Horror.com Forums - Talk about horror. - Last Seen Contemporary Movie

Evil Dead (2013)

http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p...psa1cf22f9.jpg

***SPOILER ALERT***

Quote:

Originally Posted by _____V_____ (Post 953347)

first big question, where the FUCK did the atmosphere of the film disappear to?!
The original started off with that eerie, Raimi-esque, camera pan shots which filled you with a huge sense of foreboding even before you laid your eyes on the car carrying the cast (not to mention the near-accident which sneaks a feeling into you that all is not well in these parts of the woods/country).
For the first 20-25 minutes when there's an overt show of brother-sister love (and nil development of other/all characters), are we supposed to wait and give a fuck for that?
Come on, it's an Evil Dead movie for chrissakes! When did a film in this series take itself THIS seriously?
Secondly, where the hell did they get that male lead (brother) from? They couldn't have found a more deadpan, wooden guy than him. The guy who played his friend did a much better job than him in the acting department.
Third, all the effects. Give me all that plaster of paris, gob-filled handmade stuff any day over CGI. I admit I am totally in love/awe of CGI when it's used in blockbusters (Avatar. Star Trek, LOTR, etc.) but when you use it in a horror film's limited setting such as this, it becomes overkill. I am sorry, producers Raimi, Tapert & Campbell, but the CGI here has ruined all your scares. Specially in the middle of the film, where the effects take over and the actors don't do much but flinch and groan as their bodies are subjected to some of the most gruesome punishment you can ever hope to see on the screen. And, someone explain this to me, how the heck can you manage to be normal-ish when you cut off your hand or pull your damaged arm out from under an overturned jeep, detaching your hand totally from your body, and have enough to lay out one-liners? That was a staple of ED II, in which nothing was taken seriously and all of it was one big over-the-top gorific, black comedy ride. And to add to it all, those fake eye effects which didn't look the least bit scary.
Fourth, terrible sound effects. I really didn't want to hear Tubular Bells playing during the climax of this film, specially. This is no Exorcist or Omen, this is Evil Dead. A silent background could have worked way better than that (just the sounds of the smoldering fire would have added more realism to the proceedings).
Fifth, the whole story is based on the book we know all too well about by now, and it explains the details of fixing things too. So, bury the possessed and wait till her heart stops, things become normal, then pull her out and try to revive her? What's more, she gets revived AND turns back to normal?! What about the thing which entered her and turned her in the first place? It went on to take a nap?

Rating - * *

P.S. - What the hell was that Bruce Campbell cameo all about? Draw a few more of the money-spending audience to come in and whistle at their horror icon?

Not groovy.

Couldn't agree more, my friend!

After V's such perfect & clinical review, I'd like to add some little more things from my side...

First of all, as another crazy fan of the original, you all might noticed at first I was bit upset about this whole idea behind the remake but after its theatrical success with "plenty" of positive reviews, I started to preparing myself to take a walk on the memory lane & revisit the cabin with full spirit...as a whole really wanted to love this new installment. But as a die hard THE EVIL DEAD fan, the result comes with nothing but disappointment.
The thing is as I said before from the very release of the remake's plot synopsis...they should treated it as a stand alone film that's just linspired by 1981's Sam Raimi's classic, rather than call it a remake or even a sequel....

Quote:

In January 2013, Alvarez commented on the ambiguity of the film's relationship to the original:
"Now, the way I personally like to see Evil Dead (2013), it's as a story that takes place 30 years after The Evil Dead ended. The car is there, the cabin is there (a family bought it and did some work on it more than 20 years ago) and the book has found its way back to the cabin...New kids will encounter it and suffer its wrath. Is Evil Dead a sequel then? Maybe. But the problem with the sequel theory would be that there are too many coincidences between the events on The Evil Dead and the ones on Evil Dead to have happened on a continuous story line. But if you believe the Naturom Demonto can force these things to happen...then it could be a sequel...and I do believe in coincidences." Source: Wikipedia

Like V mentioned earlier on his review..."where the FUCK did the atmosphere of the film disappear to?!"...the first thing that actually shocked me about the film was how or why did they completely ignored the introductory phase of the Cabin? Remember the very first moment when Ash & his friends discovered or appeared on the cabin? How could they ignore those moments?!? The creepy first look of the cabin from the ground level...what a simple but beautifully effective way to shot the very home of the Evil Dead! Even as far I remember, the recent fantastic satirical horror THE CABIN IN THE WOODS quite convincingly managed to gave a nod to Raimi's TED classic regarding this little but significant point.

Though Alvarez very finely delivered time to time jump scares and bloody-grotesque moments throughout the movie but it just surprises me how he misses the following great factors about an Evil Dead movie under the supervision of Raimi & Co.?!?

Deadites:: Totally agree with V regarding that fake yellow-eye effect issue...that's just annoying not something horrifying at all.
Now, one of the creepy & great facts about the deadites in the original was they were quite unpredictable in nature! We just didn't know what terrifying thing they would do next! How could they didn't use that awesome-freaky scene from the original when a deadite was constantly changes the appearance from a being a deadite to a normal person? a very effective scene for a horror film to confuse & play with the audience which just scared the hell out of me when I first saw it!
And in 2013 installment, we see some possessed-weak individuals; not the deadites!

Book of the dead: This just again annoyed me! Too much showing off the pages of book which just looked like a scrapbook of an inspiring comic book/graphic novel artist! In this new version, there's a clear intention to give as much information as possible about the evil entity that's creating the whole gruesome havoc. IMO: the very creepy & interesting fact about the "entity" in the original was we know very less about it; about its nature, mission or anything...and that's unpredictable or unknown nature is the most true terrifying side for any great horrifying encounters. And in this regard, it just totally pissed me off when the corporal Ghost appeared in the woods at the time of central character Mia's initial process of getting demonically possessed.

***SPOILER ENDS***

As a first time horror movie director, though I like to admit Fede Alvarez did a decent job and I'm looking forward to see his future projects in this genre film making but as a remake or a new installment to Raimi's cult series, EVIL DEAD (2013) failed to impress me.

>>: C+

The Conjuring (2013)

http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p...ps20ca1dd3.jpg

A very nice & better haunted house flick than Insidious from Jame Wan. A must see for any haunted house flick lover, it's simple but effectively creepy and entertaining. Recommended.

>>: B+