Escape to the Movies: Evil Dead

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Well considering that Disney also acquired Lucasfilm, who wants to bet that Rocket Racoon turns out to be another Howard the Duck?

I can't watch this movie...don't get me wrong, I love Evil Dead (mostly AOD and sorta Evil Dead 2) but...no...I can't watch this. But that's mostly because I am incredibly squeamish when it comes to horror movies and from what I'm hearing, this is NOT a movie you can watch if you are.

So I'll have to take a pass, despite being an evil dead fan.

In regards to Rocket Racoon, I'm pretty darn excited, but I just wish they would hurry and tell us who is going to be playing him. Since he'll most likely be a CGI mo-cap character, I'm kinda hoping they just let Andy Serkis do it, as I think he'd be insanely good for the part.

Still though, Guardians of the Galaxy has already managed to surprise me GREATLY by announcing Parks and Recs, Chris Pratt as Star-Lord (thrilled about this by the way) and WWE wrestler Dave Bautista as Drax.

So I'm willing to bet whoever ends up playing RR, Gamora, or Groot is probably going to surprise me.

...I am curious how they're going to handle Groot in the movie since all he ever says is "I am Groot!"

EDIT: After just looking into it, supposedly Zoe Saldana is going to be playing Gamora...can't say she'd be my first choice, but she's always been pretty good in things so I'm guessing she'll do fine in Guardians.

I'm not a fan of horror or remakes, so I'm gonna skip this one. Not having Bruce Campbell is a major drawback, so there's no personality. Plus, my faith in Sam Raimi has been shaky lately.
And Bob, how could you NOT compare this to Cabin in the Woods? That movie made horror flicks like this one obsolete, right?

Gottesstrafe:
Well considering that Disney also acquired Lucasfilm, who wants to bet that Rocket Racoon turns out to be another Howard the Duck?

Howard the duck is fucking awesome one of my favorite movies

now this is what i call a horror movie. its not one of those psycho killer clones where all u have to do is figure out who is in which trope roll they fall into. i miss films like this i consider the evil dead series to be one of my top horror movies on any top horror list. its definitely better than the past ones they have been putting out i hate going into a movie and before the movie is to the half way figure out which person will live just because they fall into the old trope of horror movie victim. why more horror movies can't go back to styles like this i do not know, kinda getting tired of the old some insane/psycho person killing random people who happen into the area he is in or abducted.its just resent junk like saw and couple others which try but do not get the horror feel like the old ones do i miss the jump scares, the gore that and the way the old moves who they where shot and what they did to get the scare. now its just gotten to be all about the gore or character development which usually is boring. that's why i start watching Japanese horror movies because they do not go here is a mass murderer killing a group of people that happen to break down in his location or even worse the old its a zombie outbreak thing. zombies kinda feel not scary anymore got too many things with them not scary.

in my opinion i think if they made less horror movies in the old psycho killer trope they would have better horror movies. i mean the classic stuff is good halloween, friday the 13th, nightmare on elm street. its just most resent horror stuffs have been kinda boring and easy to figure who will live or who is going to die next because they do the things you are not supposed to do in a horror movie like walk off alone and so on. but then i wish we had more sci-fi horror movies stuffs.

I wonder if Bruce has a cameo somewhere in there... I feel like he should. I mean, I know the movie should exist in it's own right as a separate entity, but it'd be fun seeing a glimpse of him in the series after all this time.

Even if this movie turned out bad, we're still going to get Army of Darkness II! Which means more Bruce Campbell! Yeeee!

Well, I suppose its time I find out if I am actually a fan of Evil Dead, or just of Bruce Campbell... I think its both.

Alandoril:
The first one was meant to be serious? Really?

Strange how unintentionally hilarious it was then. You can't make something that absurd and expect it to be taken seriously.

Yeah, I always figured they started the first half of the movie wanting to be serious, and by the half way point, decided it really was a B-movie, and the only way to save it was hamming it up.

I mean, taking an end table on rollers to barricade a door? That I think was the scene that clinched it for me, and was the transition from serious to satire.

As for Roger Ebert, much respect to the man, he defined an era, as well as the movie watching experience in general. It's sad he never really saw the value in the gaming medium. As I have nothing good to say about that particular point of his opinion, I'll remain silent.

The man was totally awesome, issuing a mulligan for his review of "The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly." It took real guts to say his mindset got in the way of his fun, especially considering this was how he made a living. This is how I was able to respect his reviews, even when I disagreed wholeheartedly.

Seracen:

Alandoril:
The first one was meant to be serious? Really?

Strange how unintentionally hilarious it was then. You can't make something that absurd and expect it to be taken seriously.

Yeah, I always figured they started the first half of the movie wanting to be serious, and by the half way point, decided it really was a B-movie, and the only way to save it was hamming it up.

I mean, taking an end table on rollers to barricade a door? That I think was the scene that clinched it for me, and was the transition from serious to satire.

I think it was mostly just a bunch of guys and gals trying to make a movie, despite not knowing how. But yeah, it's the B-movie of B-movies, I think. It's So B Movie, it's an A-Movie. It's... Yeah, you get the point. It's a B-Movie. A good one, though.

I disagree with almost every single thing Movie Bob says in here and I knew I would, which was the only reason I watched it. For me, this movie was basically every single thing that is wrong with horror movies today and it was basically paint by numbers. Yawn.

jetriot:
I can't do this type of movie. Scary I am fine with. Gore I am fine with. But torture and mutilation just make me sick.

It's not a torture porn flick like, say, Saw or Hostel. There's gore in the movie but it's not the whole point of the movie's existence. Would I be a terrible person if I had a wide grin, like a kid on Christmas, during the entire flick? Cuz I did, I really did.

Alandoril:
The first one was meant to be serious? Really?

Strange how unintentionally hilarious it was then. You can't make something that absurd and expect it to be taken seriously.

Sam Raimi could.

Seriously, that's why he's got a career. Dude's more like Tommy Wissau than people seem to think.

The Hills Have Eyes remake was kinda awesome, wasn't it?

So I take it this iteration of evil dead lacks verbose, testosterone-injected chainsaw arms and shotguns. That is disappointing and I will mostly stick with Army of Darkness. That's actually the only Evil Dead movie I've seen and I know little of the previous titles, other than they were more serious than Army of Darkness. I might check this out when I can get my hands on the DVD.

Sadly, my only experience with Roger Ebert is that contrived comment he made about videogames' artistic merit. But I think people overreacted to that. He himself admitted to having zero authority on the medium, so why pay it any mind?
I think it was just worded poorly. "game will never be art" is a bit too objective a statement when dealing with some entirely subjective, like art, and a bit short sighted in a way that I think undermined Ebert's intelligence.

i had hoped i could make it through the first page before someone started trying to insult or debate with someone who recently died. a famous person has a different opinion than you about video games. grow up and get over it. do you really think roger ebert or any celebrity is the reason games arent universally considered a form of art? the amount of gamers i saw cheering about his death (on the day it was fucking announced) because he had a different opinion about their hobby than they did, was absolutely sickening

You know Bob, I can tell you love this movie more than you feel you should. You kept slipping into your native accent.

RIP roger.

Also, Whispy wasn't a rapist bob....come on now.

I have to say that the Deadite'd actors do a god job. Then they start talking...

I like Rocket Raccoon.
OK - they're probably going to sell toys of him everywhere, and for that purpose the movie can't be above a PG 13, but still:
- he's a paraody on the superhero and the movie badass.
After all: He is not more rediculous than cosmic rays, shape-shifting aliens or different colors of Kryptonite. Just a raccoon with a shotgun.
- the way CGI is going they can really bring characters like his to life. Gollum, that's all I need to say.
- he is a rediculous character - like the Hulk - and we have seen how that can be mishandled or work out really, really well.
It all depends on who the directs the movie, what limitations are going to be put on that person by the studio, and, of course, the script. We have seen with Catwoman how not even good actors can act their way out of a shitty script.
Pray that someone who loves the comic (or comics in general) is on the wheel, or else we will get an adaption that will look like something someone *thought* comics would look like, entailing the same misconceptions and clichees that we know from previous, bad comic book movies.

I wasn't aware that Roger Ebert had passed away until you told me, thanks.

Sadly, I told my mother than he'd died and received a response which boiled down to "Who?" it's kind of upsetting that he's unquestionably the most famous single critic in the entire history of criticism (not movie criticism, ANYTHING criticism) and she's honestly never even heard of him. Then again, that's a good measure of just how out-of-touch my mother is.

Arcane Azmadi:
(not movie criticism, ANYTHING criticism)

No. Plato and Aristotle's theater criticism is undoubtedly more influential.

Also is there a trailer I'm missing or something? Where did Bob get that shot of Rocket Raccoon from?

Huge Evil Dead/Army of Darkness fan here. I'm glad that so far it's looking good from some of the reviews I've seen. Can't wait to watch it.

Also,

Resonantscythe:
...a man building a perpetual energy source in a cave, WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!!

with a box of scraps you say?

ohhh.. A box of scraps.

i have to see it. i really love that series. i even have seen evil dead : the musical (which was good by the way)

Nana, nanaNOPE *mute*

Great review, Bob. Good to somewhat confirm that the "extreme" scene is still in the movie.

Crimson_Dragoon:

Resonantscythe:
Question for the people who have seen evil dead: I was only able to catch broadcast bits of army of darkness, But enjoyed what I saw. However I a real distaste for horror movies; they just don't appeal to me. Do I have a good chance of liking the first two evil dead(s)?

As for Rocket Raccoon:

1- While when i first heard of R.R. he seemed like a totally silly concept to me. I've thought on it since and realized that there are actually very many anthropomorphized characters people love.

2- The talking tree character seems more far-fetched to me.

3-Considering that here, in the real-world, scientist feel that it will "soon" (whatever they consider soon to be) it will be possible to revive extinct species through genetic-shenanigans, I find it more acceptable to believe that we can genetically alter a raccoon to speak and walk on two legs and curse while shooting gun-phalli, than a man building a perpetual energy source in a cave, WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!!

also sorry if that last bit was a run-on sentence, been out of the English-class game for a bit.

I know I'm being picky here, but it isn't a perpetual energy source. In fact, the movie goes out of its way to show us that the arc reactor in his chest is running out of energy and has to be replaced. There's an entire scene devoted to that.

But really, it all comes down to suspension of disbelief. I believe Tony Stark can build it out of scraps, just like I can believe a talking raccoon, a giant green rage monster, or an inter-dimensional god, because this is a universe where the laws are different and these things can happen.

hmmm, I thought the problem was that the energy output was too low for the new suit, not that it would run out. I (mis?)understood in the final fight that the old arc-reactor he plugged into himself was burning out due to the strain of running the suit. Or am I totally off-base here?

Oh, I love suspension of disbelief, just saying that if I've enjoyed iron man(which I have) then R.R. isn't a far stretch.

Clankenbeard:

Resonantscythe:
Question for the people who have seen evil dead: I was only able to catch broadcast bits of army of darkness, But enjoyed what I saw. However I a real distaste for horror movies; they just don't appeal to me. Do I have a good chance of liking the first two evil dead(s)?

You will not care for ED1. You will like ED2. The absurdity of many of the ED2 scenes is similar to Army of Darkness. ('blood flood", "flyball", "laughing deer head", "workshed!", "Rotten Applehead", "now scream like you are to scared to scream") There is a lot more gore and blood than AOD. But the way that Sam, Bruce, Rob, Ted put ED2 together, you are cringing one second and laughing or cheering the next.

I watched ED1 last. And I was impressed by what it was (a movie that three college-aged guys made with investment capital of about $60,000). But it was not in the same campy vein as the other two. Drag Me to Hell also falls in the same vein as ED2 and AOD--a campy horror flick with an emergent and reluctant anti-hero.

I have started watching "Within the Woods" a couple times. This was the predecessor to ED1. But the quality of the suriving film footage is choppy and dark and very difficult to watch. So, I 've never made it all the way through.

Therumancer:

As far as Evil Dead Goes [Spoilers Below]:

Chances are you might like the first two Evil Dead movies as I've noticed they appeal to sci-fi/fantasy nerds in general, even people who don't generally like horror. The first one manages to be pretty scary through it's first and second acts, despite being grounded firmly in unreality. The basic premise being that some young people visiting a cabin in the woods play a casette recording of some Lovecraftian occultist/scholor who was working on translating The Necronomicon, he managed to unleash evil in the area but seal it away (more or less) before departing, unfortunatly simply the recording of him reading the words for the ritual is sufficient to start all the fun again and unleash evil possessing entities with a thirst for blood. The major weakness of which seems to be their desire to torment and terrorize their victims rather than going for clean kills.

The clever thing about Evil Dead is that other than a unique twist on the monsters and some decent FX for it's day (and kills that made it live up to it's billing as "the ultimate experience in grueling horror"), is sets up all the stereotypical tropes and then subverts them in the third act. For most of "Evil Dead" the very popular Ash character is simply put a cowardly moron who does nothing right and is totally ineffective/sniveling as other characters who represent well known horror movie stereotypes themselves try and survive and come to bad ends. The role Bruce Campbell is playing would normally have "Ash" killed sometime during the second act (usually to a cheering audience due to him being such a useless turd), existing largely for another kill scene. Except that isn't what happens. To put it bluntly they win up driving Ash beyond fear to the point where he just kind of snaps and goes more than a bit crazy himself, figuring "okay then, I'm going to die horribly anyway, it's a no-win scenario, but damn if I'm not going to make them work for it and take as many with me as I can... if I can" he then pretty much starts making some rather stupid one liners as he begins brutally decimating the bodies of his now-possessed friends (who can only be stopped by total dismemberment, as opposed to a zombie-like headshot or whatever). This was actually done really well, which is why the movie has remained such a cult classic, you pretty much have the least worthy dude in the world becoming kind of badass and pulling off an eleventh hour save of himself.

Now, the thing about Evil Dead sequels is that you have to understand that you can only really do this storyline once and have it work. Attempts to have a character regress and then have to get the hero thing back when thematically appropriate in sequels don't generally work. By definition Ash, who is the only surviving character to build a franchise off of, has sort of become an action-adventure hero, not a horror victim. "Evil Dead" could be seen as a sort of origin story. In general someone like this fighting possessing entities intentionally is going to get campy to put it mildly, and "Evil Dead 2" pretty much went all out with that understanding. Ash by definition was not going to be a victim, and being borderline insane, and making dumb/ironic comments as he fights monsters you kind of see the problem. "Evil Dead 2" was kind of a movie where Ash is effectively the punchline to a joke built up by the bad guys/scenario which are more or less playing it straight. Evil Dead 2 also deserves some points because it decided to think things through a bit more. The whole over the top "tree rape" scene from the first movie makes it clear that these entities can possess plants (or at least control them) in addition to people. To their credit the bad guys DO figure out that what they are doing isn't working, and start possessing trees to come and crush this guy (since he's in the middle of the woods) since really he's not going to quickly dismember trees with a shotgun and chainsaw. A bit which is kind of clever when you think about it since they established these bad guys could do this in the first movie.

Since your aware of "Army Of Darkness" let's just say that the beginning of that movie is set up at the end of Evil Dead 2 where Ash gets sent back in time as the result of a banishing spell taking out all the bad guys. When they decided to do a third movie, it was pretty obvious that there was going to be no way they could play "Chainsaw and Shotgun wielding former horror movie victim turned insane monster stomper fights demons after time travelling to the middle ages" straight, so they turned it into more of a comedy with some serious moments.

The thing about the trilogy is that you can actually sort of see the evolution of the Ash character and increasingly insane situation, and sort of follow it. I heard they wanted to do a 4th movie with Ash in the far future, but thankfully they kind of killed that idea because I think they took the series far enough, and ending it on the joke of "how does a K-mart (excuse me S-Mart) clerk turned time travelling monster stomper go back to being a normal person when everything is concluded?... He doesn't".

Okay, that sounds good to me, Thanks!

sorry, double post.

an evil dead remake? when did this happen? talk about flying under my radar...

It's crazy Ebert died just a few days ago they where saying his cancer had sprung up again and a couple days later dead, very sad. It's going to be weird not seeing his opinion at the bottom of many film articles on wiki.

I was hoping evil dead was going to be good; I knew they where going the horror approach of the first film and was excited. I was literally horrified by the first film even though I saw it over 20 years after it came out and noticed just how cheesy it was. I mean those trees everyone can see how badly that was made and yet it was still scary as fuck. A remake of the funny one couldn't be made without an ash character though, it would be interesting to see how they decided to reboot that part.

I think I'm gonna watch the first two evil deads in the next couple days just for the hell of it.

idodo35:
an evil dead remake? when did this happen? talk about flying under my radar...

I don't know how you missed the commercials(tv and internet). It's weird it's an evil dead that is completely known commercially. Even on the escapist it's got a lot of news.

Just got back from seeing it. It was a blast. While I'm sure not everybody can be satisfied, I recommend anybody who's even remotely interested to make an effort to see it.

Having previously heard about the drug-kicking spin on the characters, I was worried that the movie would attempt an emotional take that might ruin the fun. No fun was ruined; it added a useful layer to the plot and I found the characters surprisingly involving because of it. It actually reaches for emotions other than "AAAAAAAHFUCK" in a few parts, and succeeds where a lot of these kinds of movies would fail. I agree with Bob that they could even have used a little more time to develop, whereas I normally would not care about that at all in this type of film.

Also, the fanservice nods were cute and appropriately subtle. Blink and you'll miss a pendant lying on the ground in a particular way, if you know what I mean.

RN7:
So I take it this iteration of evil dead lacks verbose, testosterone-injected chainsaw arms and shotguns.

Not quite.

Chainsaw: check.
Shotgun: check.
Injections: check.
Arms: check. (or should I say uncheck?)
Testosterone: ?????
Verbose: you only need one word, and check.

I have an issue with big yellow eyes, they always freak me out. Then you got and put the fucking scene right after the damn black screen, I'm glad it wasn't on full screen, I hate you Bob, you basterd!

I saw the newest Evil Dead with my girlfriend tonight and just came home after.

No matter what anyone else says- it's to me... THE SCARIEST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN.
I'm serious, it's so terrifying and horrifying in every way possible. I've never been so shaken up before let alone having my heart racing like mad. I've seen the original Evil Dead, it was quite funny but this movie- JESUS it's not anything like the first.

I'ma justify why it's entirely scary. First off... it's not afraid of showing gore. I've seen some wicked gore in games and movies, but the execution in these gory scenes are way to over-the-top "Oh my god" moments. The movie also doesn't try to use jump scares to startle you, it builds a crap load of tension in every bit not letting you rest. Every scene after the next was making me on edge of my seat. Out of the whole movie, only a few jump scares happened but besides that it was just horror itself presented in the movie.

. .. . The antagonist. Crap.

Never have I seen something so disturbing and really creepy, along with knowing how to tear my sanity apart. Some scenes I admit, the thing felt a tad out of character but... .. in some scenes.. .. . jesus. Just.... holy crap I was so frightened and unable to draw my eyes away.

Everything was excellent in this movie. Great plot, amazing actors, really well delivered horror without relying on jump scares, and showed gore in ways that still are unforgettable that will always be in my memories. I loved it, but wouldn't dare watch it again. ESPECIALLY that scene with the girl in the corner of the shower as the dude with glasses checks up on her. NO NO no nononoonon.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here