Mr. Flix

If that's the case, the movie didn't follow its own rules. The body could be "purified" through fire, being buried alive, or dismemberment. The second method worked on Mia. If the entity at the end was the girl from the first scene, then the fire didn't work on her. PLUS -- didn't her father blow her head off while she was burning?

Why So Blu?

She grew a new head.

EddieMoney

Saw this. It was...okay. Nothing really frightening or tense about it. Just a lot of gore. I give it a 3/5 at best.

Bluelitespecial

I enjoyed the movie, but I wish they hadn't release the red band trailers only because it gave away a lot of the goriest stuff in movie when I saw it. Its still been great to watch it again on bluray.

Dr. DVD

Not anything to do with reviewing the movie, but a cool photo nonetheless.

OldBoy

it was very so so. not as good as i was hoping.

Troy Stiffler

Yea. Let's make an Evil Dead movie with Ash and Mia. Mia was pretty awesome. I think she could hold her ground against Ash. And then the movie will have to get into more fun mythos, with Ash entering.

Still thinking about the movie. I think that "fun" tone is what was missing from the movie. The story was small and confined to that cabin. Had they gone more into the fantasy elements, it could have been a more unique experience.

Dr. DVD

Agree. My main problem with this movie, as I mentioned in my review post, was that it seemed more focused on pushing the gore factor over anything else. The originals had a good sense of fun about them, this one severely lacked in that department until

Levy has a good sense of comedic timing as evidenced in her TV show, so I have no doubt she and Campbell could deliver.

Why So Blu?

I didn't even care about the "groovy" or original recordings. It was bullshit fan service that had nothing to do with the film itself.

Troy Stiffler

I would have creamed my jeans, had Ash shown up before the credits.

But the movie just wasn't going for that kind of fun.

RocShemp

I finally saw Evil Dead. I didn't hate it but I didn't love it. I doubt I'll even remember it as time goes by. Perhaps my mistake was watching The Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2 before watching the remake because it became painfully obvious that Evil Dead has no identity. The best elements were all callbacks to the first two and that sucks because to hear Rob Tapert, Bruce Campbell, and Fede Álvarez talk about the remake, they swear it's different than the original.

First off, there is indeed an Ash character in Evil Dead. It's David. He's a total pussy, you'd expect him to be victim #2, and he even has to man up for the climax of the movie. That's exactly how Ash was in The Evil Dead. He even wears the same exact wardrobe as Bruce Campbell (with some minor embellishments). The only change is that

There's no tension or scares in this movie. And there was no real build up towards the book. Which is weird because in the original movie you have two supernatural occurrences in the first 9 minutes yet it feels earned. In the remake it felt more like "okay, we're gonna have this guy obsess over the book now so we can get this movie started".

On the subject of lack of buildup in Evil Dead, I get why they needed a cold open. Studios seem to demand it instead of having the eeriness and scares develop naturally. I suppose it's fear the audience will grow bored if there isn't gore in the opening minutes. However, the cold open just doesn't work. At first it looked like it might.

It would have been best to remove the entire cold open.

I won't complain much about the characters in Evil Dead since the characters in The Evil Dead were just as thinly developed.

The finale is awkward at best. As an avid fan of the series I recognized it as a combined nod to Henrietta and possessed Linda from Evil Dead 2, as well as the She-Bitch from Army Of Darkness but it felt out of place since it was somehow both over-the-top and anti-climactic.

Bad acting and low rent effects notwithstanding, The Evil Dead is very creative and still quite disturbing. Evil Dead was just gory. Heck, even the post credits scene of Evil Dead demonstrated a distinct lack of imagination.

Overall, it was meh.

islandclaws

^ Fully agree with you on the opening. It served no purpose except to introduce characters we'll never hear from again.

I re-watched this yesterday - my second viewing - and I've gotta say it played better for me knowing its deficiencies ahead of time. It's still a pale imitation of Raimi's films, but they do change enough to make it feel like it isn't quite a remake.

If there's one thing I hate more than anything here, though, it's the stupid exposition provided by a BOOK. I'm so glad someone scrawled "burn the motherfucker" perfectly legibly so the audience knows what characters need to do. I loathe lazy writing.

Rival11

It's kind of funny seeing everyone's predictions for what they're going to do next.

All you have to do is watch the special features and they will tell you all.

- There will be no Ash ever in these remakes/reimages

- The book was meant to be created to exist in multiple times periods (which is why there are multiple writings on each page) and it even relates to the original evil dead.

- Sam Rami is working on Army of Darkness 2 (yes, with Ash).

Of course - I could be wrong on all of the above but it came off as sounding pretty solid.

Troy Stiffler

Okay. So don't pair them up. Then why have that tacked on ending with Ash? It's even more of a let down now.

Hasn't Army of Darkness 2 been in development since the late 90's?

Maybe the next remake will be more fun. Can't say I won't watch it.

Kmical

That could happen to any of us ... if we were flatworms.

Why So Blu?

Because it was stupid fan service. It had nothing to do with the film you just saw.

It's a lame after thought.

RocShemp

Another thing that bothered me is the score by Roque Baņos. On it's own, it's not a bad listen. But it doesn't fit the movie at all. In fact, it almost sounds as if he composed it for Drag Me To Hell (Evil Dead even does the whole opening/closing title card "accent" almost beat for beat as it was done in Drag Me To Hell), it got rejected for that movie and instead dumped on this one.

islandclaws

And what was up with those fucking air raid sirens all over the climax?

My Other Self

Ha, I thought the same thing when I saw it back in May.

I didn't care for the movie either. It was one of the bigger disappointments this year since it felt like a reboot they would've gotten right. The cameo at the end felt tacked on and totally unnecessary and out of place given the rest of the film.

Did they greenlight a sequel yet?

Troy Stiffler

Haha. I noticed that too! It actually creeped me out a little, because it made me think of the Silent Hill movie (which is a much scarier film).

Boba Fett

For all the hype about the gore in the film, I'm shocked the series "Hannibal" is generally more extreme than most of the shock moments here.

OldBoy

wow. that is interesting. i thought ED WAS a bit tamer than Hannibal. Hannibal is great. good call!

Tom Creo

I see not only did they glorify tree rape during the con circuit and on the movie poster, but also on the Blu cover art. WTF? Is that the only thing that the studio thinks will sell this flick?

RocShemp

Well it was the most infamous scene in the original so I guess they thought it'd scare the bejezzus outta people in this one. Honestly, the new tree rape is "interesting" from how it was reimagined as something out of The Hidden (albeit through a different orifice) but the original is just plain wrong. Especially since Cheryl has brief moans of pleasure (like for two or three seconds) during the scene in the original. It made it really icky (to put it mildly). The new one was just odd cos I still don't understand the purpose of the third party during the scene. It's as if the writers never made up their mind as to who really was the manifestation of the evil in the woods.

Tom Creo

It certainly was one of the most talked about scenes in the original but, from my initial reaction to viewing this back on VHS in the 80's, was it even a rape? I don't recall the branch penetrating Cheryl. Just like my girlfriend back then, she would moan like that with the right amount of pressure and a few quick strums of the guitar strings. I viewed it as an assault, not a rape. I think this scene has taken a life of its own.

BTW, here's Alvarez on the scene discussed:"This is not a classic being remade by a big studio, it's still his film. It's the guys from the original. I didn't write one scene and [the producer] asked "where's my raping tree?" So *types on the table and whistles* raping scene, there you go. But it has to be way more terrible than the original."

So the pervs from the original wanted it in, not Alvarez.

http://www.hollywood.com/news/movies...ginal?page=all