Last Seen Contemporary Movie

[bamahorrorfan87]

Anneliese: The Exorcist Tapes

[cheebacheeba]

I understand what you're saying but I really don't see Raimi or Campbell putting money into something they felt disrespected their original vision. Like I said though, to each his own, I loved it you didn't, no big deal.

You mad, bro.


I saw "This is the End" tonight.
WAY better than I was expecting. Entertaining, funny and some actually horrific shit going on in parts.
I think that the various films most of these guys have been in have been hit and miss in the past for me so I was a touch apprehensive, but nope...nothing bad here.

[newb]

Evil Dead 2013


I will have to agree with Cheebs & Elvis

If I had no knowledge of the original I would think this was an ok horror movie. But I am an old fuck and saw the original at the theater on its 1st run. There was nothing like it at the time.....between the gore and the unique camera work....total mind-fuck.

I understand that this director was trying to "make it his own" but the comparisons have to be made.

[cheebacheeba]

I understand that this director was trying to "make it his own" but the comparisons have to be made.

and it was found...wanting

[_____V_____]

Originally Posted by cheebacheeba

and it was found...wanting

The DVD has been lying on the shelf for about a week now. Getting more apprehensive by the minute after reading the last few pages of this thread.

One big problem when you go into watching a film with a set of expectations. Not huge, but nevertheless...

*letting long breath out*

[Giganticface]

V... Don't be apprehensive. Watch it. But like you said, set your expectations appropriately.

Regarding all the "meh" responses to the Evil Dead remake... I'm not terribly surprised. I'll give my two cents as to why I personally loved the movie. I'm not trying to change anyone's minds -- there's no reason to, and there's certainly no re-doing a first impression.

First off, I'll mention that I'm a ridiculous Evil Dead fan. Evil Dead I and II have never left my top 5 horror movies all time over the past 20 years, and II has vied for the #1 spot for much of that time. Being such a fan, you might think that would make me irrationally-forgiving of a new entry, but like most of the rest of you, I think it actually makes me more critical. Being also a huge Star Wars fan, the prequels offended me on a near-personal level. Eck.

Fede Alvarez had the impossible task of remaking a movie/franchise that's simply not remakable. If I were a betting man or an investor, I would not have put my money on an Evil Dead remake. (Of course, I would have been wrong, but that's another discussion.)

Let's get the obvious reason out of the way: The Evil Dead is regarded as one of the best horror movies of all time. So Alvarez had about a 99.9999% chance of making a movie that's not as good. Simple.

Besides that, however, I think there are three reasons why this particular movie has little to no chance of success among horror fans.

1. Cult status

The orignal film/franchise is a cult favorite -- cherished by those who love it, and unheard of by everyone else. When I learned that an Evil Dead remake was in the works, I told some folks at work, and their response was, "WTF is Evil Dead?"

Cult movies, by nature, cannot truly be remade. They only happen once, and usually gain popularity for oddball reasons. Those who are fans of the cult favorite will be offended at an attempt to tarnish their treasure, and those who are not fans won't understand what the big deal is, and probably think the original is stupid. The best a remaker can do is try to make a "proper movie" using the original's story, and hopefully pay enough respect to the original that fans won't go berzerk. But the magic simply cannot happen twice. Fans of the original who are looking for that magic in the remake will not find it, and understandably will be disappointed.

2. Budget discrepancy

The original film is a crowning achievement in low-budget filmmaking. The end product is a masterpiece, despite its budget limitations, yet still somewhat flawed by those limitations. Those flaws are part of the charm, and it wouldn't be the masterpiece it is without them. However, any attempt to recreate those low-budget qualities in a remake would be a mistake. It would either come across as contrived, or would be a full-blown homage or parody (like Grindhouse). The end result is that the remake is not going to "feel" like the original, and fans won't like that.

3. Varying expectations

The original film is not just one film, it's three. I've heard so many people say the remake doesn't have the comedy aspect that the original did. The first movie, however, had no intentional comedy in it whatsoever. No boomsticks, no S-Mart, no hailing to the King or giving of sugar, baby. There are a couple cutesie scenes with Ash unloading the car and giving his girlfriend the necklace, and the part where he's punching the demon, John Wayne-style, but none of this is intentional comedy like Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. Yet, we each have our own idea of what "Evil Dead" is, and our own expectation of what the remake should entail. All three movies have vastly different tones, budgets, and characters, but the remake is supposed to be a remake of the first film (as stated in the opening credits), which was dark, demonic, over-the-top gory, and the prototype for the modern splatter film. Cult fans, however, will have a tough time preventing the 2nd and 3rd films from affecting their expectations.



Besides the above reasons, fans will still have plenty of reasons -- unique to each individual -- why they don't like specific details in the remake when compared to the originals. The lack of an Ash-like character, differences in the "rules" outlined in the book, aesthetics such as the look of the demons, the book not having a face on it... Many, many reasons why fans just won't be pleased. No matter what, it's a tough sell. I could write another unbearably long post about those details, and why I actually like many of them, but I'll save that for later.

However, outside of the cult fansmanship, and I suppose horror fans in general, the movie is very well-received. It's a well-paced, visually rich, boundary-pushing film with adequate characters and a simple, yet compelling-enough story. The pacing is actually better than the original, which drags toward the end. I'm not saying the story is incredible. It's basically the same as the original, which also wasn't Pulitzer Prize-winning.

More importantly, people are watching this film that have never seen anything like it, and it's scaring the crap out of some people. I went to see it with a bunch of friends. Both guys sitting next to me were squirming and jumping in their seats. I saw it a second time with my sister, who's not a huge horror fan, but also not adverse. She nearly passed out at one point in the movie, and had to step outside for fresh air. She literally (yes, literally) threw up on herself and peed her pants on the way home. That tells me that Alvarez did something right.

Anyway, I just thought I'd give a long-winded response on why I like the movie, and why I think it's not well-received by horror fans and Evil Dead fans. As someone said, to each his own, but it's too bad that the truly unique nature of the original franchise is such an obstacle for enjoying what I believe is one of the best films released this year.

[Angra]

"The Colony" 7/10

Could've been better, but still a decent sci-fi survival flick with a budget.

[realdealblues]

Originally Posted by newb

Evil Dead 2013


I will have to agree with Cheebs & Elvis

If I had no knowledge of the original I would think this was an ok horror movie. But I am an old fuck and saw the original at the theater on its 1st run. There was nothing like it at the time.....between the gore and the unique camera work....total mind-fuck.

I understand that this director was trying to "make it his own" but the comparisons have to be made.

I agree as well. Even if it hadn't have been a remake, I still would have though it was "OK". It wasn't great but it wasn't horrible. Probably 6/10.

You automatically know with a remake that they are going to change the ending, etc...because it's what they've been doing for the last umpteen years.

Personally, I think it needed another 20-30 minutes of development with the characters and the actual reading of the book. It just felt like they jumped in too quick. Treat it like this is not a remake and tell me a story, let me actually care about the characters. I didn't like how "Stereotypical Nerdboy" just reads the book. I would have rather had them build up to that point. Go to sleep and maybe the book keeps talking to him in his sleep or they read it over a campfire or something other than the way they did it. Those were my biggest gripes. I could care less if the book didn't have a face on it or whether the Ash character was in it or not. I want to be told a good story and it just jumped too fast for me.

[_____V_____]

Hmm...where to begin?

This is coming from an ardent Evil Dead franchise fan who has both the originals in his all-time top 10 horror films, so I am going to be a bit biased. (I am allowed to!)


***SPOILERS MIGHT FOLLOW SO BEWARE***


First, the positives - the film scored well in the raw grisliness after the initial 20-25 minutes, and there were moments which were filled with pure, genuine, fierce terror. The director has to be commended for pulling out all the stops he could to make this one match the steps (and the ultra-huge boots) of it's first 3 predecessors, specially the one which it is touted to be a remake of.
The female lead did her part in adding to the atmosphere, and was ably supported by her other female supporting cast members.
Plenty of nods to the first two films, a nice scene involving making a choice between a machete and a chainsaw, and an excellent, gorific ending which will make gorehounds very happy.
I guess I am in the minority who didn't particularly like Drag Me To Hell all that much, and I am glad a film from the Raimi stable didn't disappoint on the entertainment scale this time.
All in all, a much, MUCH better effort than the majority of the trash we have been subjected to in the past 14-15 years.

Now, the negatives (don't burn me at the stake for this, folks) - first big question, where the FUCK did the atmosphere of the film disappear to?!
The original started off with that eerie, Raimi-esque, camera pan shots which filled you with a huge sense of foreboding even before you laid your eyes on the car carrying the cast (not to mention the near-accident which sneaks a feeling into you that all is not well in these parts of the woods/country).
For the first 20-25 minutes when there's an overt show of brother-sister love (and nil development of other/all characters), are we supposed to wait and give a fuck for that?
Come on, it's an Evil Dead movie for chrissakes! When did a film in this series take itself THIS seriously?
Secondly, where the hell did they get that male lead (brother) from? They couldn't have found a more deadpan, wooden guy than him. The guy who played his friend did a much better job than him in the acting department.
Third, all the effects. Give me all that plaster of paris, gob-filled handmade stuff any day over CGI. I admit I am totally in love/awe of CGI when it's used in blockbusters (Avatar. Star Trek, LOTR, etc.) but when you use it in a horror film's limited setting such as this, it becomes overkill. I am sorry, producers Raimi, Tapert & Campbell, but the CGI here has ruined all your scares. Specially in the middle of the film, where the effects take over and the actors don't do much but flinch and groan as their bodies are subjected to some of the most gruesome punishment you can ever hope to see on the screen. And, someone explain this to me, how the heck can you manage to be normal-ish when you cut off your hand or pull your damaged arm out from under an overturned jeep, detaching your hand totally from your body, and have enough to lay out one-liners? That was a staple of ED II, in which nothing was taken seriously and all of it was one big over-the-top gorific, black comedy ride. And to add to it all, those fake eye effects which didn't look the least bit scary.
Fourth, terrible sound effects. I really didn't want to hear Tubular Bells playing during the climax of this film, specially. This is no Exorcist or Omen, this is Evil Dead. A silent background could have worked way better than that (just the sounds of the smoldering fire would have added more realism to the proceedings).
Fifth, the whole story is based on the book we know all too well about by now, and it explains the details of fixing things too. So, bury the possessed and wait till her heart stops, things become normal, then pull her out and try to revive her? What's more, she gets revived AND turns back to normal?! What about the thing which entered her and turned her in the first place? It went on to take a nap?
If we are supposed to take the film seriously (as is implied by the first 20 minutes), then mindless stuff will be questioned. But if it was supposed to be mindless entertainment (with an overdose of scare factor), then scratch out the "purposeful" first quarter of the film, add a bunch of unrated stuff into it, and re-release it all over again. I will be first in line to watch it, I promise.
EDIT - I just remembered that there was a dog in the film (named "Grandpa", of all things). Here was a chance for the makers to make it unique, and make the dog the first of the possessed. Canine fierceness could have added so much more to the proceedings. The dog could have bitten any one of the cast and subsequently got dismembered/beheaded, etc. Could have been a nice touch/angle. Instead the dog's role got cut out and wasted.

Entertained, but disappointed. They should have called it Evil Dead IV: Return to the Cabin, or ED IV: Without Ash, or something similar and should have just been done with it.

Overall, I should have trusted my gut feeling and just downloaded a torrent. Now this DVD will gather dust on my shelves for awhile...don't know how long.


Rating - * *

P.S. - What the hell was that Bruce Campbell cameo all about? Draw a few more of the money-spending audience to come in and whistle at their horror icon?

Not groovy.


***** END OF SPOILERS *****

[_____V_____]

A more-than-decent low-brow effort from the British. Worth a watch if you love horror films based on road trips (Duel, Hitcher, Joy Ride, etc.)

* * *