User Reviews

We seem to be in a time where the remakes of remakes will be remade, even films like Cabin Fever aren't remaining sacred, the obligatory remake follows.

Evil Dead now is a remake with a bit of bite, of course it has every possible cliche under the sun ticked off. We have the obligatory character coming out of the ground with long stringy hair, we have the trapdoor, the book of death, and of course the vomiting. Despite all the blatant lack of any sort of imagination Evil Dead somehow manages to capture the imagination, and provide ninety minutes of quite thrilling entertainment.

The scares are plentiful, and the acting is such that you believe in the pain, physical and mental, it really is quite well made. Effective use of special effects and music.

Not a film I'd look to watch on a regular basis, but it's somehow rather refreshing. 7/10

Please enough with the remakes though.

So I've read here and there that this remake lacks the camp of the original. And I look back over 20 years ago, watching The Evil Dead on a crummy rental VHS, in the dark of my teenage bedroom one night. The camp? The original Evil Dead was a terrifying experience, even with Bruce Campbell's over the top performance, the film was a scare-fest, a terrifying trip even nearly ten years after its release. The camp was in Evil Dead 2, an horror comedy remaking the original already, technically.

This remake finds many way to bow to the original, aside the obligatory visual quotes. The use of practical effects, notably, in an era of CGI- filled movies, is extremely refreshing. The gore feels painful, makes you cringe, churned my stomach. It successfully palliates a somewhat shallow characterization that makes it difficult to root for the characters (with the exception of Mia, who owes a lot to a really visceral performance by Jane Levy.)

And this is where Evil Dead 2013 took me by surprise. After roughly a first half of the movie taking Evil Dead fans by the hand towards hashed and rehashed territories, making them doubt that this was a good idea at all, the movie lets go of your hand and you're alone, in the middle of the woods, and it's dark and there's strange noises all about... and then limbs start flying.

I won't get into conjectures that the highly conventional and overly familiar first half was made that way with the sole purpose of placing the audience in their comfort zone, only to give more impact to the second half... but I would surely ask Fede Alvarez if I was to interview him.

Evil Dead 2013 is a treat for the fans of gore and horror, in any case. Another reminder that out of ten awful remakes, sometimes one rises to the top and delivers. Not for the faint of heart, for sure, but if you're a true horror fan, and even more, if you miss your old school, gruesome gore rides, this one is for you.

A straight horror vibe, some extreme cringe-inducing gore and a surprise final act do enough to differentiate this from the original, but it can't top the raw charm of the cult classic. 'Evil Dead (2013)' is a commendable effort, though. It's certainly one of the better remakes I've seen. The film captures what it is that Raimi and company would have gone for if they had the budget and experience to do so back in 1981, achieving that over-the-top but seemingly 'realistic' gore-fest feel that makes it not for the squeamish. It's probably one of the goriest films I've seen, with powerful practical effects grounding everything in reality and capturing the spirit of the original. Having rewatched 'The Evil Dead (1981)' fairy recently, I think it's safe to say that it isn't just nostalgia that drives me when I say I much prefer the zaniness of the original to the more refined approach of this one. Though I would rather watch Raimi's picture, Alvarez's outing does more than enough to set itself apart from its source material and, as such, isn't actually competing for your attention. It's its own thing and all the better for it. It's a really solid effort, actually, despite some clunky dialogue and a cast of mostly generic characters. That's really impressive considering the lasting, palpable yet intangible allure of the original 'video-nasty' that everyone loved to hate and now just loves to love. 7/10.

The Good: The common criticism of 2013's Evil Dead is that it lacks the humor and heart of the original films (this is a bit of revisionist history, since Sam Raimi's original was not really a horror comedy, as people tend to remember). There is no Ash, there is no absurdist humor, there are no crazy camera angles...I get it. This is an almost joyless, intense, brutal film.

And yet, every time I watch this with people, they're amazed by this movie. It's a movie that elicits laughs not through comedy but through discomfort and fear. It's a movie so absurd because of the situation; the buckets of blood, the shocking violence. It's a genuinely terrifying movie at times.

Evil Dead is what the film needed to be in 2013. Fede Alvarez doesn't seem like he hates the originals and wants to replace them. He wants them updated. Because let's be honest, the sort of campy, light hearted horror fare of the 80s just can't work today. And besides, why try and emulate Sam Raimi when the man is still alive and making movies? For that, I think Alvarez actually did the right thing in making his own version.

This Evil Dead excels where it really counts; it's scary as hell, one of the goriest films I've ever seen, hits all the right notes, and ends well. It reminds you how terrifying this scenario would really be. The practical effects are incredible and there's such a noticeable difference when people are interacting with real (fake) blood and guts as opposed to CG nonsense. The cinematography is gorgeous as well; as terrifying and ugly as what is happening on screen is, this movie just looks fantastic. There's so much texture and depth to each image.

Even though the characters may be meh, the performances are really good. Jane Levy is PERFECT in this role and plays both Mia and "Mia" really well. Shiloh Fernandez might not be winning any Oscars, but there's nothing wrong with him that would prevent audiences from getting behind him. Even Eric, played by Lou Taylor Pucci (amazing name), provides brief comic relief and although he causes everything, is so brutalized that you can't help but feel bad for the guy.

I don't know man this movie gets better every time I watch it.

The Bad: The one knock against this movie are the characters. Mia's demonic self might be the most interesting character in the movie; the rest of them are bland and essentially just there to die. I don't know what they could've done; we get enough time with these people in the beginning, but it's just not time used to flesh them out. Perhaps it's because the violence starts too early? But then, the intensity the film relies on might be compromised.

It's really not a big deal; we get the characters' motivations and why they wouldn't leave. We get they care a lot about Mia. And, as bland as these people are, the situation is so messed up, you can't help but root for them.

The Ugly: Evil Dead came out at a time when "Elevated Horror" was just starting to become a thing, and at a time when remakes were still viewed as cheap knock offs of original masterpieces. Perhaps that's why we never saw an Alvarez franchise, and instead got the (very fun and enjoyable) Ash vs. The Evil Dead. (Instead of remaking a classic, just reboot it.)

I can't say I hate that decision, because that show is a ton of fun and ultimately, it feels with it the fans got what they wanted. No one was asking for an Alvarez led sequel.

But as time has gone on, I think this film is being appreciated for what it is. Maybe we don't need a sequel, but I for one am waiting to return to the Evil Dead universe again one day. A man can hope. As for now, I end my 2022 Halloween marathon with what I consider an underappreciated gem.

I have to say, starting out, that Sam Raimi's original EVIL DEAD trilogy has been a favourite of mine ever since I saw it as a teenager. While EVIL DEAD 2 was the best of the three films, for me, a pitch-perfect comedy/horror, and ARMY OF DARKNESS was a funny, cheesy comedy, the first film was a gruelling terror flick made on a teensy budget...and it worked. Everything about it gelled, and it remains effective to this day, despite the cheesiness of the low-budget effects work.

This remake thankfully changes things around a bit story-wise, so that even the many fans of the original movie will find themselves guessing as to what's about to happen next. It's a film made very much in the spirit of the first film, and that makes it pretty good for a remake. The same suspense is there, the pulse-pounding question of who's going to be affected next by the curse, while at the same time it's given some Hollywood slickness to offset the original's grubby, zero-budget charm.

And, perhaps most surprisingly of all, the gore quota has been ramped up considerably. This is one of the most extremely vicious and nasty films I've seen in a long time, in which the various set-pieces of gore are difficult to watch; let's just say that the chainsaw stuff hinted at back in the 1980s is shown in full force here. Production values are more than adequate and the cast are pretty good, too. Is this as good as the original? No, it lacks the genuine fright-factor even if the ickiness is there...but at the same time it won't disappoint modern horror fans with its blend of demonic possession and outrageous violence.

One of my favourite horror movies. It satisfies my need for horror from the beginning till the end . Watched it several times 😄 Was surprised the first time I saw it.

I approached the Fede Alvares remake of Evil Dead with both trepidation and curiosity. My concerns were simple - Who could possibly improve on a Sam Raimi film? How can you call it Evil Dead without Bruce Campbell?

My concerns began to evaporate when I noticed Raimi's involvement in the opening credits and were completely dispelled when I realized that the new film shared only the most fundamental plot structure with the original. Both films are about friends in a cabin in the woods fighting a mysterious, purely evil, and incomprehensible force triggered by a mysterious ancient book. Otherwise, the films are only vaguely connected.

So this answered my first question - about remaking a Raimi film. You don't, you simply do something new on the same foundation.

The new Evil Dead is much more of a straightforward horror film and the differences go way beyond the disturbing addition of a crack addict as a central character. Most of the central characters aren't even likable, let alone funny. So much for my question about replacing Bruce Campbell. Again - you don't.

In 1981, Sam Raimi, his brother, an aspiring actor (Campbell) and a group of non-actors and amateur film makers made a horror classic with almost no budget and a great deal of debt. It took more than a decade for them to recoup the costs of this near-instant cult classic though the film was viewed as a "break-through". More recently, as one of Hollywood's most respected directors and producers, Raimi gave young Uruguayan writer / director Fede Alvares a shot at creatively re- imagining the film that made Raimi a contender.

The acting is better than that of the original (which should be no surprise since there were really only two actors in the Raimi film), the effects are more sophisticated, but cleverly reminiscent of the Raimi tradition of clever simplicity, and the film, like the original delivers a few good scares despite its ridiculous premise.

Shot for about $17,000,000 (which is not much these days), the Alvares re-do netted a 300% profit before it left theaters. Profitability has very little to do with quality these days, but I say good for them!

The new Evil Dead is worthy and a credit to the original.

There was a time that I gave horror remakes the benefit of the doubt. The Dawn of the Dead remake wasn't so bad for what it was. The Fright Night remake actually did a decent amount of justice for its source material. But then, you stop and realize how short Hollywood has come up in terms of original ideas and cool scares. Nowadays it seems to be a) remakes b) torture porn c) possession movies(these have got to go) d) more remakes. Heck, the last original and clever horror movie I saw was Cabin in the Woods, which was actually a horror themed comedy rather than a true horror film.

Sadly, the Evil Dead remake turned out to be just as disappointing and toothless as I expected it to be. No, this film does not improve on the original. No, it does not become a good horror film in its own right. Yes, you have seen pretty much everything in this film before. Yes, you're better off watching anything from the original trilogy.

I read an interview with director Fede Alvarez which had him say something along the lines of "When I saw the 80's Fly, I didn't care about the original 50's version. That was the Fly to me" OK Fede.....point taken. But the 80's Fly was directed by David Cronenberg, who at that point was already a seasoned director who had over 10 years of experience under his belt and who is known for innovative styles and concepts. Alvarez has none of that. As I understand it his background is mainly short films. Perhaps I should familiarize myself with his previous work, but let me just say he does nothing to make Evil Dead his own movie. All I saw were some nifty lighting choices and camera angles.

But then again, there's nothing about this Evil Dead that makes it it's own movie. You have impossibly hot actresses who still look hot even when they're shivering and drenched in gore. You have the same hyperactive MTV-style editing that any supernatural or slasher film these days has. You have poor attempts at making this a "serious" film. Seriously, the original was about rapist trees and crazed demons! How "serious" does it have to be? You have any number of tropes and clichés which make this an ultimately forgettable affair. And on top of that you have no actors or characters who grab the eye. Imagine that Ash's sister Linda was an irritating coke addict instead of a weird psychic girl. Then subtract Ash. There's your Evil Dead.

One thing that made the original have such charm is that it wasn't just a low budget film, it was practically a student film! I know....it's a big fanboy gripe, but I found myself longing for the original whilst sitting through this Bruce Campbell-less bore fest.

The hype machine and rent-a-critic tactics will likely make this a relative box office success. I hope it is a last gasp.

Evil Dead is a remake of the 1981 original "the Evil Dead". I didn't have the chance to watch the original yet, so I'm going to review this without comparing it with the original.

The movie actually starts out pretty slow, for the first 40 minutes there isn't any creepy parts and it actually bores me. Usually, movies start off slow to develop they're characters or stories, however, I find the first 30 minutes unnecessary. However, Evil Dead deserves its wait. Evil Dead has some of the goriest and most disturbing scenes I've seen in movies. There's blood EVERYWHERE and the movie make them look real good! The movie mostly uses makeups and proves that a bloody movie can stand by its own without CGI.

Another thing I like about Evil Dead is the directing. There are many beautifully-shot scenes which makes the movie very enjoyable. For example, the director sets the cameras in different angles, such as the floor or close to the wall, which makes it extraordinary from other films.

On the other hand, Evil Dead lacks character developments, but for its own sake, bloody horror doesn't really need character developments. Characters make stupid decisions and eventually will die out one by one, so it's not really a big deal.

There isn't really a plot or twists in Evil Dead. Everything is presented directly. If you haven't watch this without watching the trailers, the movie is what you thought it will be.

Evil Dead is enjoyable for a movie night if you do not care too much on the details. Just sit back and enjoy the gore, it's real fun.

This is not the most terrifying film you will ever experience.

Now the original Evil Dead was an experience. You were scared, disgusted, and exhausted by the time the film ended. It was a low budget gore-fest. The remake is packed with gore, but almost to the point of exaggeration, and that's about the only positive I can give the film. It wasn't scary, it wasn't brutal, it wasn't "Evil".

The remake features pretty looking hipsters going to the cabin as part of a drug intervention. Of course, possessions and killings ensue. Good acting isn't expected in this kinds of films, but the fact that the "heroine" is one of the worst actresses I've seen in a while (her delivery of a one-liner towards the end of the film had me almost throwing up in my mouth in disgust), doesn't help matters. The remake is very predictable. One character pops up out of frame to save another character at least 3 times. It becomes expected and comedic. For some reason the "demon voices" all sound really stupid. Hakf the audience was laughing when someone possessed would start talking in demon voice.

"Evil Dead '13" is like the countless other remakes that have come before it, it has no soul. But this remake does, however, have the blood and guts. The film tries to redeem itself in the last 15 minutes but it just feels like you're watching a completely different movie at that point.

Overall, it's a bloody deja vu. If feels like you've seen it all before...and not in a good way. Evil Dead '13 is not going to be a classic and if a sequel comes out, count me out. Unless that sequel is Army Of Darkness 2 with The Chin.

When I initially heard about a remake to Evil Dead, I was a little disappointed. I was never a huge fan of the original film, but the sequels remain two of the most wildly entertaining films I have ever seen. With my doubts in mind, everything changed the moment I saw the first red-band trailer. And now after catching a screening of the film last week, I wonder why I doubted Fede Alvarez's re-imagining in the first place.

Five friends venture to a cabin to help Mia (Jane Levy) kick her drug habit. Things are not as they seem from the very start, but it only gets worse after Mia's claims she was attacked by a demon in the forest. Her friends just think she is adjusting badly to going cold turkey, but strange occurrences start to take place within the cabin, and it quickly becomes obvious that Mia is not quite herself.

I went in with low expectations, but Alvarez does a great job bringing the film to life. It hints at and replays certain key moments from the original series, but for the most part, Evil Dead is very much its own individual thing: a re-imagining that exists all on its own. The story is not all too important here, but it does more than enough to move the film along from beginning to end; something the horror remake genre has botched all too often. Better yet, Evil Dead never feels like it is struggling to live up to lofty comparisons, and seems very content at having fun mercilessly torturing these five young people. Fans will love seeing how Alvarez reinterprets some of the franchise's most popular scenes, but non-fans will still get a hint of glee seeing just how depraved the film quickly becomes. It may take a while to get there, but it never lets up afterwards.

The trailers and marketing elements suggest that the film is terrifying. Indeed the trailer was absolutely horrifying. But I found myself not so much scared as why I was mortified by some of the kills and ludicrous ideas inflicted on the cast. I say ideas mainly because some things that happen should result in a criminal diagnosis on everyone involved. The film is definitely not for the squeamish, and revels in the amount of blood and gore it spills at every turn. It uses the original franchise as a barometer, and then throws it out the window in favour of being more "inventive" and eclectic with its choices. The trailers may have prepared you for some of the brutality, but it only hints at the lingering after-effects. Expect to hear a lot about the vivid and fully realized makeup effects – they are so much better than you could have ever imagined, and are light-years ahead of the minuscule CGI effects employed during the film.

For how enjoyable and loving a tribute this re-imagining is to Raimi's work, there is still plenty wrong with it. Roque Baños' score, although tense throughout, is way too serious and overbearing for the film. It helps create plenty of frightening moments sprinkled generously throughout the film, but I feel like it belonged in a much different film. It never gels quite properly with the tone of the film, and feels off even in the minute sections where it does work. Much the same goes for the prologue that opens the film – a totally new invention of Alvarez and crew. It tries to set the tone for what is coming, and tries its very best to totally set itself apart from the original films (even going so far as to introduce an actual "identity" to the demons possessing the precocious young adults), but ends up feeling totally out of place. About halfway through the film, I forgot it even happened because of how little it affects what comes after. Why bother adding it in the first place?

While I take issue with a number of idiosyncrasies involving a bizarre third act twist I should have seen coming, my bigger concern is with the characterization of everyone except Mia. Their driving force is to help her get better and rid her of her drug dependency, but they seem to have no other motivations outside of that. Lou Taylor Pucci's character Eric unleashes the demons in the first place, but he never really gives any hint of why he commits this act of malice or even how he can read it so well. Elizabeth Blackmore's Natalie is a glorified stage prop, frequently disappearing for whole scenes at a time, only to reappear when the film suddenly needed her to be on hand for reaction shots. The only reason I had any idea of who this character is supposed to be was because she shows up with Fernandez at the beginning of the film. Should she have already been hanging out at the cabin, I do not think we would have been afforded that luxury.

But I digress. For what it is, and for what I can only assume most people expected, Evil Dead is a satisfying, albeit bloody mess of a movie. It does enough right, and does an admirable job being its own film – as opposed to coasting along on the tail of the original film. With a little bit more work, this could have been a significantly greater film. But whether you look at it as pieces or in the sum of its parts, it is more than worthwhile to see.

7.5/10.

To say this is a bad film is just plain wrong. It's not bad at all. Not a classic, but not as bad as everybody is making out.

Where this movie falls down, and where it always was going to fall down, is too many people regard the original as a classic. It doesn't take a genius to work out, if you're going to make a remake/reboot/re-imagining of a movie, don't chose a cult classic. No matter how good your remake, it will always be slated. I don't hold the original in such high regard. Yeah, it was a new take on an old genera, and it had some, then, good effects, and the cinematography was pretty clever, as were all of Sam Raimi's early films. But classic. I think not. I feel the 2nd Evil Dead film was loads better. And as for people slagging this remake off for bad acting…… do you remember the original?

OK. This movie. Yeah it is pretty gory. But wasn't as bad as I was expecting. The general feel to the movie is unpleasant. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, especially for a horror movie. But there wasn't the underlying humour of the original, and moreover its sequel. I think that's where this version fell down a little. Played it a little too straight faced, and therefore was nothing new. In fact that was my biggest problem with the movie. It was nothing new. It had some well- paced set pieces but lacked any real tension and peril. You didn't really care about the characters, so didn't really care much to what happened to them.

On the plus side, I felt the cinematography was pretty good, and added to the underlying "unpleasant" feel of the movie. The effects were good. And yeah, I'd say the acting was OK too. Don't believe all the bad reviews.

All in all, a perfectly watchable horror movie, with some pretty good moments. But a word to the wise. In future don't remake a cult classic. IE. Don't remake the second Evil Dead movie, The Exorcist, The Shining …. Yeah I know they remade it as a TV series, but you get the idea.

I do understand that some people are angry with this movie for various reasons. People are eager for the Evil Dead series to continue, so while there was always talk of that happening (right now there is an entry for Army of Darkness 2 for a 2016 release), a remake came first. A remake that the director didn't want Bruce Campbell to be associated with, so he could do his own thing. Something some fans surely didn't appreciate either of course.

But cutting ties does make sense in this case. And while I'm a big fan of Bruce Campbell and would have loved to see him in here somewhere, I do respect the directors choice of not wanting that to happen. There is also the fact, that the movie tries to be as serious as possible. So it's more like the first Evil Dead than the movies that came after it. And it sort of works too, if you let yourself into it. Is there one particular character that is more than annoying and does things you could/should kill him for? Yes, but judging the whole movie just on that premise would be unfair to it and wouldn't help your viewing experience. Whatever the case, the movie has good effects, it's nicely told and acted too. Try to be open minded (not literally)

I have to say I'm very surprised at all the negative reviews I've been reading. I'm an avid movie lover, frequenting the theaters at least twice a week if not more. Something about being able to just sit back in a dark room, with a big screen and great sound. It's just good fun. Movies are enjoyable, not all are realistic and I think that's the point. If I wanted something realistic, I would watch a documentary (which I do on many occasions).

I think a lot of the reviews are being very unfair to this movie. I have seen the original and I loved it. Especially when I first saw it as a kid, it scared the crap out of me. But we have to remember that we are in a new age with different technologies and expectations. I bet that if the original was released for the first time right now, it would have been shot down even more than this "remake." Although I love the original, the effects don't scare me like they used to. And people who complain about the acting and script of the new movie? Come on. It wasn't perfect, but it's nowhere near as bad as others are making it out to be. And Jane Levy was absolutely AMAZING in this film. I would watch this movie over and over again just to see her act.

People are judging this movie too harshly. Was this movie enjoyable? Yes. Very much so. Were the effects good? The effects were A+ and the score was magnificent. Would I see it again? Yes. I would go see it again at the movies AND buy it as soon as it's available on Blu Ray.

This movie is not meant to be a remake of the first, rather a reawakening of an old and classic evil. Watch this movie with an open mind and you will love it. Watch it and compare it to the original? You will hate it, because they are not the same movies. Both were brilliant, but I would be lying if I didn't say that I enjoyed this version a lot more than the old one. Acting by Levy was perfect, gore was fantastic, scares were good, and the movie had my attention all the way through.

Out of all the remakes of classic 80's horror in recent times, this was the one that I was most looking forward to and was literally shaking in my seat in the cinema when the film started. Being a massive fan of the original Evil Dead trilogy and having seen the '81 version more than 100 times (yeah, really) the trailer for this one sucked me in right away and seemed to be the one remake that they were going to get right. How then did they get it so wrong? As you can see in the trailer and read in the other reviews, the effects are spot on, the productions values are high and all-in-all it is a good looking movie.

Enough good things said about ED2013. The acting was terrible, there was no character development (the characters were woeful anyway), etc, etc. But worst of all, it just wasn't scary! Where's the horror guys? I would imagine that the bulk of people seeing this film are fans of the original and therefore would be, like myself, in their 40's. We expect more than high-tech blood n guts in a horror film these days, where's the fright-factor? And the possessed were all-so-lame! The voices and character animation in the original rocked and set the standard for hardcore demonic possession in modern horror. You would not be stealing if you had copied this trait, it would have been appreciated, even expected!

The negatives far outweigh the positives and make this just another junk teeny horror. It's a crime that such great films like Texas Chainsaw, The Omen, NIghtmare on Elm Street, Halloween and now Evil Dead have been allowed to be slapped together in these pathetic re- hashes. There is so much great horror fiction out there, how about reading some books and getting some fresh ideas if you have none of your own? Yet another sad day for horror...

'EVIL DEAD': Five Stars (Out of Five)

The first five star movie of 2013 is this long awaited reboot to writer/director Sam Raimi's 1981 cult classic original 'THE EVIL DEAD'. It's a loose sequel that finds a new group of young adults stumbling across the 'book of the dead', from the original trilogy, in the same cabin that iconic hero Ash and his friends did in the original two films. Raimi and actor Bruce Campbell (who played Ash) have returned as producers of the film (along with their buddy Robert G. Tapert, who produced the original three films). Raimi picked Fede Alvarez to make his feature film debut directing and co-writing the film (along with Rodo Sayagues and Diablo Cody). It stars Jane Levy (from TV's 'SUBURGATORY'), Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas and Elizabeth Blackmore. Levy plays Mia and she's supposed to reprise the role for two more films, the last of which is supposed to link this new film series to the adventures of Ash and the original films (following a 'ARMY OF DARKNESS 2' movie). I grew up on these films and am extremely excited to see Raimi and Campbell picking the series up again and think they're off to a great start.

The story picks up 30 years after the original 'THE EVIL DEAD' film ended with a new group of kids going to the same cabin so Mia (Levy) can try to detox and get over her opiate addiction. Her friends Eric (Pucci), Olivia (Lucas), Natalie (Blackmore) and brother David (Fernandez) are there as well to help her get through it. They come across the 'book of the dead' (the Naturom Demonto) from the original films, in the cellar and Eric foolishly reads from it (despite several warnings not to). He of course awakens the dead and Mia is possessed. The others originally think she's just going through withdrawals but they soon find themselves being taken over and killed off one by one as they fight the deadites for their survival.

The film was made on a budget of just $17 million (which is a lot higher than the original film obviously but a pretty small budget by Hollywood standards). The filmmakers decided not to use CGI (except for touch ups) and filmed for 70 days. The results are definitely rewarding. The film really has that 'old school' classic slasher film feel to it and it's surprisingly loyal to the original films (in style). It's lacking the power of a performance like Bruce Campbell's but it is really funny and satirical (more so than the first film I think but not it's sequels). The violence and gore is out of control (It was first rated NC-17, like the original) and it really is a true hardcore horror film; it's truly exhilarating and relentless. I think the filmmakers did about as good a job as they possibly could rebooting this classic series and being a huge fan it's an enormous pleasure to watch. I have no real complaints; it's a masterpiece just like the original film and it's sequels!

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn0mEP_zzoQ

"One of the goriest experiences of all time"! "The whole audience fainted!" "I threw up". I'm not sure which movie people were talking about, but sign me up because that sure as hell wasn't "Evil Dead". Before I get written off or torn by my limbs, the Evil Dead trilogy was and still is my favorite trilogy of any film. I have watched each movie at least three times and own a copy of the Book of the Dead edition of the first "Evil Dead" and have forced each and one of my friends to watch the first "Evil Dead", and even they loved it.

Where does it all go wrong? The first "Evil Dead"'s notoriety was garnered for pushing the envelope with its grotesque portrayal of violence, yes, but it also had a charismatic lead. I don't care about gender, I don't care that we don't have "Ash" anymore, Mia just isn't a great lead. Yes she's gone through a lot, yes her backstory pretty much spells her character, but a sob story shouldn't be the main reason why we should put our fists in the air.

Now what every person came to watch "Evil Dead" for. GORE. GORE. GORE. GORE. GORE. Maybe the fact I spotted cuts every so often, or maybe I'm just desensitized, but aside from the blood- bath, this is pretty much your average horror flick. If any thing, it might be one of the bloodiest films of the year, but not the GORIEST. While TED was essentially "Unrated" (baring it all), I'm still sure the NC-17 version of this re-boot can't touch the continuous break-neck pacing and violence of that movie.

I'll give the movie points for TRYING to establish character development and bringing some new insight, but it's so underdeveloped that if anything, it takes the movie out of place. We're supposed to "care" about these characters when in fact we don't. They're not bad actors, actually, some surprised me, but at the end of the day, we just want to see some flying limbs. And with that being said, it cuts into 1/3 of the movie.

The most-raved about opening sequence is nothing more than a disappointment. Cue the foul language. Cue every cliché in filmmaking history. And of course cue the blood card. It's laid out all on here. Well at least the tree rape was a solid homage, but I still prefer the original's.

All in all, "Evil Dead" can't be described as "awful", "insulting", or a bad remake. It can be described as "not scary", "average", or really both of those things. With so much hype, and Raimi/Campbell behind this, AND with all the rave reviews from screenings, this is not the movie the fans got. Maybe an unrated version down the road will bump up a few points but for now, a 5 is satisfactory.

The movie starts and progresses very fluently and quickly, I think the lack of stagnation makes the movie more watchable. There are a lot of reverse corners and jumpscares throughout the movie, but it really leaves a great impression because it is done in the right places. I haven't seen a horror or thriller like this in a long time, I'm definitely glad I found it. It came out as two movies in the old series, I hope they make a sequel to it. I am sure you will watch it without getting bored! So if you have free time and want to make good use of your time, this movie will be worth every minute you spend.