Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods.Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods.Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 6 wins & 20 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I approached the Fede Alvares remake of Evil Dead with both trepidation and curiosity. My concerns were simple - Who could possibly improve on a Sam Raimi film? How can you call it Evil Dead without Bruce Campbell?
My concerns began to evaporate when I noticed Raimi's involvement in the opening credits and were completely dispelled when I realized that the new film shared only the most fundamental plot structure with the original. Both films are about friends in a cabin in the woods fighting a mysterious, purely evil, and incomprehensible force triggered by a mysterious ancient book. Otherwise, the films are only vaguely connected.
So this answered my first question - about remaking a Raimi film. You don't, you simply do something new on the same foundation.
The new Evil Dead is much more of a straightforward horror film and the differences go way beyond the disturbing addition of a crack addict as a central character. Most of the central characters aren't even likable, let alone funny. So much for my question about replacing Bruce Campbell. Again - you don't.
In 1981, Sam Raimi, his brother, an aspiring actor (Campbell) and a group of non-actors and amateur film makers made a horror classic with almost no budget and a great deal of debt. It took more than a decade for them to recoup the costs of this near-instant cult classic though the film was viewed as a "break-through". More recently, as one of Hollywood's most respected directors and producers, Raimi gave young Uruguayan writer / director Fede Alvares a shot at creatively re- imagining the film that made Raimi a contender.
The acting is better than that of the original (which should be no surprise since there were really only two actors in the Raimi film), the effects are more sophisticated, but cleverly reminiscent of the Raimi tradition of clever simplicity, and the film, like the original delivers a few good scares despite its ridiculous premise.
Shot for about $17,000,000 (which is not much these days), the Alvares re-do netted a 300% profit before it left theaters. Profitability has very little to do with quality these days, but I say good for them!
The new Evil Dead is worthy and a credit to the original.
My concerns began to evaporate when I noticed Raimi's involvement in the opening credits and were completely dispelled when I realized that the new film shared only the most fundamental plot structure with the original. Both films are about friends in a cabin in the woods fighting a mysterious, purely evil, and incomprehensible force triggered by a mysterious ancient book. Otherwise, the films are only vaguely connected.
So this answered my first question - about remaking a Raimi film. You don't, you simply do something new on the same foundation.
The new Evil Dead is much more of a straightforward horror film and the differences go way beyond the disturbing addition of a crack addict as a central character. Most of the central characters aren't even likable, let alone funny. So much for my question about replacing Bruce Campbell. Again - you don't.
In 1981, Sam Raimi, his brother, an aspiring actor (Campbell) and a group of non-actors and amateur film makers made a horror classic with almost no budget and a great deal of debt. It took more than a decade for them to recoup the costs of this near-instant cult classic though the film was viewed as a "break-through". More recently, as one of Hollywood's most respected directors and producers, Raimi gave young Uruguayan writer / director Fede Alvares a shot at creatively re- imagining the film that made Raimi a contender.
The acting is better than that of the original (which should be no surprise since there were really only two actors in the Raimi film), the effects are more sophisticated, but cleverly reminiscent of the Raimi tradition of clever simplicity, and the film, like the original delivers a few good scares despite its ridiculous premise.
Shot for about $17,000,000 (which is not much these days), the Alvares re-do netted a 300% profit before it left theaters. Profitability has very little to do with quality these days, but I say good for them!
The new Evil Dead is worthy and a credit to the original.
I have to say, starting out, that Sam Raimi's original EVIL DEAD trilogy has been a favourite of mine ever since I saw it as a teenager. While EVIL DEAD 2 was the best of the three films, for me, a pitch-perfect comedy/horror, and ARMY OF DARKNESS was a funny, cheesy comedy, the first film was a gruelling terror flick made on a teensy budget...and it worked. Everything about it gelled, and it remains effective to this day, despite the cheesiness of the low-budget effects work.
This remake thankfully changes things around a bit story-wise, so that even the many fans of the original movie will find themselves guessing as to what's about to happen next. It's a film made very much in the spirit of the first film, and that makes it pretty good for a remake. The same suspense is there, the pulse-pounding question of who's going to be affected next by the curse, while at the same time it's given some Hollywood slickness to offset the original's grubby, zero-budget charm.
And, perhaps most surprisingly of all, the gore quota has been ramped up considerably. This is one of the most extremely vicious and nasty films I've seen in a long time, in which the various set-pieces of gore are difficult to watch; let's just say that the chainsaw stuff hinted at back in the 1980s is shown in full force here. Production values are more than adequate and the cast are pretty good, too. Is this as good as the original? No, it lacks the genuine fright-factor even if the ickiness is there...but at the same time it won't disappoint modern horror fans with its blend of demonic possession and outrageous violence.
This remake thankfully changes things around a bit story-wise, so that even the many fans of the original movie will find themselves guessing as to what's about to happen next. It's a film made very much in the spirit of the first film, and that makes it pretty good for a remake. The same suspense is there, the pulse-pounding question of who's going to be affected next by the curse, while at the same time it's given some Hollywood slickness to offset the original's grubby, zero-budget charm.
And, perhaps most surprisingly of all, the gore quota has been ramped up considerably. This is one of the most extremely vicious and nasty films I've seen in a long time, in which the various set-pieces of gore are difficult to watch; let's just say that the chainsaw stuff hinted at back in the 1980s is shown in full force here. Production values are more than adequate and the cast are pretty good, too. Is this as good as the original? No, it lacks the genuine fright-factor even if the ickiness is there...but at the same time it won't disappoint modern horror fans with its blend of demonic possession and outrageous violence.
We seem to be in a time where the remakes of remakes will be remade, even films like Cabin Fever aren't remaining sacred, the obligatory remake follows.
Evil Dead now is a remake with a bit of bite, of course it has every possible cliche under the sun ticked off. We have the obligatory character coming out of the ground with long stringy hair, we have the trapdoor, the book of death, and of course the vomiting. Despite all the blatant lack of any sort of imagination Evil Dead somehow manages to capture the imagination, and provide ninety minutes of quite thrilling entertainment.
The scares are plentiful, and the acting is such that you believe in the pain, physical and mental, it really is quite well made. Effective use of special effects and music.
Not a film I'd look to watch on a regular basis, but it's somehow rather refreshing. 7/10
Please enough with the remakes though.
Evil Dead now is a remake with a bit of bite, of course it has every possible cliche under the sun ticked off. We have the obligatory character coming out of the ground with long stringy hair, we have the trapdoor, the book of death, and of course the vomiting. Despite all the blatant lack of any sort of imagination Evil Dead somehow manages to capture the imagination, and provide ninety minutes of quite thrilling entertainment.
The scares are plentiful, and the acting is such that you believe in the pain, physical and mental, it really is quite well made. Effective use of special effects and music.
Not a film I'd look to watch on a regular basis, but it's somehow rather refreshing. 7/10
Please enough with the remakes though.
Evil Dead is a remake of the 1981 original "the Evil Dead". I didn't have the chance to watch the original yet, so I'm going to review this without comparing it with the original.
The movie actually starts out pretty slow, for the first 40 minutes there isn't any creepy parts and it actually bores me. Usually, movies start off slow to develop they're characters or stories, however, I find the first 30 minutes unnecessary. However, Evil Dead deserves its wait. Evil Dead has some of the goriest and most disturbing scenes I've seen in movies. There's blood EVERYWHERE and the movie make them look real good! The movie mostly uses makeups and proves that a bloody movie can stand by its own without CGI.
Another thing I like about Evil Dead is the directing. There are many beautifully-shot scenes which makes the movie very enjoyable. For example, the director sets the cameras in different angles, such as the floor or close to the wall, which makes it extraordinary from other films.
On the other hand, Evil Dead lacks character developments, but for its own sake, bloody horror doesn't really need character developments. Characters make stupid decisions and eventually will die out one by one, so it's not really a big deal.
There isn't really a plot or twists in Evil Dead. Everything is presented directly. If you haven't watch this without watching the trailers, the movie is what you thought it will be.
Evil Dead is enjoyable for a movie night if you do not care too much on the details. Just sit back and enjoy the gore, it's real fun.
The movie actually starts out pretty slow, for the first 40 minutes there isn't any creepy parts and it actually bores me. Usually, movies start off slow to develop they're characters or stories, however, I find the first 30 minutes unnecessary. However, Evil Dead deserves its wait. Evil Dead has some of the goriest and most disturbing scenes I've seen in movies. There's blood EVERYWHERE and the movie make them look real good! The movie mostly uses makeups and proves that a bloody movie can stand by its own without CGI.
Another thing I like about Evil Dead is the directing. There are many beautifully-shot scenes which makes the movie very enjoyable. For example, the director sets the cameras in different angles, such as the floor or close to the wall, which makes it extraordinary from other films.
On the other hand, Evil Dead lacks character developments, but for its own sake, bloody horror doesn't really need character developments. Characters make stupid decisions and eventually will die out one by one, so it's not really a big deal.
There isn't really a plot or twists in Evil Dead. Everything is presented directly. If you haven't watch this without watching the trailers, the movie is what you thought it will be.
Evil Dead is enjoyable for a movie night if you do not care too much on the details. Just sit back and enjoy the gore, it's real fun.
I do understand that some people are angry with this movie for various reasons. People are eager for the Evil Dead series to continue, so while there was always talk of that happening (right now there is an entry for Army of Darkness 2 for a 2016 release), a remake came first. A remake that the director didn't want Bruce Campbell to be associated with, so he could do his own thing. Something some fans surely didn't appreciate either of course.
But cutting ties does make sense in this case. And while I'm a big fan of Bruce Campbell and would have loved to see him in here somewhere, I do respect the directors choice of not wanting that to happen. There is also the fact, that the movie tries to be as serious as possible. So it's more like the first Evil Dead than the movies that came after it. And it sort of works too, if you let yourself into it. Is there one particular character that is more than annoying and does things you could/should kill him for? Yes, but judging the whole movie just on that premise would be unfair to it and wouldn't help your viewing experience. Whatever the case, the movie has good effects, it's nicely told and acted too. Try to be open minded (not literally)
But cutting ties does make sense in this case. And while I'm a big fan of Bruce Campbell and would have loved to see him in here somewhere, I do respect the directors choice of not wanting that to happen. There is also the fact, that the movie tries to be as serious as possible. So it's more like the first Evil Dead than the movies that came after it. And it sort of works too, if you let yourself into it. Is there one particular character that is more than annoying and does things you could/should kill him for? Yes, but judging the whole movie just on that premise would be unfair to it and wouldn't help your viewing experience. Whatever the case, the movie has good effects, it's nicely told and acted too. Try to be open minded (not literally)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaAccording to reports in the press, the film used 70,000 gallons (equivalent to 264,978.82 liters) of fake blood. In an interview, Fede Alvarez said they used 50,000 gallons (189,270.59 liters) for the final scene alone. This is compared to the 200-300 gallons (757.08-1,135.62 liters) used in the original.
- GoofsAt the beginning of the film a woman is speaking a foreign language, according to the subtitles she is speaking Turkish, she is actually speaking in Welsh.
- Quotes
Abomination Mia: I will feast on your soul!
Mia: [revs the chainsaw] Feast on this, motherfucker.
[Mia shoves the chainsaw into the Abomination's face]
Mia: Die.
[Mia defeats the Abomination by slice the head in half as the creature begins to sink into the ground]
Mia: Go back to Hell, bitch.
- Crazy creditsIn reference to a term coined by Sam Raimi after The Three Stooges, the actors which appear in bit parts as "really good people" (Bill Vincent, Judah Tapert, Terri Donaldson, and Alan Breslau) are credited as "Fake Shemps".
- Alternate versionsWhile the theatrical release was uncut, the German DVD release was cut by ca. 1 minute to to keep its "Not under 18" rating from the FSK. The uncut version was released with a SPIO/JK approval (resulting in various sale restrictions).
- ConnectionsFeatured in Face Off: Mummy Mayhem (2013)
- SoundtracksBaby, Little Baby
Written by Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues
Performed by Jane Levy and Shiloh Fernandez
Published by Fede Alvarez (ASCAP) and Rodo Saygues (ASCAP)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- Posesión infernal
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $17,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $54,239,856
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $25,775,847
- Apr 7, 2013
- Gross worldwide
- $97,542,952
- Runtime1 hour 31 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content