[Giganticface]

V... Don't be apprehensive. Watch it. But like you said, set your expectations appropriately.

Regarding all the "meh" responses to the Evil Dead remake... I'm not terribly surprised. I'll give my two cents as to why I personally loved the movie. I'm not trying to change anyone's minds -- there's no reason to, and there's certainly no re-doing a first impression.

First off, I'll mention that I'm a ridiculous Evil Dead fan. Evil Dead I and II have never left my top 5 horror movies all time over the past 20 years, and II has vied for the #1 spot for much of that time. Being such a fan, you might think that would make me irrationally-forgiving of a new entry, but like most of the rest of you, I think it actually makes me more critical. Being also a huge Star Wars fan, the prequels offended me on a near-personal level. Eck.

Fede Alvarez had the impossible task of remaking a movie/franchise that's simply not remakable. If I were a betting man or an investor, I would not have put my money on an Evil Dead remake. (Of course, I would have been wrong, but that's another discussion.)

Let's get the obvious reason out of the way: The Evil Dead is regarded as one of the best horror movies of all time. So Alvarez had about a 99.9999% chance of making a movie that's not as good. Simple.

Besides that, however, I think there are three reasons why this particular movie has little to no chance of success among horror fans.

1. Cult status

The orignal film/franchise is a cult favorite -- cherished by those who love it, and unheard of by everyone else. When I learned that an Evil Dead remake was in the works, I told some folks at work, and their response was, "WTF is Evil Dead?"

Cult movies, by nature, cannot truly be remade. They only happen once, and usually gain popularity for oddball reasons. Those who are fans of the cult favorite will be offended at an attempt to tarnish their treasure, and those who are not fans won't understand what the big deal is, and probably think the original is stupid. The best a remaker can do is try to make a "proper movie" using the original's story, and hopefully pay enough respect to the original that fans won't go berzerk. But the magic simply cannot happen twice. Fans of the original who are looking for that magic in the remake will not find it, and understandably will be disappointed.

2. Budget discrepancy

The original film is a crowning achievement in low-budget filmmaking. The end product is a masterpiece, despite its budget limitations, yet still somewhat flawed by those limitations. Those flaws are part of the charm, and it wouldn't be the masterpiece it is without them. However, any attempt to recreate those low-budget qualities in a remake would be a mistake. It would either come across as contrived, or would be a full-blown homage or parody (like Grindhouse). The end result is that the remake is not going to "feel" like the original, and fans won't like that.

3. Varying expectations

The original film is not just one film, it's three. I've heard so many people say the remake doesn't have the comedy aspect that the original did. The first movie, however, had no intentional comedy in it whatsoever. No boomsticks, no S-Mart, no hailing to the King or giving of sugar, baby. There are a couple cutesie scenes with Ash unloading the car and giving his girlfriend the necklace, and the part where he's punching the demon, John Wayne-style, but none of this is intentional comedy like Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. Yet, we each have our own idea of what "Evil Dead" is, and our own expectation of what the remake should entail. All three movies have vastly different tones, budgets, and characters, but the remake is supposed to be a remake of the first film (as stated in the opening credits), which was dark, demonic, over-the-top gory, and the prototype for the modern splatter film. Cult fans, however, will have a tough time preventing the 2nd and 3rd films from affecting their expectations.



Besides the above reasons, fans will still have plenty of reasons -- unique to each individual -- why they don't like specific details in the remake when compared to the originals. The lack of an Ash-like character, differences in the "rules" outlined in the book, aesthetics such as the look of the demons, the book not having a face on it... Many, many reasons why fans just won't be pleased. No matter what, it's a tough sell. I could write another unbearably long post about those details, and why I actually like many of them, but I'll save that for later.

However, outside of the cult fansmanship, and I suppose horror fans in general, the movie is very well-received. It's a well-paced, visually rich, boundary-pushing film with adequate characters and a simple, yet compelling-enough story. The pacing is actually better than the original, which drags toward the end. I'm not saying the story is incredible. It's basically the same as the original, which also wasn't Pulitzer Prize-winning.

More importantly, people are watching this film that have never seen anything like it, and it's scaring the crap out of some people. I went to see it with a bunch of friends. Both guys sitting next to me were squirming and jumping in their seats. I saw it a second time with my sister, who's not a huge horror fan, but also not adverse. She nearly passed out at one point in the movie, and had to step outside for fresh air. She literally (yes, literally) threw up on herself and peed her pants on the way home. That tells me that Alvarez did something right.

Anyway, I just thought I'd give a long-winded response on why I like the movie, and why I think it's not well-received by horror fans and Evil Dead fans. As someone said, to each his own, but it's too bad that the truly unique nature of the original franchise is such an obstacle for enjoying what I believe is one of the best films released this year.