Evil Dead (2013) – Movie Review – part 3

Evil Dead (2013)  – Movie Review – part 3

Aka: 50 reasons why the new Evil Dead Movie SUCKS! Part 3

***This review is a total spoiler, please do not read if you intend to see the film. ***

This post contains Reasons 41 – 50, on why the new Evil Dead movie sucks!

If you haven’t read reasons 1 – 26, click here:
Evil Dead  Remake sucks reasons 1 – 26

If you haven’t read reasons 27 – 40, click here:
Evil Dead  Remake sucks reasons 27 – 40

Reasons 41 thru 50 are visual comparisons. Very simple. Pic the one that looks scarier, more grotesque, more atmospheric. Pic the one that you would take with you to the desert island if you could only take one.

—————————

The Necronomicon:

Winner: Evil Dead 1981

—————————

The Cabin

Winner: Evil Dead 1981

—————————

Deadite in the Cellar

Big eyes – vs. – No eyes

Winner: Evil Dead 1981 – no eyes or just whites is always scarier

—————————

Removing limbs

Winner: Evil Dead 1981

—————————

Hero /Heroine

 　

Heroin Heroine – vs. – love struck loser

Winner: Love Struck Loser

—————————

Bloody Hero

 

The new guy – vs. – Ash

Winner: Ash, come on!

—————————

Motivation

　

I did it for my sister – vs. – I did it for love

Winner: Ash

—————————

Possessed girl number 2

 

Crawling friend – vs. – ugly possessed sister

Winner: Evil Dead 1981 – possessed sister’s face is just disturbing

—————————-

Friends in need

　

Friend turns into a whining bitch
– vs. –
Friend turns into a snaggle-toothed demon

No contest ! 1981

—————————–

Deadite in the cellar – pic 2

Both creepy looking but…

Winner: Evil Dead 1981 – Crusty, no-eyed, blue-face just creeps me out more.

——————————-

So, some may ask, why? Why would I go psycho on this remake when I seemed to have given a pass on Texas Chainsaw and many other remakes that have been just as cookie cutter, Hollywood formula, insta-hits?

The answer is I’m SICK OF IT!

I had been duped into thinking this film was going to be a remake worthy of carrying the name of the original, but it wasn’t. Unfortunately, Hollywood will continue to drain our pockets by selling crap, wrapped in familiar packaging. I’m tired of seeing the movies I love get dragged through the mud by lame sequels and inferior remakes.

I had asked someone about Pumpkinhead the other day. She told me that she didn’t like those movies. Further investigation revealed that she NEVER SAW the original Pumpkinhead and her whole opinion of it was based on some lousy, cheap sequels. THE ORIGINAL is the only important one. And I couldn’t even convince her to watch it because her mind is made up, forever.

In no way am I saying the original Evil Dead 1981 is perfect and doesn’t have flaws. The difference is that it was so original when it came out, we didn’t have the time to think about the faults. We were just shell-shocked, amazed and in horrific wonderment at the spectacle. US horror films have lost all of their originality. The best stories, films, and ideas are coming from other countries these days. (France, Australia, New-Zealand, Asian countries)

Just give me something original, damn-it! Is that too much to ask?

Evil Dead (2013) – Movie Review – part II

Evil Dead (2013)  – Movie Review – part II

Aka: 50 reasons why the new Evil Dead Movie SUCKS! Part II

***This review is a total spoiler, please do not read if you intend to see the film. ***

This post contains Reasons 27 – 40, on why the new Evil Dead movie sucks!

If you haven’t read reasons 1 – 26, click here:
Evil Dead  Remake sucks reasons 1 – 26

—————————————————————–

Okay, I had asked another reviewer, did it really need to be named, Evil Dead? My contention is that Hollywood loves to hijack branded names, just so they can make the biggest buck the quickest way possible and they don‘t even care if they are actual “remakes“ or have anything in common with the originals.

I think if Rob Zombie’s, Halloween was not named Halloween, a lot more people would have liked and respected it. With the Friday the 13^th remake, if you had changed the mask and didn’t call the camp grounds, “Crystal Lake” it could have been a brand new movie. On the other hand, War of the Worlds was definitely close to the book and could not have been called anything else. Same with Willard (both of which I thought were great remakes).

So, my reasons 27 – 33 are based on the decision to call this Evil Dead rather than, let’s say, Horror in the Woodlands, or something like that.

Did it really need to be called, Evil Dead?
The answer is… No!

The reasons to call it Evil Dead don’t hold up.

27) A cabin in the woods  – is in no less than 30 other horror movies.

28) The Necronomicon – is in no less than 18 movies. Besides they didn’t even call it the Necronomicon in this one.

29) Possessed women? At least 28 films have possessed women, many of which have been made in the last 10 years.

30) A Chainsaw? There’s at least 10 movies with the word ‘chainsaw’ in the title, alone!

31) Cut off your own arm? Even a non-horror film has that in it, ‘127 Hours.’

32) Evil entity in the woods – there’s a film every weekend on the Scy-Fy channel with this theme.

33) Pays homage to the first film – the movie Cabin In the Woods was a better tribute to the original Evil Dead than this remake.

 

Reasons 34 – 40 are comparisons to the original Evil Dead

Before I go on from here, we have to make a clear distinction between Evil Dead and Evil Dead II. The original Evil Dead was a more serious film with a straight forward horror style. It contained only two or three real ‘comedy gags’ in the whole film. (Ash does not cut off his hand in the 1^st film). ED II was more campy, funny and purposely leaning into dark comedy territory. If you have not seen the original Evil Dead in a while, it is time for a revisit. I watched it last night 🙂

34) The original Evil Dead had some serious atmosphere and suspense. The cabin, the mist, the dead trees all around the cabin delivered a foreboding, and you knew it was ‘wrong’ from the moment the group arrived. The new Evil Dead had NO atmosphere to speak of. Wanting to keep full tilt action in the remake also garnered very little actual suspense. Suspense is often created by the lull preceding a scary action or event and the anticipation of something about to happen.

35) Some claim the new Evil Dead is the goriest film they’ve ever seen. I think the original was gorier! Why? Pencil in the Achilles tendon, ‘nuff said!

36) Some claim the new Evil Dead was the bloodiest film. The original had Ash lop off his resurrected girlfriend’s head with a shovel and her body come to rest on top of him, squirting blood from her neck, right into his face! Blood from the rain doesn’t count, besides the band Slayer did that in live shows years ago!

37) The new one had a knot of tree branches crawl up Mia’s skirt. The original had a thick tree branch…uh… I can’t even talk about it. The whole scene in the original was just so much more disturbing.

38) The new one had a girl cutting her face with a piece of glass. The original had Ash stick his thumbs into a deadites eyes and all the way into its blood spewing skull.

39) The sound construction and composition in the original was half of the creepiness. The low hum as something unseen moved through the woods, the voices of the deadites, the jarring volume of slamming storm-shutters on the windows. All of these aspects made the original Evil Dead a better sounding film.

40) In the original, the deadite in the basement makes fun of the survivors – this to me is the ultimate evil, to have such a disregard for life that it would mock survivors – seems like something true evil would do. “I don’t wanna’ die! I don’t wanna’ die!”

Okay, hope ya’all enjoying this so far.
Tune in soon for my dramatic conclusion – reasons 41 thru 50

 

The Remake Scoreboard – More Classic horror remakes

The Remake Scoreboard – Horror movie remakes – the good and bad list and a few sentences why.

More Classic horror remakes

Fright Night (2011) (original 1985)
The original melodramatic horror/comedy hybrid about the paranoid teen who thinks his neighbor is a vampire is a favorite of anyone who lived through the 1980’s. Equal parts suspense, laughs and special FX, keeps me watching even to this day. When Peter Vincent, played sublimely by Rody McDowell, accidentally discovers Jerry Dandridge to be an actual vampire, (not seeing him in his mirror), it makes for a fantastic pivotal scene. The new one is not funny (not even “McLovin” can save the comedy aspect of this film), is not suspenseful, and is full of unrealistic decisions made by its characters. Plot holes are big enough to bury a vampire (movie) in.

I Spit On Your Grave (2010) (original 1978)
There should be no complaints about this remake, unless you just dislike the whole notion of remakes. I think this film is as good as the original. I don’t mind a remake if it is done well and this one is. The rape scene in this film is unnerving (as it was in the original) and leaves you with a dreadful feeling. It isn’t until the victim plots and executes her revenge that you can shake off that misery. And let me tell you, the revenge scenes in this remake are spectacularly horrifying and nasty. I may give the slight edge to the original, only because of the minimalist way it was filmed but if you were a fan of the original, or if you’re a fan of revenge driven horror, I would recommend that you see this one too.

Carnival of Souls (1998) (original 1962)
I was never a big fan of the original but found it entertaining in a low-budget, art house kind of style. I assumed the remake would close some of the plot holes and be a more coherent film. But at every turn this film asks us to believe nonsensical actions from its characters. Inane dialogue, horrible acting, miscasting with almost every character, and slow…put me to sleep, scenes that lead nowhere. How could such good concepts lead to this ill conceived, poorly executed dribble? Not even the (g-rated) sex-scene could get me interested. Boring!

Psycho (1998) (original 1960)
Director, Gus Van Sant, set out to film a shot-by-shot remake of the Alfred Hitchcock classic, adhering strictly to the script, right down to small details including framing and shot time-lengths. He kept the original score (re-recorded by Danny Elfman) which is really only one theme used at perfect times to really ramp up the tension. Anne Heche’ plays the part of Marion perfectly and has a great look for this modern retelling. And, while Vince Vaughn portrays Norman Bates to the smallest detail, including inflections and pauses in sentences, it is not the same as Perkins’s portrayal. Early in the film when Anthony Perkins lets out a small nervous chuckle, you feel the depth of his character. Not only do you feel the nervousness of talking to a beautiful woman, you also feel that he is hiding something terrible behind that innocent façade. Anthony Perkins is synonymous with Norman Bates character which makes the original version irreplaceable.

Last House on the Left (2009) (original 1972)
This remake was not bad at all. There were so many things that I did not like about the original: bad acting, plot holes, things not explained that should have been. The remake just makes more sense. It explained the bad guy’s motives and it made me empathized with the young kid that wanted no part of this nasty stuff. The revenge scenes by the parents were just as good (watch the unrated version for extra tidbits) and all the characters were totally believable.
——————————————-

previous ‘remake scoreboard’ – Creature Features

  

 
 

  
  
 

The Remake Scoreboard / Killers On The Loose

The Remake Scoreboard – Horror movie remakes – the good and bad list. Thumbs up or thumbs down and a few sentences why.
—————————————————————

Remakes: Killers On The Loose

Black Christmas (remake) (2006)
(original 1974)

The original film portrayed a creepy and suspenseful thriller that built to a nail biting climax. Likeable characters were harassed by an eerie voice on the phone and were dispatched, one by one, in the most extremely unpleasant methods imaginable. The new one is a closely scripted remake but fails to capture the atmosphere, intensity, and character likeability that make the original so good. About half way through the film I was completely disengaged from the story and just wished everyone would DIE already, because I was bored to tears!

–

When a Stranger Calls (remake) (2006)
(original 1979)

Aside from the ‘he’s in the house’ scene, this remake has a totally different script. The famous scene in the original, where the babysitter is on the phone with the killer while the police trace it – only to find that the call is coming from inside the very house – is still talked about as one of the great terror inducers in film history. However, if you remember the film in detail, aside from the opening and closing scenes (approx. 10 minutes of film time) the rest of the movie was a detective /homicide investigation movie, and a rather dull one. The remake has a babysitter in an elaborate home, being tormented by a killer, and all the events take place during the course of one night. It will never be famous in filmmaking history, but it is entertaining, nevertheless.

_

My Bloody Valentine (remake – 2009)
(original 1981)

This remake is close enough to the original that no one should get riled over the new version. The fact is, the original, being a very good film, never gained the status of other films released during the same time period. Halloween, the iconic slasher film, stayed in the theaters for several years. Alien, The Shining, Friday the 13^th, The Amityville Horror, and The Evil Dead were films released between ‘78 and ‘81. I tend to think that Valentine never got the credit it deserved because of all these great films. The miner, fully masked, with goggles and the light atop his head, coming at you with a pick-axe, is really a threatening horror image. The fact is, the remake is so similar to the original, it’s a toss up on which one to see. There is probably no need to own them both. Pick one and enjoy!

–

House of Wax (remake – 2005)
(original 1953)

This is like comparing apples and oranges. This new version has your all-star “in-crowd” actors and hot-shorts wearing ‘a-list’ actresses, prancing around and flirting with the camera until they are finally killed off. That’s not to say I don’t like it, because it has its shining moments. But consider the Vincent Price character, plotting and striking revenge upon the socialites and businessmen that ignored and never appreciated his works of art and you will see a stark difference. The 1953 version has a great story and plot – the remake has nice scenery.

–

Willard (remake – 2003)
(original 1972)

If you are familiar with the 1972 version you will remember a gentle Willard befriending some rats that his bed-ridden mother insisted be dispatched by whatever means possible. The film took quite long to develop and Willard’s anger and revenge was a brief flash, for which he seemed instantly remorseful. With Crispin Glover taking on the role as Willard, we have a much darker, brooding film with a gothic vibe and an instantly believable crossover of Willard from the meek outcast to the vicious psychotic king of the rats. You want to cheer for him but at the same time it disgusts you. This remake is definitely the stronger of the two films.

–

—————————————————————————

  

The Remake Scoreboard / Hauntings and Ghosts

The Remake Scoreboard – Horror movie remakes – the good and bad list. Thumbs up or thumbs down and a few sentences why.
—————————————————————————————————-

Remakes: Hauntings and Ghosts

Thirteen Ghosts (remake – 2001)
(original 1960 – 13 Ghosts)
OK, the original has plot-holes you could drive a garbage truck through but, the plot of the remake was just too far-fetched. I can’t believe in that house with all those sliding glass walls and mechanical contraptions. I would have related better to a regular house and it would have been more believable and terrifying. The only saving grace is the inventive and well-defined ghosts that are captured and released in the house; for that reason alone I am giving this a thumbs up. The Jackal, and the Juggernaut are just frightening visual images and worth a look/see. People have even gotten tattoos of the Jackal on their arms and chest. They should make a movie based around the Jackal character.

 

The Haunting (remake – 1999)
(original 1963)
The original was an excruciating psychological terror tale and succeeded in inducing fear in the viewer by not ever showing a ghost at all. Sounds, movements in the house, and opinions from the characters, built the tension and suspense. The remake relied on fx gimmicks to try and spook us. I never felt as if I had stepped into the main characters shoes and therefore never became spooked by any of the special-fx.

 

–

The Amityville Horror (remake – 2005)
(original 1979)
For all the authentic scares that the original Amityville Horror conjured up, there were also parts that were a bit hokey (bleeding walls, pit of black oil in the basement).The element that made it such a great horror flick was the transformation of George Lutz (played superbly by James Brolin) from a struggling dad we liked to a deranged lunatic with an axe. Add to that great performances of the wife, Kathy, (Margo Kidder) and Father Delany (Rod Steiger) and its hard to top. Not that Ryan Reynold’s acting was bad but I am too used to seeing him in romantic comedies to feel all that rage in him. The new one had a few nice CGI ghosts and creepy scenes (the boathouse scene in particular) but also had its hokey parts. I’ve lived in quite a few houses in my lifetime and have never spent time walking around the roof, especially in the rain with my whole family. All said, the original just felt more real and less Hollywood. I’d see them both.

 

House on Haunted Hill (remake) (1999)
(original 1959)
The 1959 original was just a much better story throughout the whole movie. It seems Hollywood horror movies today like to set up a story, then depart into a bunch of horror and scary scenes, only to pick up the story at the end and tie it all up. The story never unfolds, never lives and breaths. Sometimes it just seems like a life support system for special-fx, prop gags, and creepy sets. That being said, I never found the original to be all too scary (although I heard it was in its day) and the new one did have a few good moments.

 

The Fog (remake – 2005)
(original 1980)
Wholly forgettable remake that actually angered me for wasting my time. No redeeming value whatsoever. The original by John Carpenter was a creepy ghost story worth seeing again and again.

______________________________________________________

–

    

The Remake Scoreboard / Horror Icons

The Remake Scoreboard – Horror movie remakes – the good and bad list. Thumbs up or thumbs down and two or three sentences why.
—————————————————————————————————-

The Horror Icons: Freddie, Jason, Michael, Leatherface, the Deads

Night of the Living Dead (remake – 1990)
(original 1968)
Directed by Tom Savini, this remake is most noted for exceptional performances by Tony Todd (as Ben) and a much more heroic Barbara played by Patricia Tallman. Sure it doesn’t have the same creepy vibe as the 1968 classic but the zombie details are stunning and it provides a great little twist at the very end. I own both versions and watch them both often.

Dawn of the Dead (remake – 2004)
(original 1978)
This action-packed remake provided some of the scariest zombies and zombie sequences to be seen on film to date. Gore FX, character development, and plot twists were all top notch. We got some classic Zombies in this film; the hungry little girl, the twitcher, the fat lady, the zombie baby… it doesn’t get much better than this. Dare I say it (please hold all hate mail) I like it better than the original.
–

 Texas Chainsaw Massacre (remake – 2003)
(original 1974)
As much as I loved the original I have to say that this was a great remake. The original had shock value and sheer terror for its time, as well as a bizarre weirdness to it. The new one is a great all around movie in plot and character, intense horror, and dark visual mastery. The action and the pacing were perfect, keeping you engaged ’til the nail-biting end. Love the detective/police investigation, bookends, too!

–

Halloween (remake – 2007)
(original 1978)
Once you get over the fact that this is a different movie than the original and director Rob Zombie decided to (or perhaps was smart to) go somewhere completely different with the story, this isn’t a bad flick. One of the major differences is the original John Carpenter classic scared us with knuckle-wrenching suspense, creepy mood and atmosphere, while the Rob Zombie version shocks us with brutal violence (which is Rob Zombies forte’). Purists may scream ‘foul’ but this was still much better than all the Halloween sequels, most of which were pure rubbish.

Friday the 13^th (remake – 2009)
(original 1980)
This was not really a remake but rather an attempt to revitalize the franchise for a younger generation. If you remember, Jason, the killer in the hockey mask, was not even in the original “Friday” until the very end of the movie (and even then was portrayed as a child). With all Its slick visuals and modern FX, this “new” movie using the character of Jason Vorhees, was forgettable to me as I do not remember one character, one murder, or who the survivor was, if there was one at all.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (remake – 2010)
(original 1980)
There was no reason for this movie to be made considering the recent Freddie Vs. Jason movie had already re-introduced the franchise to a younger generation. Not only did this remake add nothing to the allure of the original Freddie Kruger movie but it actually diminished and watered down the intensity and mysteriousness of Wes Craven’s original masterpiece. Hated it.

———————————————————————————————