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 *****