Evil Dead Movie

[Olinser]

So, we have less than 24 hours before the Evil Dead remake comes out.

I suggest that everybody spend the time with their local physician having their face securely fastened on to prevent it from being rocked off by this movie.

[grimbold]

for the record
i totally thought this thread was about this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiDRtEVivGo)

[JoshL]

Still not entirely sold on this. From the trailers and listening to the director talk about it, it seems to be Evil Dead minus any sense of humor. Which, for my money, is a large part of what makes it Evil Dead. I think if it was named anything else I would be super excited for it.

I'll go see it and try to keep an open mind. But I'm much more interested in Raimi talking about working on a script for Evil Dead 4.

[Olinser]

Still not entirely sold on this. From the trailers and listening to the director talk about it, it seems to be Evil Dead minus any sense of humor. Which, for my money, is a large part of what makes it Evil Dead. I think if it was named anything else I would be super excited for it.

I'll go see it and try to keep an open mind. But I'm much more interested in Raimi talking about working on a script for Evil Dead 4.

The first Evil Dead had very little intentional comedy in it - it was always a horror movie. The second one went more the 'heh heh, blood is funny' route, and Army of Darkness is still one of my favorite movies :)

This is going back to the first one, from what I see.

[Meph]

for the record
i totally thought this thread was about this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiDRtEVivGo)

We're not too far from the truth: that (lovely) song was used for the trailer of Evil Dead 2, sequel of the film which remake we are talking about here.

I will surely watch it, but for now my opinion is that the Evil Dead series doesn't need any remake at all. It will be roughly harsh for any actor to dance on the line between horror and comedy as Bruce Campbell did.

[Olinser]

We're not too far from the truth: that (lovely) song was used for the trailer of Evil Dead 2, sequel of the film which remake we are talking about here.

I will surely watch it, but for now my opinion is that the Evil Dead series doesn't need any remake at all. It will be roughly harsh for any actor to dance on the line between horror and comedy as Bruce Campbell did.

I agree, it will be tough... but Bruce Campbell WAS one of the producers for this film, so it can't be terrible :thog:

[Forderz]

"There's something in my fruit cellar! Something with a fresh soooouuul!"

That line better be in there.

[Loki_42]

So I've had one report that it's bad, and a whole lot of other reports that say it's amazing. Has anyone here seen it yet? I might go tomorrow.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Just came back from seeing it myself as a matter of fact! Don't go into it expecting Evil Dead II or Army of Darknes...go into it expecting Evil Dead. In my opinion, it's a worthy spiritual successor to the Evil Dead franchise.

[Lvl45DM!]

I will only accept this movie if someone gets a chainsaw arm. Or a boomstick arm. Laser arms would be acceptable but disappointing.

[Olinser]

Just came back from seeing it myself as a matter of fact! Don't go into it expecting Evil Dead II or Army of Darknes...go into it expecting Evil Dead. In my opinion, it's a worthy spiritual successor to the Evil Dead franchise.

I agree, it was pretty good. My only major disappointment was that Bruce Campbell did NOT make a cameo :(

[Loki_42]

I agree, it was pretty good. My only major disappointment was that Bruce Campbell did NOT make a cameo :(

I take it you didn't stay to watch the credits?

[Callos_DeTerran]

I agree, it was pretty good. My only major disappointment was that Bruce Campbell did NOT make a cameo :(

Or maybe they meant a non 'end of credits' cameo. Cause you really should have watched until the end of the credits, it was like...the perfect capstone to the movie.

[Olinser]

I take it you didn't stay to watch the credits?

I did... was there a post-credits screen? Becdause they turned the lights on and shut the screen off in my theatre before that came up, then.

[Hawriel]

Read some reviews. Non of them are impressed. I'm going to skip this. I dont think any one can do a horror movie that is not splatter tourcher porn, or a look how cool and scary we made the monster CGI fest.

[Bhu]

Read some reviews. Non of them are impressed. I'm going to skip this. I dont think any one can do a horror movie that is not splatter tourcher porn, or a look how cool and scary we made the monster CGI fest.

They're out there but most of them are all indie stuff or foreign or dont get a wide release

[Caesar]

I did... was there a post-credits screen? Becdause they turned the lights on and shut the screen off in my theatre before that came up, then.

Demand your money back.

[Olinser]

Read some reviews. Non of them are impressed. I'm going to skip this. I dont think any one can do a horror movie that is not splatter tourcher porn, or a look how cool and scary we made the monster CGI fest.

While not as great as the old film, which retains a 98% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the new one still has a 65% fresh rating - which is still pretty good for a horror movie. Sinister only has a 63%, and the original Saw only has a 48%.

Critics in general don't usually like horror movies.

[Hawriel]

While not as great as the old film, which retains a 98% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the new one still has a 65% fresh rating - which is still pretty good for a horror movie. Sinister only has a 63%, and the original Saw only has a 48%.

Critics in general don't usually like horror movies.

Critics don't like horror movies because they give up the ghost as it were. There is no suspense, atmosphere, coherent plot, or intelligent characters.

Almost all of Hollywood's horror movies get spoiled in the trailers. The monster's are revealed with the eagerness of a child wanting to show off to their parents. The "scary" moments are nothing more than a jack in the box reflex response.

As I said in my above post the majority of horror movies made by studios are either CGI candy, or torcher/splatter porn. And if that is all that Hollywood is putting out then critics are not going to like it.

That being said I do acknowledge that critics have bias against horror. However it is no different than any bias towards other genre's. Such as comedies, or action movies. Then again there are plenty of horror, comedy, and action movies that justify the bias.

Saw was just torcher porn.

Bla bla bla and all that said. If you or others have liked the new Evil Dead movie that's totally cool. It just held no interest for me. It holds the same disinterest as the new Die Hard movie. I think Hollywood really lost the understanding of how to make a good horror or action movie. I must admit that my cynicism of Hollywood is partly to blame. That's my bias.

[Olinser]

Critics don't like horror movies because they give up the ghost as it were. There is no suspense, atmosphere, coherent plot, or intelligent characters.

Almost all of Hollywood's horror movies get spoiled in the trailers. The monster's are revealed with the eagerness of a child wanting to show off to their parents. The "scary" moments are nothing more than a jack in the box reflex response.

As I said in my above post the majority of horror movies made by studios are either CGI candy, or torcher/splatter porn. And if that is all that Hollywood is putting out then critics are not going to like it.

That being said I do acknowledge that critics have bias against horror. However it is no different than any bias towards other genre's. Such as comedies, or action movies. Then again there are plenty of horror, comedy, and action movies that justify the bias.

Saw was just torcher porn.

Bla bla bla and all that said. If you or others have liked the new Evil Dead movie that's totally cool. It just held no interest for me. It holds the same disinterest as the new Die Hard movie. I think Hollywood really lost the understanding of how to make a good horror or action movie. I must admit that my cynicism of Hollywood is partly to blame. That's my bias.

It sounds like you never even considered seeing the movie to begin with. If so, why are you posting in a thread about the movie?

We're also talking about just the original SAW here, not the torture porn it devolved into in later installments. (Though it was very admirable dedication that they managed to crank out one a year EVERY YEAR for almost 8 years). The original was pretty far from torture porn. The twist at the end was one of the very few, "OH CRAP DID THAT REALLY JUST HAPPEN?!?!" moments I've had in the past few years.

If that's what you think, then you obviously haven't seen very many recent horror movies.

Insidious? Sinister? Paranormal activity? Recent horror movies have been pretty damn good.

[zorenathres]

im sorry but i have to disagree, but Sinister was the worst horror film of the year, & i cant believe i put myself through that garbage, i have to agree with the other posts that movies, especially horror films have recnetly taken a nose dive.

the fact that almost every film these days is a remake, makes me cringe, personally im a huge Evil dead fan, but it was because of Sam Raimi's techniques, Bruce Campbell's unforgettable Ash, & their painstaking effort to make a film with an extremely tight budget. when they remake these, it only dilutes the memory of classic cinema & replaces it with cookie-cutter post-modern regurgitated fluff & CGI effects.

[Bhu]

I think Hollywood really lost the understanding of how to make a good horror or action movie. I must admit that my cynicism of Hollywood is partly to blame. That's my bias.

Hollywood understands perfectly well how to make a horror film, they just have different motivations than some viewers do. Studios see horror fans in two broad categories: atmosphere and special effects.

Atmospheric fans love creepy, atmospheric movies with intelligence, plot, and a story, and they are by far a minority among American horror fans. They tend to like psycho-thrillers, mysteries, ghost stories, etc.

Special Effects fans originally wanted to see practical effects pushed to their limit. They tend to be divided into fans of slasher films, monster flicks, and torture porn. Hollywood (somewhat correctly) believes that 98% of horror film fans belong in this category. The truth is probably closer that mainstream movie fans who see horror films go to see this sort of film as well as there being a majority of horror fans who grew up on this.

So for Hollywood a successful horror movie is as follows: People will forgive crap writing if there are enough cool death scenes. You don't need plot or character development or smart writing. What you need are NPC's brick stupid enough to do something no real human being would do, because you need character a to get to point b as quickly as possible for his death scene. Horror films are effectively a series of spfx shots because a majority of filmgoers have demonstrated that's what they respond to. So the goal is to make a film as cheaply as possible because usually horror films make the majority of their money in the first 1 or 2 weeks before they fade off screen to make room for more lucrative films. So you hire unknown actors with maybe one named individual for crossover appeal, cut it down to a pg13 to get the widest release possible while promising to restore the boobs and violence for the dvd release, throw in some humor for more crossover appeal, and then put in as many death scenes as you can afford.

The horrible acting and script means the characters get no sympathy from the audience, and since they can't relate to them it's easier to watch them tortured and subsequently killed. It also means you pay less for talent and can spend more money on effects. Hollywood can make perfectly decent action or horror films, they've just realized they can make better money by selling their audience crap, and that audience is eager and willing to choke it down. It's one of the reasons us critics aren't kind to genre films because they have a handful of plots to the formula that are recycled over, and over and over again. It's like watching the same damn movie every month with different actors and a different monster.

There's also the money problem. The reason you pay outrageous prices for stuff at theaters is the deal the movie studios force on them: For the first week the studio gets 85% or so of the box office take, plus the theater has to pay for rental of the film. For big budget releases like Avatar this can go up to 95%. Each week the percentage the theater gets goes up a little, and after 4 weeks or so they finally get a majority of the take. The problem is that most films don't stay in many theaters that long, especially horror films unless the region has a lot of fans. Since a lot of horror films dont make it past the 3 week mark (less than that if they bomb) they make money for the studios, not theaters. So they're designed to be short duration. If they become a hit so much the better. For example Sinister had a budget of 3 million. It made 77 million when it took off and ran for a while. At the opposite end of the spectrum you have Creature, which also cost 3 million, but was removed after its one week total was 327K. The Evil Dead remake cost 14 million, and has already made 26 million. Unless it becomes a hit it will make the majority of it's money this week and next.

[Loki_42]

I hate mainstream torture porn as much as the next guy, but come on, this is an Evil Dead thread. It would be the worst adaptation ever if it wasn't a mindless gore fest.

Unfortunately, I was unable to see the movie yesterday, because my friend wasn't interested. I then spent the money I was going to use on food, and since I'm a broke-ass student, I probably won't be able to catch it until it's on Netflix. But so far I've had one bad report from a friend who is a total snob when it comes to movies, and positive response from everyone I know who had a chance of liking the movie in the first place, so I'm reasonably excited.