User Reviews (810)

  • creepysammich5 September 2013
    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.
  • MrGKB31 May 2013
    It's official: I have matured...
    Warning: Spoilers 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.
  • N-Weiss909 April 2013
    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.
  • bowmanblue11 August 2014
    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.
  • Hellmant9 April 2013
    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:
  • hitking1006 August 2013
    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.
  • HudsonsSkull12 April 2013
    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.


    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?


    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."


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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!


    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.


    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.


    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.
  • SelinaKyle363613 November 2013
    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.
  • Rob Taylor1 May 2013
    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.
  • AyeLewisTheSelfless13 May 2013
    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 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?
An error has occured. Please try again.