The terrible TCM remakes by Platinum Dunes did this in a microcosm. The first was criticized for excluding the dinner table scene, which is probably the most iconic thing besides Leatherface in the original film. The prequel included it and was criticized for doing it worse in a really, really terrible movie. Likewise, to use Jackson again, how can there be suspense in his film when we know that Kong kills the T-Rex and saves the blond and that he has to be captured so that he can go to New York and fall of the Empire State Building?

They are kind of essential elements to the mythology. You discard them and your film is considered too revisionist. You include them you are criticized for being unoriginal.

I think the 2013 film has problems but that scene is not a pressing one, in my opinion.

 

[Mike_D202]

]http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=455747

I can't believe he printed a story about him sending a tweet about gossip he heard and not getting a response.

 

[moviedoors]

So, I've seen it three times now. I love this movie. A year ago, I never would've believed that that would happen, especially post-Cabin in the Woods, but this is the Deadite fix I've been needing since I was 15. I want this on Blu-Ray now.

 

[DACrowe]

I hope that the blu ray includes not just more gore, but the song from the trailer. It was sorely missed.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Jane said the DVD extras would have the extended scene of her singing.

 

[moviedoors]

I hope that the blu ray includes not just more gore, but the song from the trailer. It was sorely missed.

Far and away, the aspect I miss the most. She sold the **** out of that in the advertising and I wish they'd have found a way to include it.

 

[cryptic name]

I finally got to see this last night, was super excited for it. Did not like it.

 

[Rodrigo90]

But you liked Jane......right?