Seen ’em all. Part 1 was a horror classic; it was only when they made Part 2 that they started camping it up with stupid jokes.

Without spoiling anything, I will just say the new version really came off the rails in the final 15 minutes – far too many absurd, “unexpected” twists that fail in execution and are just plain stupid.

Most egregiously of all, they employ that STUPID trope that pollutes the end of almost every single thriller and horror movie these days: a split second before delivering the final blow, the hero throws a lame putdown at the principal evildoer, i.e. “Devour THIS, motherf**ker!!” Sometimes they even have the actor execute a sketchy one-quarter turn and look RIGHT INTO THE CAMERA as they say it. I hate that. This “cute” “finishing touch” is usually enough to ruin an otherwise perfect movie; and this one is not perfect.

Just skip the sequels and the remake. The original is still an ace movie.

And the post-credit scene is nothing more than Bruce Campbell (who starred in all three of the previous “Evil Dead” movies) saying “groovy” (his tagline from the stupid sequels). Shameless audience pandering.

Sta-tus MoNkey on April 5, 2013 at 10:16 pm

I wonder if they meant ‘Evil Dead 2′ which was VERY campy and fun? I saw the original (when I was a teen) and it scared the crap out of me. I remember it being VERY scary and not campy. I loved “Evil Dead 2” (& “Army Of Darkness” which was “Evil Dead 3”) but I didn’t like “Evil Dead” (too scary for me at the time…but I guess I liked it film-wise…it just creeped me out as it reminded me of “The Exorcist”. I was a teen baby-sitting so who knows (when I first saw it!)?

The hand is in “Evil Dead 2” so that is why I ask. I could be wrong though.

This doesn’t sound like my kinda horror film (and I am a fan). I don’t like “Last House On The Left” films and I hated Rob Zombie’s (even thou’ I am a HUGE fan of his!!!) ‘The Devil’s Rejects’. I hate movies like that. Might as well watch “Funny Games” or some other film that makes me wanna do The Dutch.

But I love “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. The original (and the VERY weird and creepy #2!)

Skunky on April 5, 2013 at 10:18 pm

The history of “Evil Dead”

It started as a 30 minute short called “Within the Woods”, it is on youtube. This short was used to show investors what their money will be used for on a bigger scale. It worked.

They then made “Evil Dead”, so technically a remake. Bad acting, which made it campy but not real funny. Very graphic horror film with that 70’s Hammer Horror type special effects.

With the profits from this film they made “Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn”. The surprise here is it is not a sequel but another remake on a bigger budget. So that is 2 remakes of the same movie with the same actors and crew. This one was funnier, on purpose and still graphic.

It made much more money and got a bigger studio interested in 1992 to do a bigger budget movie. They weren’t sure audiences unfamiliar with the films would go see “Evil Dead 3” so they changed the name to “Army of Darkness”. It is the true first sequel as it continues from the end of part 2.

It made the most money. It is very funny, less creepy, more action and set Bruce Campbell in to his character type for everything he has done since (Xena etc). Funny thing is most Evil Dead fans saw the third (4th?) movie (AOD) first, then went back to Evil Dead and went forward from there.

They also made multiple DVD versions of the films, they release every so often to cash in on (like the “Boomstick”version)with alternate endings, deleted scenes and features.

This also launched Sam Raimi’s career. Since 1992 they have promised an “Evil Dead 4” or “Army of Darkness 2” but then the Spider-Man movies and money got in the way. So here we are, 21 years later and they give us another remake. Why? They didn’t think they had a big enough fan base to support a proper sequel. Translation “MONEY”. But not like the other remakes, no Ash/Bruce and no Sam.

Now because of fan mumbling about not getting what was promised Sam has announced that he will make “Army of Darkness 2” with Bruce and make it a true sequel, not another remake. He also promised that the new rebooted Evil Dead would not mix with the new Army of Darkness, he lied with the “surprise” scene at the end of the credits.

So, you can tell I was a fan but have no plans to see this version. Might Netflix it if it goes on the instant view, but not planning on it.

ender on April 5, 2013 at 11:17 pm

Once again I didn’t even manage to get past the first sentences of your review Debbie. Please be careful you don’t poison your brain watching these films.

You say that the “dismemberment and gore factor” (well-defined by the way) is significantly up.

No surprise there then, as it seems that “the world” is training us to love the things that our Creator, the God of Abraham, hates.

“Anyone loving violence, (God’s) soul certainly hates”. Psalm 11:5

If we allow ourselves to be entertained by gore and dismemberment, aren’t we loving violence?

The title is interesting too. The Evil Dead. Is this yet another movie that has the dead alive in some other state, thus contradicting the clear and simple words of the Hebrew Scriptures, which tell us: “As for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.” – Ecclesiastes 9:5

Wasn’t it Satan – “the father of the lie” – who told Eve that she would not and could not die? Her Creator had told her that she would die if she chose to disobey him. Satan said she would not.

She disobeyed, and she died, and returned to the dust of the ground from which she had been created.

From the title of the movie, it sounds like it is propagating that lie. But, as I said, I didn’t get past the first para of your review.

sue on April 6, 2013 at 3:11 am

Good review, Debbie. You are just about where I am with this movie—-expressing a qualified tolerance for the film given the genre which is not a favorite for either of us. Both you and I reacted much more negatively to last year’s outwardly similar “Cabin in the Woods.” What’s the difference? The characters from last year’s film were hip, cool, dope-smoking teens (remember the girl who French kissed the wolf?). The kids in this current film were basically decent and sympathetic, even if they weren’t particularly complex or memorable. That immediately made the story more palatable.

Raimi’s original “Evil Dead” films got funnier with the sequels. It was “Evil Dead II” that your friends were remembering where the dismembered hand took on a life of its own, Debbie. My favorite of the three has always been—-and here I agree with Skunky–the third, “Army of Darkness.” Gorily gruesome films are a dime-a-dozen and there have been so many of them done: the soulless Saw series would alone have numbed us all even if this hadn’t already happened with the Chainsaw sequels. Very disgusting, raw, original gore, however, mixed with preposterous and sly humor is rarer and more entertaining. It’s no accident that Raimi teamed up with the Coen brothers for a while (and even scripted a film with them) since the Coens are the modern masters of this kind of black humor. My other favorite of this type of genre mix are the films done by Stewart Gordon (most famous for his weirdly deadpan and hilarious adaptation of Lovecraft’s “Re-Animator”).

I personally thought the last shot with Bruce Campbell as Ash saying “Groovy” at the end of the film following all the credits was a nice, unobtrusive homage to the original. I wasn’t alone; there were many others in the audience who stayed and seemed to enjoy that little touch.

Burke on April 6, 2013 at 6:01 am

I don’t really watch horror films that much.
Since movies aren’t really competing in the plot or suspense department I guess they have to compete in the gore department.
So I suppose this sequel is exactly what you’d expect from that.

Frankz on April 6, 2013 at 8:40 am

I did, very ill-advisedly, watch “The Blair Witch Project” – or at least I started to watch it. But the way they got lost in the woods and couldn’t find their way out seemed to tie in with some deep-seated anxiety in me, and I had to stop.

My husband half watched it to the end and found it boring.

He does watch movies on the telly – but I wish he wouldn’t. So many of them are so awful. Whatever we let into our mind makes and strengthens connections in our brain. Think how God’s law to the Israelites made it clear He was concerned about that. In the Ten Words, or Commandments, didn’t he tell them not to covet their neighbours belongings, i.e. not to let certain feelings inside their heads?

sue on April 6, 2013 at 8:55 am

“They said the dismemberment and gore factor was significantly up in this version, and that the campiness factor was down. For example, in the original, when someone’s hands are cut off, the hands end up crawling around the room. None of that kind of thing happens. And this version is humorless.”
WHAT!?
The original had the tagline, “The Ultimate Experience In Grueling Terror”.
It had an “X” rating and later was “Rated NC-17 for substantial graphic horror violence and gore”. There is a scene where the blood covers the screen as the character Shelly is hacked to pieces with an ax, with after blows to limbs being shown in closeup. In fact, it was repeatedly taken to court over obscenity.
There was virtually no humor in it, although there is a line, “She’s your girlfriend, you take care of her.”
There is a review by Scorpionsy over at Bloody Disgusting comparing the two versions, concluding that 2013’s “Evil Dead” is more tame.
The people you talked to must have been talking about the more comedic “Evil Dead II” which was much toned down from the original.

MH on April 6, 2013 at 9:22 am

WHY SUPPORT TRASH LIKE THIS? The only movie that really scared me was the original version of “The Thing From Another World” starring James Arness as The Thing. It was made in 1951 and in black and white. No blood but lots of suspense, horror and fear. Much better than what the perverts in Hollywood put out today.

Fred on April 6, 2013 at 10:57 am

The fact that you possess so little integrity as to not research the topic you write about automatically invalidates your views on this film. If you want to play the role of critic you actually have to put in the work.

B: Moron, it’s called a movie review. I’m only reviewing the movie I see. It’s not a research project. I did put in the work: It’s called, “seeing the movie, writing the review.” That’s all a movie critic is obligated to do. This isn’t a college thesis on “The Sexual Positions of Madonna in Video and Picture Books.” The fact that you possess so little intellect and actual grasp of what a movie review is invalidates your views in this comment on my review on this film. If you want to play the role of critic of my movie reviews, you actually have to have a clue. DS

Baker on April 6, 2013 at 3:46 pm

Last year’s movie season was disappointing, this one looks even worse. The only true hit so far is Identity Thief, which will make $150 million domestic and overseas on a $35 million budget and is a very good haul for its B-list director and stars. After that you have Oz The Great And Powerful and The Croods, both of whom will make back their production budget domestically and are doing ok overseas but are only meeting expectations at best and benefiting from an almost total lack of competing family movies.

After those guys it is Olympus Has Fallen and G.I. Joe. The former will make back its manageable production budget by the end of the weekend and go on to be profitable but won’t reach $100 million or do much overseas. G.I. Joe will cross $100 million domestically but will be hard-pressed to reach their $130 million REPORTED production budget in the states alone, though it may ultimately be profitable as it is doing pretty well $150 million and counting – overseas.

After that, you have a bunch of movies that can only be considered successful with relation to their modest budgets (i.e. Warm Bodies, The Call, the bi-annual Tyler Perry movie, Escape From Planet Earth, Safe Haven … all of whom will turn profits but can’t approach Identity Thief except by combining their totals) plus the oddity that was Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters that barely made its $50 million production budget back domestically but tripled it overseas. The rest are gigantic bombs (Die Hard sequel, Jack the Giant Slayer, The Host) or stuff not worth paying attention to.

Gerald on April 6, 2013 at 6:51 pm

What kinds of minds like watching this stuff? It’s straight from hell. No wonder our country is going off the rails.

Gizzy on April 6, 2013 at 7:18 pm

I agree with Gizzy and Sue. When one watches this stuff, one doesn’t even realize the effect it has on her/his soul but it is devastating. It can make one paranoid, fearful, anxious and angry. And all these feelings come out inappropriately towards innocent people because the ability to discern between simple disagreement and vitriolic attack, for example, is lost. Bus so to is much discernment overall lost because of the darkness in which the mind is immersed.

Italkit on April 6, 2013 at 7:51 pm

As great filmmaking teacher Dov S-S Simmens said in some sound advice on scriptwriting:

“What’s the magic formula that launched hundreds of careers, from John Carpenter to John Sayles to Steven Soderbergh to Quentin Tarantino to the kids that made “The Blair Witch Project”? The script that everyone uses to launch their career is–in 90 pages, take 12 kids to a house and chop them up.”

Dov wasn’t actually suggesting that a first-timers’s script had to be a slasher film, but his point was that as a matter of economics and budgeting, it’s advisable set the film in a single location or a minimal number of locations. It’s one of the reason that courtroom dramas are so prevalent, particularly in TV scripts.

As Ender has described in his post above, The Evil Dead series was created by Sam Raimi and his “Within the Woods” was the prototype wherein Sam followed Dov’s advice to “T,” literally and in Dov’s broader meaning as well.

Though many prefer Sam’s “Evil Dead” (the one after the prototype), I think that “Evil Dead II” achieves the rare accomplishment of actually topping the original. Sure it’s loaded with camp humor, like Bruce Campbell’s war against his hand, which has taken on a life of its own. Note the use of Ernest Hemingway’s book, “A Farewell to Arms,” as a humorous prop, for example. Scenes like that are wonderfully imaginative. I think that in that hand sequence Sam was also paying homage to Peter Seller’s brilliant iconic performance as Dr. Strangelove, wherein Seller’s also fought with his own hand. And who could forget the incredible eerie climax and ending of “Evil Dead II”? Truly great filmmaking.

As for the next generation Evil Dead movie, I’m sure the special effects have been greatly enhanced and are far more realistic than the earlier versions. But that in itself doesn’t make for a better movie in my opinion. It all comes down to the story. The story is the heart and soul of a good movie. And based on most early indications, the story is the weakest part of the film.

Ralph Adamo on April 6, 2013 at 9:50 pm

I am bit surprised that Sam Raimi would sell out in the remake arena. I would have thought making those SPIDERMAN movies would have satisfied his money hunger but it might have just made him more greedy. I do not knock him because the original EVIL DEAD movie is his property so he pretty much can do what he wants to do with it. I have seen some remakes and not have been impressed.

I have noticed that many young people think that gore is a substituted for horror/terror. I have read many IMDB posts and most young folks will say how this film or that film is not gory enough. I think many younger people have been flooded into thinking that porn gore and dismemberment is the only way they can get scared. Maybe its a generational outlook but to me, seeing excessive gore and blood is disgusting and sickening. No feeling of terror or horror just a sick feeling like when you have a want to puke. Especially when those SAW movies came out, I saw the trend of many of these new younger directors to do upmanish on the other by showing more disgusting ways to kill a human being. Seems this gore porn is getting to be more the trend now in so call horror films.

I remember seeing the first EVIL DEAD and at that time Sam Raimi was able to use some gore but also the feeling of dread of the cabin being in the woods and the film shots of the forest and the camera zooms to give the impression of the evil spirit attacking. Unfortunately with an influx of gore porn over the years have made films like this something from the past and I doubt it will get any better.

Mario on April 7, 2013 at 1:41 pm

I had no idea there were so many horror/slasher/zombie movie experts here. Seriously.

skzion on April 7, 2013 at 4:14 pm

…best account of the creation of the original Evil Dead is in Sam Raimi’s high school buddy Bruce Campbell’s book ‘If Chins Could Kill’.

Nick Fury on April 7, 2013 at 6:06 pm

P.S. …the best Evil Dead joke is in the USANetwork ‘Burn Notice’ movie from a couple years ago ‘The Fall of Sam Axe’, which has a chainsaw-wielding Bruce Campbell saying… “Groovy”…

Nick Fury on April 7, 2013 at 6:39 pm

Although there’s an admirable amount of film knowledge and artistic sensitivity contained in the comments this week, knowledge and sensitivity which makes me appreciate the high caliber of intellect attracted to this blog, I think after some reflection that I agree with Italkit saying that Sue’s comment is the best of the bunch.

Sue’s argument is that the Ten Commandments forbids us to covet our neighbor’s wife. In other words, it warns us against bad feelings. Then Sue goes on to argue that “Evil Dead” and other similar horror movies give us bad feelings and should likewise be avoided.

I think the “bad feelings” that this sort of film creates is at the heart of why we should dislike it. What sort of culture is it where people are so intellectually and emotionally dead that we need to get pumped up by watching self-mutilation and dismemberment?

My own favorite horror movie of all time—setting aside black horror comedies like Gordon’s “Re-Animator” and John Waters’s “Serial Mom”–is Julie Taymor’s “Titus.” “Titus” is an interesting film with interesting implications. It’s an adaptation of an early Shakespeare play “Titus Andronicus” which has been almost universally condemned as Shakespeare’s worst effort practically since it was first staged. What I discovered when watching it was that it was actually very entertaining. Mutilation of all types occurred; heads were lopped off; rape and other forcible perversions occurred regularly. In other words, it fit in perfectly with our own horror boom where Michael Myers, Freddie Kruger, Jason and, yes, demon possession in movies like “The Exorcist,” “Evil Dead” and John Carpenter’s “Prince of Evil” had numbed us all into stuperously acquiescing to films crammed with atrocities until they all seemed normal. It’s generally agreed that Shakespeare made a wrong turn with “Titus Andronicus,” but it’s significant that this play was a remake of a Seneca tragedy, Seneca being perhaps the most highly esteemed of all Roman playwrights. In other words, our culture has devolved in crassness and vulgarity to that of the Roman’s. Is that really where we want to go?

Burke on April 8, 2013 at 10:32 am