User Reviews (815)

  • MrGKB31 May 2013
    4/10
    It's official: I have matured...
    Warning: Spoilers
    ...to the point where a gore-fest like this reset of "The Evil Dead" series failed to impress me. Sadly, mindless Grand Guignol appears to be still popular, and the profit margin of this one will undoubtedly spawn a sequel. More's the pity. Truthfully, the ensemble acting from a quintet of relative unknowns is passable, the DP work from Kiwi Aaron "Spartacus: War of the Damned" Morton is quite nice, and certainly the goo and gristle are up to snuff (been looking for a place to stick that pun for awhile), but unfortunately it's all in the service of tyro auteur Fede "Yes, my first feature film!" Alvarez' pedestrian script and workmanlike-at-best direction. Others are apparently also to blame for the script, including Diablo "Juno" Cody, and likely should be held equally responsible---small recompense to the viewer, though.

    After a pointless prologue that could have easily been dealt with in a one-minute flashback, the story (such as it is) settles into an uninspiring realm of hack work, providing nothing in the way of interesting characters to latch onto and even less in the way of surprises, tension and---most important---scares. The film's tagline is sad example of hyperbole and hubris; the only thing terrifying about this misfire is that so many people fell for the hype, and now we'll have to put up with another one down the line. Gone are virtually any traces of what made Raimi's original film memorable, mostly a sense of humor and the spark of genuine imagination. Alvarez' "Evil Dead" is deadly serious and deadly intent on making money from an indiscriminate audience, which renders it deadly dull.

    Let's put it this way: when several of the main characters purportedly wait "all morning" for the rest of their party to arrive at a remote cabin without any of them bothering to check and see if they can actually get in the place, only to discover upon that arrival that the door has already been breached by forced entry...well, you know as an audience that your intelligence and willful suspension of disbelief are not going to be respected, and that all the homages and references to the original film aren't going to make a bit of difference.

    I shudder to think what sort of self-congratulatory extras are going to be in the BluRay/DVD release. They're certainly going to be more entertaining (but not in a good way) than this hapless remake of a classic lo-fi horror movie that should have been left alone.

    8.27.13 edit: Against my better judgment, I revisited this one on DVD (okay, fine, it was from the library, shoot me) and stand by everything I said above. Thankfully, the three promo featurettes were not, as I had feared, overly self-congratulatory, and actually left me feeling a little more charitable toward the writer/director and his leading lady, but none of them altered my opinion of the film itself. "Evil Dead" is make-work, Sturgeon's Revelation all the way.
  • creepysammich5 September 2013
    7/10
    Groovy
    So I've read here and there that this remake lacks the camp of the original. And I look back over 20 years ago, watching The Evil Dead on a crummy rental VHS, in the dark of my teenage bedroom one night. The camp? The original Evil Dead was a terrifying experience, even with Bruce Campbell's over the top performance, the film was a scare-fest, a terrifying trip even nearly ten years after its release. The camp was in Evil Dead 2, an horror comedy remaking the original already, technically.

    This remake finds many way to bow to the original, aside the obligatory visual quotes. The use of practical effects, notably, in an era of CGI- filled movies, is extremely refreshing. The gore feels painful, makes you cringe, churned my stomach. It successfully palliates a somewhat shallow characterization that makes it difficult to root for the characters (with the exception of Mia, who owes a lot to a really visceral performance by Jane Levy.)

    And this is where Evil Dead 2013 took me by surprise. After roughly a first half of the movie taking Evil Dead fans by the hand towards hashed and rehashed territories, making them doubt that this was a good idea at all, the movie lets go of your hand and you're alone, in the middle of the woods, and it's dark and there's strange noises all about... and then limbs start flying.

    I won't get into conjectures that the highly conventional and overly familiar first half was made that way with the sole purpose of placing the audience in their comfort zone, only to give more impact to the second half... but I would surely ask Fede Alvarez if I was to interview him.

    Evil Dead 2013 is a treat for the fans of gore and horror, in any case. Another reminder that out of ten awful remakes, sometimes one rises to the top and delivers. Not for the faint of heart, for sure, but if you're a true horror fan, and even more, if you miss your old school, gruesome gore rides, this one is for you.
  • bowmanblue11 August 2014
    5/10
    The most remaky remake ever remade
    There are two ways to watch the 2013 version of Evil Dead. If you weren't watching horror in the eighties then you'll probably view this as a competent little horror flick. The acting is decent, as are the special effects. There are a few bits that make you jump and other scenes are reasonably creepy. Therefore, you may conclude that, if you were looking for a decent horror film, then you have found one.

    Then there's the other way of looking at it. If, like me, you were a fan of Bruce Campbell's shenanigans in the eighties, as he depicted the wise-cracking 'Ash' who was in the original trilogy, then you may be thinking why did you bother watching this? I knew the remake had no humour. I was prepared for that. I can enjoy an outright horror film without the 'tongue-in-cheekness' of the original. However, the central characters are pretty damn unlikeable. Without the humour, they're a miserable bunch who you won't really care much about - they're just a collection of stereotypes, i.e. the blonde, the brunette, the jock, the geek and the other one - 'Mia' - who is a teenager trying to get herself off drugs (and failing) and therefore hardly someone we can identify with (hopefully). The opening drags as we're supposed to 'get to know' the characters. It felt like this part occupied the first half of the film. I checked the timer and it had only been on for 23 minutes (it felt like 45). Never a good sign.

    So, the film plays out pretty much the same as the original. All the aspects are there - the bucketloads of blood, the tree, the thing we never see that runs through the wood and the trapdoor under the cabin. Therefore, if we've seen it before in the original, there's little point in us watching it again. Yes, the film has a more 'polished' feel, but there's nothing new here. They tried to stick to the original by keeping to the plot, which just leaves those who've already watched the original finding little new with what's been done to the new version.

    If you've never seen the original and you like horror, you'll probably like this. However, I just felt that 'no Ask = no point.' Another great classic plundered and failed. If you want to watch a half decent remake of a horror classic, only the 2004 version of Dawn of the Dead comes close.
  • N-Weiss909 April 2013
    10/10
    Excellent re-imagining of a classic
    I have to say I'm very surprised at all the negative reviews I've been reading. I'm an avid movie lover, frequenting the theaters at least twice a week if not more. Something about being able to just sit back in a dark room, with a big screen and great sound. It's just good fun. Movies are enjoyable, not all are realistic and I think that's the point. If I wanted something realistic, I would watch a documentary (which I do on many occasions).

    I think a lot of the reviews are being very unfair to this movie. I have seen the original and I loved it. Especially when I first saw it as a kid, it scared the crap out of me. But we have to remember that we are in a new age with different technologies and expectations. I bet that if the original was released for the first time right now, it would have been shot down even more than this "remake." Although I love the original, the effects don't scare me like they used to. And people who complain about the acting and script of the new movie? Come on. It wasn't perfect, but it's nowhere near as bad as others are making it out to be. And Jane Levy was absolutely AMAZING in this film. I would watch this movie over and over again just to see her act.

    People are judging this movie too harshly. Was this movie enjoyable? Yes. Very much so. Were the effects good? The effects were A+ and the score was magnificent. Would I see it again? Yes. I would go see it again at the movies AND buy it as soon as it's available on Blu Ray.

    This movie is not meant to be a remake of the first, rather a reawakening of an old and classic evil. Watch this movie with an open mind and you will love it. Watch it and compare it to the original? You will hate it, because they are not the same movies. Both were brilliant, but I would be lying if I didn't say that I enjoyed this version a lot more than the old one. Acting by Levy was perfect, gore was fantastic, scares were good, and the movie had my attention all the way through.
  • hitking1006 August 2013
    1/10
    The Evil Dead has passed away for good i'm afraid...
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is very easy to summarize : If you're an Evil Dead fan who loved the previous parts (and part 1 especially) : avoid this like the plague. If you've never seen any of the other Evil Dead flicks : you're in for an average horror movie with bad acting, poor dialogue and a thin storyline filled with loopholes.

    Fede Alvarez makes his debut here, directing the granddaddy of horror and failing miserably. He has no connection whatsoever to the franchise, despite claiming to love it, and it shows when he turn the sadistic Kandarian demons into a mix of the "Exorcist" and a second rate "The Ring" child. Not once will you quiver in your boots, not once will you be grossed out, not once will you be on the edge of your seat,... (you get the point)

    While the original grabbed you by the throat and didn't let go until the very end, this one will merely spit gore at you every minute and expect you to care.

    During my viewing, several people left the theater, disappointed and angry over what this franchise has become...a cash cow for Raimi and Campbell.

    The worst part is that enough people were suckered into believing that this was going to be true to the original, (Raimi swore, Bruce testified, the trailers lied,...and in the end we were left with something any deadite would spit upon) so we all went to see it, it made enough cash to warrant a sequel.

    With the same Director, the same producers, probably the same actress...

    Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell : After this you have ZERO credibility left with the legions of Evil Dead fans of old, try to pick someone else's pockets next time.
  • Hellmant9 April 2013
    10/10
    Being a huge fan it's an enormous pleasure to watch.
    'EVIL DEAD': Five Stars (Out of Five)

    The first five star movie of 2013 is this long awaited reboot to writer/director Sam Raimi's 1981 cult classic original 'THE EVIL DEAD'. It's a loose sequel that finds a new group of young adults stumbling across the 'book of the dead', from the original trilogy, in the same cabin that iconic hero Ash and his friends did in the original two films. Raimi and actor Bruce Campbell (who played Ash) have returned as producers of the film (along with their buddy Robert G. Tapert, who produced the original three films). Raimi picked Fede Alvarez to make his feature film debut directing and co-writing the film (along with Rodo Sayagues and Diablo Cody). It stars Jane Levy (from TV's 'SUBURGATORY'), Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas and Elizabeth Blackmore. Levy plays Mia and she's supposed to reprise the role for two more films, the last of which is supposed to link this new film series to the adventures of Ash and the original films (following a 'ARMY OF DARKNESS 2' movie). I grew up on these films and am extremely excited to see Raimi and Campbell picking the series up again and think they're off to a great start.

    The story picks up 30 years after the original 'THE EVIL DEAD' film ended with a new group of kids going to the same cabin so Mia (Levy) can try to detox and get over her opiate addiction. Her friends Eric (Pucci), Olivia (Lucas), Natalie (Blackmore) and brother David (Fernandez) are there as well to help her get through it. They come across the 'book of the dead' (the Naturom Demonto) from the original films, in the cellar and Eric foolishly reads from it (despite several warnings not to). He of course awakens the dead and Mia is possessed. The others originally think she's just going through withdrawals but they soon find themselves being taken over and killed off one by one as they fight the deadites for their survival.

    The film was made on a budget of just $17 million (which is a lot higher than the original film obviously but a pretty small budget by Hollywood standards). The filmmakers decided not to use CGI (except for touch ups) and filmed for 70 days. The results are definitely rewarding. The film really has that 'old school' classic slasher film feel to it and it's surprisingly loyal to the original films (in style). It's lacking the power of a performance like Bruce Campbell's but it is really funny and satirical (more so than the first film I think but not it's sequels). The violence and gore is out of control (It was first rated NC-17, like the original) and it really is a true hardcore horror film; it's truly exhilarating and relentless. I think the filmmakers did about as good a job as they possibly could rebooting this classic series and being a huge fan it's an enormous pleasure to watch. I have no real complaints; it's a masterpiece just like the original film and it's sequels!

    Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn0mEP_zzoQ
  • SelinaKyle363613 November 2013
    1/10
    This movie is. so. bad.
    Warning: Spoilers
    I just finished watching this movie and I'm just sitting here wondering how and why this movie even got made... It is probably one of the worst horror movies I've ever had the misfortune to watch. It honestly has no coherent plot except what it ripped from the original (which I don't understand who decided that movie needed a remake because it's an amazing classic). The characters in this movie are some of the stupidest I've ever seen. Honestly, all of them deserved to die. So when you find a book that's bound in human flesh your FIRST instinct is to read from said book? Oh your sister is possessed by a demon and is basically infecting everyone with it but let's not kill her because she starts singing a song from your childhood? You want to go down in the basement with her even though she's killed practically everyone? I didn't root for any of these characters. Whenever the possessed people would talk I found myself just laughing because it was so forced. It's like they were trying to be scary and intimidating but it just came off like characters from Scary Movie. The actors in this movie have the intelligence of a bag of rocks and the acting range of Kristen Stewart.

    This movie is also torture porn at it's finest. Why do directors think this gruesome violence makes for good film making? I mean this bitch gets raped by a tree. What..? Then she starts infecting everyone like an STD or something, even forcing one girl to make out with her after she's split her tongue in half with a box cutter. It's basically blood on top of blood mixed in with other bodily fluids. At one point a girl gets her arm pinned under a car while some demon is crawling towards her. So she rips her arm out from under the car and is able to get up and pick up a chainsaw to kill the demon. No shock? She didn't pass out from unimaginable pain that would have caused? I'm also glad that a human arm can be ripped off like it's made of jelly and it has no ligaments, tendons, or bone. Hooray for realism! I understand horror movies are not about realism but come on, you can do better than that. I DVRed this movie and actually found myself checking to see if it was almost over. It's so bad, don't waste your time. Glad I didn't see this movie in the theater. Hollywood, please, for the love of all that is holy, STOP DOING REMAKES.
  • HudsonsSkull12 April 2013
    2/10
    At least 10 stupid things about this movie...
    Warning: Spoilers
    There are definitely more but here is at least 10...

    1- After the nurse says that they've done this before with Mia and they know she will do anything to get away, no one thinks to hide the vehicles keys in a safe place? Probably even left them in the ignition too because it looked as though she just jumped into the car and hightailed it out of there.

    Stupid.

    2- They have a crack addict with withdrawal symptoms and who's mother was mentally unstable roaming about in the cabin, but they leave a shotgun and shells they found in the cellar lying around?

    Stupid.

    3- They find a cellar with dead cats, an ominous book, blood all around and a shotgun with shells and they don't think to head back and notify the authorities that there might have been a possible crime that took place there? Thinking to themselves, "That's o.k., we're here to help Mia so who cares if there might have been a murder in this cabin."

    Stupid.

    4- The Evil needed 5 souls to manifest itself, but I only count three or four at the most. The girl at the beginning doesn't count because the Evil was put back in hell, if it wasn't, Eric wouldn't have needed to read a passage in the book to release it once more now would he? The dog was killed by Mia with the hammer, it was never possessed. And if it were possible to possess animals, then why not just possess a bunch of forest animals instead to get his 5 souls?

    So that's three souls from the moment the evil was released by the incantation, Olivia, Natalie and Eric. Mia? No, her soul was returned to her body or she wouldn't have been alive at the end to fight the abomination. I'll be generous and give you David as well since he died in the cabin fire with the others, but this nonsense I'm reading about the Evil getting Mia's soul and then loosing it counting as a soul claimed, that's bull. In order to claim something you have to keep it. Finders keepers, losers weepers.

    Stupid.

    5- After the cabin door opens with wind gushing through the cabin, and Mia telling everyone (in a demonic type voice) that they are all going to die, the nurse and girlfriend going bat-sh!t crazy, his sister ending up in the cellar with demonic eyes and all the sh!t going on around him, David still comes up with "Maybe she got infected by the dead cats and passed it on to the others, or better yet, maybe she's just crazy like our mom was in the asylum. I mean, come on, there's denial and then there's just plain stupidity.

    Stupid.

    6- David buries Mia, then pulls her out of the ground and she's miraculously healed? In the original, the deadites were never healed, they just gave the illusion of being "OK" to further torment Ash. And before any of you say "We'll Ash was healed after he was turned into Evil Ash" let me point out that this was in ED2 which was a fantasy mixed with humour type horror movie. Fans of this keep insisting this one is a more realistic approach like Raimi envisioned in the first place. Now you have a choice to make guys, you can't have it both ways. It's either a more realistic approach in which case Mia should still have cuts and burns on her body or it's a fantasy based horror where anything goes. Which is it?

    Stupid.

    7- Every time something bad was going to happen, wind would blow the pages of the book to an illustration depicting what was going to happen giving the audience a heads up. Great way to build suspense there Fede. Wow!

    Stupid.

    8- After Mia boils her skin in the shower, the "nurse", finally gives in and says "Her burns are too severe we have to get her to a hospital." So, David takes Mia with him, in the only vehicle left I might add, just the two of them leaving the three others (girlfriend included) alone in a creepy cabin in the woods in the middle of the night where strange satanic rituals might have happened in the cellar. Last time I checked, there's room enough for five in a jeep. He could have at least taken the nurse with him in case Mia's condition worsened on their way to the hospital.

    Stupid.

    9- The abomination, with enough power in it's scrawny little arms to topple a jeep, had difficulty dragging itself on the ground after Mia amputated it's feet with the chainsaw. If it had as much power in it's arms as was shown, it should have easily been capable of doing a hand stand using it's arms to walk to get at her. Imagine for a second, how freaking' creepy it would have been to see that coming at her from around the jeep upside down. It would have been something like the creatures in the Dead Space video game. Missed opportunity there Fede.

    Stupid.

    10- Mia starts walking off into the morning sun with her arm cut off and shoved into her shirt, without even cauterizing the wound. I give her 15 minutes before she bleeds out and dies on the side of the road. Even if she makes it that far, she still has to swim across the river that washed out the road earlier in the movie. She'd never make it with all the blood loss, she would pass out and drown in the river.

    Stupid ending.
  • Rob Taylor1 May 2013
    1/10
    Speaking of souls, this film has none
    Warning: Spoilers
    Remake or not, this film is an absolute bore. It seems the director spent more time getting nice looking shots rather than focusing on performances that should propel the narrative, which they don't. Far from it. The problem starts with the screenplay, which is just dumb, since the focus is on character development, a useless tool if the performances aren't directed well enough. The cabin and the woods is simply not a character as it is in the original, there are minutes of boring dialogue at the cabin before they even open the door. It is gory, but it has little affect since the performances are so terrible that the audience couldn't give a damn if they die or not. Decent work with CGI gore but still not convincing enough. No special makeup effects (appliances). Unlike other remakes (dawn of the dead, the Texas chainsaw massacre) that actually REMAKE the majority of the film, the Evil Dead seems to slightly deviate from the original screenplay, making it difficult to watch without comparing it to the original masterpiece. Mise-en-scene is bland, the props are lame, especially the necronomicon, and the cinematography is lacking if you consider Raimi's experimentation in the original. Overall, this film has no character, no soul, and no dark humor.
  • Im_Disappointed25 March 2013
    2/10
    Dead on arrival
    Warning: Spoilers
    Why why why why why did I get excited for this film? Why do I keep doing this to myself? A horror remake with modern gore effects and a fresh take on the best the eighties have to offer. It has to be a winner right? WRONG! This is the latest in a long line of horror remakes that just fails in almost every dept. Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Halloween. Elm street. Omen. Hills Have Eyes. I Spit On Your Grave. The Fog. Fight Night. Friday 13th. Amityville. I kid you not, i paid to see them all. Lined up for pre screenings or opening midnight showings. Always excited. Always disappointed afterwards. In many cases, I was more gutted than the slasher victims on screen. The only two remakes that were decent was The Thing prequel and The Crazies.

    At least Evil Dead didn't skimp on the blood and guts. There was plenty. But it did not have an effect. Too much of something may as well be none at all for the impact on the viewer.

    My biggest gripe is it just wasn't scary. I was pumped when I saw the promo posters saying it was the scariest film ever. But it wasn't even the scariest film I have seen this week. The cast tried, but they were either too drab and lifeless when alive or overacting and too animated when dead. Happy medium reached NOT! All in all, they would have been better off leaving the original film as is, to show what a great low budget horror film should look like. now when teenagers hear of the horror film 'Evil Dead', they will think of this pile of trash instead of a verified classic.
  • AyeLewisTheSelfless13 May 2013
    1/10
    No Ash Leaves Ash In Your Mouth
    Warning: Spoilers
    SHAME RAIMI SHAME!! Sam, why would you risk your outstanding legacy by attaching yourself (loosely), to this utter shemozzle?!? Clearly you were offered a few bucks to help promote this film and give it some credibility, but is money worth more than credibility? Reputation? Respect?!?! I could say the same about Bruce Campbell, but he has never been more than a B-actor, (though still totally awesome), and thus I understand his desire to make a quick buck, but Sam....you have no excuse.

    As for the film, well it is gory and boring. That pretty much sums it up. Poor-quality gore by the truckload. No tension. No story worth noting. No scares. No charm. No Ash.

    NO ASH!!!! Except for a tacked on cameo after the credits, the lack of Ash makes this film even more execrable than it already is.

    Plot-holes galore. Contrived plot twists. Obvious ending. Terrible acting. Woeful characters. Lack of depth.

    Just an awful film.

    Sam.............what have you done?
  • Keenan Johnson25 March 2013
    1/10
    This Film Was Not Good At All. Terrible, In Fact
    Warning: Spoilers
    Far too much emphasis on blood and gore effects at the expense of quality acting, coherent writing, addictive story, skillful direction and genuinely horrific shocks. And this seems to be the common strain among critics. A fixation on guts and bone. An almost complete neglect of everything else.

    Raimi made a classic film. A masterpiece. It had balance. Great actors. Great ORIGINAL story. Exceptional gore effects. Superb direction. Hilarious humor. Terrifying shocks. So why call this new film "Evil Dead"? Just release it under another name. Its not a remake. Its a pale, insipid, soulless imitation.

    I'm glad I saw it for free.

    1/10
  • AcidSquirtyNipples25 March 2013
    1/10
    Should titled 'Normal Splatter B movie', not Evil Dead
    Warning: Spoilers
    I cant stand why Hollywood do the movie and call the remake when not like first movie. This called Evil Dead but it not Evil Dead like first Evil Dead. It normal cheap horror movie with the cabin and the blood. It have normal the teenager and normal the bad acting. Normal the gore and normal the one survivor hero who kill the badness. That is OK because that is normal. But it not Evil Dead. Why they try and lie to the people by saying it is remake? It not the remake. It only have one or two thing in first movie like necromonicon the chainsaw and girl in the basement. Everything else is different and not the Evil Dead. No laughing in the movie like other the Evil Dead. No the scares and the fright. Just gore to cover story not in.

    I not like fake Evil Dead. I not like the normal splatter movie with Evil Dead label. This dishonest lie and not what should do to try and get audience. Should just make own film and let people think good or bad with out fake name.

    I sure you agree.
  • raimifan133 April 2013
    1/10
    not very good 3/10
    Warning: Spoilers
    disappointed with this. saw it at south by south film festival and i was not impressed. i didn't ever think it was going to be anything special and would pale against the excellent original, but i expected more.

    the gore was over the top and silly. the tree rape was thoughtless torture porn. it wasn't scary. it was not imaginative. in fact, it was boring. and that is the saddest thing. so much effort put into shocking and outraging the audience with blood and guts, when the net result is tedium.

    glad raimi had nothing to do with it lest he become like romero, and lose luster with his ill conceived later films.

    3/10 is the very best i can muster. sorry.
  • Fred_Molden25 March 2013
    1/10
    Evil Dead for the Xbox generation
    I never thought I would become a grumpy old man, but it seems this state has now reached me in my mid thirties.

    To put it bluntly, this film is the cinematic version of edible gloop, served in a jar, then fed to dribbling teenagers with unrefined tastes. It lacked the spine and balance to be called a good horror film. It lack the originality and imagination to be called a cult classic. It has too much senseless meat, bone, sinew and cartilage to be considered a mainstream frightener. Basically, this seems to have been made for blood-hungry gamers, who are happiest when seeing the human body blown, ripped or torn asunder.

    The story is a vacuous imitation of the Raimi classic. A few similar plot devices, but without the charm, thrills, personalities and originality. What it had more of was blood. Barrels of it. No tension or fear. Just thick, meaty blood. Those gamers will be extremely well fed.

    Please stop doing this to us, Hollywood. Please stop exhuming original classic films from their rightful place of rest, giving them a cheap modern makeover, then foisting them upon us like they are a new dish, created by the world's finest chefs. They aren't. They are tasteless, nauseating mush and only willingly consumed by tasteless, nauseating drones.

    1/5
  • pam_nagovski3 April 2013
    1/10
    Evil Remake
    Warning: Spoilers
    Save your money. This film is a cash grab of the highest order. A truly shallow attempt to remake a film all horror fans hold dear to their heart.

    When Sam Raimi shocked and delighted the world with Evil Dead, he did so with the purest intentions and divine talent. Original story. Groundbreaking gore effects. Stunning visuals. Mesmeric tension.

    A masterpiece.

    He did so without the desire for box office statistics, nor did he pay shills to promote the film. He simply poured his heart and soul and genius into something he truly loved.

    This pale, insipid, vapid excuse of a "remake" is an Evil Dead film in name only. Nothing original. Nothing enthralling. Nothing shocking. Just......nothing.

    The sooner Hollywood realizes film audiences are SICK of these types of tepid imitations, the better. Classic and much-adored movies should be left to age gracefully and to find audiences on their own terms, for generations to come.

    The Mona Lisa was not repainted. And if it had of been,, the copy would be spat upon and condemned as a FAKE! Well, this FAKE is even worse.

    1/10
  • trashgang30 May 2013
    10/10
    awash in blood and graphic violence
    Let be The Evil Dead (1981) be in my top 5 list of best horrors ever. So I was waiting until the evil came out to finally see another failing remake I thought. But have heard only positive things about the remake I had my doubts. At last, after a lot of stupid remakes this one kicks you straight in the face. In fact, it's based on the original one. Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi were involved in making this flick and Fede Alvarez (the director) did a great job for his first full feature.

    Let me first of all say this. If you can't stand extreme gory horrors than stay away from this flick. It contains shock gore just for the gore. If you thought this was going to be a supernatural ride then forget it. This is really one for the gorehounds.

    Does it look like the original Evil Dead. Of course not. Back then a few effects were done with stop motion. Here we luckily have the real effects and okay, here and there some CGI which I didn't mind at all. But to go back on the original. Yes, it do has the chainsaw, yes it do has the slapping door, yes it do has the evil faces from back then and yes we do have the woods attacking a girl, but not raping her like in the original.

    Was it scary? It never was scary at one moment but still, you will watch it with your mouth open. From the opening sequence you are immediately into the Evil Dead ride. Why I do give kudos to the director is that he made the movie he wanted to make but to please the old school fans he added references to the original.

    The acting of course had to be good too and luckily it was. But did they do jokes like in the original. Not really, that was left out here, admit it, we are 30 years later!

    Finally, I'm happy to see that they didn't give a sh*t towards the ratings. They made Evil Dead as they wanted to make it, it's full of red stuff. Not done like the new horrors with digital animation. This is old school, this is great, for me a must see for the buffs walking this earth. Finally horror is back with some evil dead to show you....

    Gore 4/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 4/5 Story 4/5 Comedy 0/5
  • Anmarie Griffith3 April 2013
    1/10
    Disgusting violence for violence sake.
    Warning: Spoilers
    Extremely sickened by this film. I have never sat through a film where I simply wanted it to end. Graphic sickening torture porn for soulless sociopaths. No story to speak of, which the original had in spades. Amateur acting, with nobody approaching the charisma and screen presence of Bruce Campbell. All this film had was buckets and buckets of cow blood and pointless violence. That's all it was. Pointless violence.

    If you are an adult of rational mind and have any sense of decency and values, do not watch this film. If you are a sociopath teenager, with an appetite for violent video games and torturing small animals, well this film will probably suit you perfectly.

    Believe when I say the only scare you will get from this film is the horrific acting. Everything else is nauseating and quite boring violence.

    not recommended.
  • fritzlang1 April 2013
    3/10
    101 things that didn't work for me..
    Warning: Spoilers
    I could literally blog every day for at least 3 months on the things that irritated me about this film.

    I will recap just some of my thoughts .

    ******* Possible spoiler comments below ************

    1) The first 30 minutes played like a LifeTime story about drug addiction.

    2) the last 60 minutes felt like Saw meets Hostel by way of Martyrs. Just non-stop gore.

    3) There was not one second where I was scared.

    4) there was no sense of dread.

    5) Even though the film was supposedly about demonic possession, I never for one minute really believed it.

    6) The so-called hero was one of the most irritating characters I have ever seen. I could not wait for him to die.

    7) The characters were - at best - 2 dimensional. Bland.

    8) There was no emotional impact. I could care less what happened to anyone.

    9) The Demonic POV (the Raimi-cam from the original) seemed here more like a POV of a jogger in the woods.

    10) The acting ranged from mediocre to down right laughable

    11) The plot holes were so thick that you could drive a mack truck through it

    12) The film should win the award "most consistently stupid things done on screen". Even for the horror slasher, the actions of the characters went beyond stupid. My eyes actually hurt from rolling so much.

    13) The big-oh-so-scary demon that everybody was afraid of was the single wimpiest evil presence I have ever seen. Think the wimpy devil from Exorcist: Prequel kind of wimp.

    14) The makeup was not scary

    15) The music was so ineffective that I am not even sure there was a soundtrack.

    16) after 60 minutes (30 minutes of non-stop gore) I felt numb. at 70 minutes I started thinking about grocery shopping.

    Etc. etc. As I said, I could go on and on about what didn't work for me.

    The good? this film has two- and only two good things that I can say - the SFX was very impressive. Not scary, but impressive. And if you like gore, then this is the film for you! Not just buckets of blood, not gallons, - whole truckloads (no joke).

    This was a thoroughly typical teenage slasher/torture porn film. No plot, no logic, no acting, no scares, no music- nothing but blood and gore.

    Yes, it was competently made. If that, and tons of gore is enough for you, then you will definitely enjoy it!

    After about an hour, the woman next to me said "so this is essentially about 5 really stupid people killing each other. With lots of blood. That's it?" I said "yup. that's it"

    Did anybody cover their face in the movie? Sure!! When you someone pulling a needle out of the eye you will wince. That is not horror. that is not scare.. that is just 'gross out' moments.

    I talked to some people coming out of the theater. NOT ONE PERSON TOLD ME THEY WERE SCARED DURING THE FILM!

    Isn't that what a horror film supposed to do?

    Have we really just substituted frights and emotional scares with SFX, blood and gore and think its the same thing?

    Its been a long time since I have seen the original I definitely intend on doing so.. it has got to be better than this.

    As a remake it was better than most Platinum Dune projects - but that isn't saying much.

    As a film by itself, it is passable entertainment for gore hounds.

    Oh - if you must see this film, then please stay for the post-credit sequence. It was the only thing that put a smile on my face.

    I really wished I liked this film.. But I cannot recommend it based on my experience.

    May yours be different than mine.

    3 out of 10. Generously.
  • RopeofSand 19805 April 2013
    3/10
    Another throw-it-in-the-pile generic modern horror remake with no identity of its own
    There was a time that I gave horror remakes the benefit of the doubt. The Dawn of the Dead remake wasn't so bad for what it was. The Fright Night remake actually did a decent amount of justice for its source material. But then, you stop and realize how short Hollywood has come up in terms of original ideas and cool scares. Nowadays it seems to be a) remakes b) torture porn c) possession movies(these have got to go) d) more remakes. Heck, the last original and clever horror movie I saw was Cabin in the Woods, which was actually a horror themed comedy rather than a true horror film.

    Sadly, the Evil Dead remake turned out to be just as disappointing and toothless as I expected it to be. No, this film does not improve on the original. No, it does not become a good horror film in its own right. Yes, you have seen pretty much everything in this film before. Yes, you're better off watching anything from the original trilogy.

    I read an interview with director Fede Alvarez which had him say something along the lines of "When I saw the 80's Fly, I didn't care about the original 50's version. That was the Fly to me" OK Fede.....point taken. But the 80's Fly was directed by David Cronenberg, who at that point was already a seasoned director who had over 10 years of experience under his belt and who is known for innovative styles and concepts. Alvarez has none of that. As I understand it his background is mainly short films. Perhaps I should familiarize myself with his previous work, but let me just say he does nothing to make Evil Dead his own movie. All I saw were some nifty lighting choices and camera angles.

    But then again, there's nothing about this Evil Dead that makes it it's own movie. You have impossibly hot actresses who still look hot even when they're shivering and drenched in gore. You have the same hyperactive MTV-style editing that any supernatural or slasher film these days has. You have poor attempts at making this a "serious" film. Seriously, the original was about rapist trees and crazed demons! How "serious" does it have to be? You have any number of tropes and clichés which make this an ultimately forgettable affair. And on top of that you have no actors or characters who grab the eye. Imagine that Ash's sister Linda was an irritating coke addict instead of a weird psychic girl. Then subtract Ash. There's your Evil Dead.

    One thing that made the original have such charm is that it wasn't just a low budget film, it was practically a student film! I know....it's a big fanboy gripe, but I found myself longing for the original whilst sitting through this Bruce Campbell-less bore fest.

    The hype machine and rent-a-critic tactics will likely make this a relative box office success. I hope it is a last gasp.
  • juanx12935 April 2013
    2/10
    No
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie was laughable at best. I was actually very excited to see this and brought friends with me, I had to apologize to them. This movie was the pinnacle of wasted potential. I have to admit it started of well, just because it had maybe 2 or 3 good jump scare scenes. The rest of the movie was just a downward spiral of crap fueled by gallons upon gallons of low budget watery Kool-Aid blood, a very dumb plot, pointless dialogue, some unnecessary expository info, atrocious plot holes, and ridiculous plot contradictions. It was hard to tell what was getting more butchered, the actors or the Evil Dead Franchise.

    Semi-Spoiler alert! (first time rating on this website, want to be as cautious as possible): With all the terrible build up, this movie still managed to have one of the most pathetic and anticlimactic endings I have ever seen, paired with some serious cliché, last kill finisher lines that go something like this, "-insert insult here,- Bitch!". The ending really did not help its case.

    I wouldn't recommend buying it or renting it; hell, I wouldn't even recommend getting it through a torrent.
  • thedarksteps6 April 2013
    1/10
    Garbage; no offense to the stuff that fills trash cans
    Warning: Spoilers
    It's interesting how the budget for the original was around 3 hundred- thousand dollars and this movie's budget was around 14 million dollars and the original was exponentially better simply because the had to try back then. I think if the budget for this one had been barely a million dollars it would have delivered but instead it just delivered another rehash of the same movie that has been released every few months for the past several years; stupid characters you care nothing about getting involved in something that will lead to their demise in the most unrealistic manner the director can come up with.

    This is the work of a lazy director who seems to follow a similar formula as most actions movies. The body count matters not the storyline. There's no point in telling people not to see it, they will anyway. Some will like it, some will love it, and others would like to kill Sam Raimi for producing it because he just allowed some nobody director to urinate all over it.

    Waste your money on another bad movie that has come out recently, so many to choose from that are more than halfway worth the small fortune you'll be dishing out. This movie could be called many things, Evil Dead is not one of them. Cabin in the Woods 2, The Last Exorcism 2 1/2, Possession 2... and so many other letdowns. This one is almost as bad as Halloween 3 back in the 80's, it had nothing at all to do with the other 2 movies, someone just used the name to make more money than they would have had they name it Random Unscary Movie I.

    If you love this movie, you cannot call yourself an Evil Dead fan, you don't know what it means to be Dead.
  • baqken5 April 2013
    1/10
    Not worth a matinée or a second viewing
    I always thought it was a little risqué voting movies on either sides of a scale as far as being way too negative (1/10) or way too positive (10/10) but I honestly believe this movie is deservedly a 1/10.

    I really don't want to spend most of this review talking about the details, it's pretty much the same thing from the original Dead, but each transition in the story is sloppy and careless.

    Bad things happen yet the movie fails to make me care about any of it.

    The transition from one event to the other gives little to no momentum for the overall narrative. Everything that transpires amongst the characters and the story as a whole is haphazardly thrown together if not just for the sake of adhering to the original Evil Dead movie and reminding you that you're watching the same movie.

    There is some macabre humor put in here and there but the execution of the story is so serious it would go over your head or get a delayed reaction.

    The violence in this movie is also radically over the top, and seems to be as jolted in as the rest of the plot points in the movie are. After seeing "Drag Me to Hell" it would've been interesting to see Raimi take the helm but I'll be willing to wait for his next installment to his Army of Darkness (which I loved). See another movie.
  • miranb3 April 2013
    2/10
    Cheap, and even hilarious at many points
    I'm shocked that Sam Raimi had anything - and actually quite a lot - to do with this cheap horror movie. I don't even feel like it was a cheap imitation of the original because it didn't even come close and I don't know why it even carries the "Evil Dead" name.

    Many "scary" parts had the entire packed theater cracking up. The more the "demon" appeared, and the more she/it talked, the less scary it became... The acting was just so terrible, the writing sucked, the plot sucked, the direction sucked. The characters did things and made choices so idiotic that I just could not stand it (the 'hero' was so irritating throughout everything he did!) and suppressing laughter became quite hard.

    Yes, it had gore. Plenty of gore. Most of it was unremarkable - cheap shots of random body parts covered in buckets and buckets of flowing watery fake blood. It got quite boring. Loud sound throughout the entire film, to no real effect...

    Overall: No substance at all. Only good for some laughs.
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.