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.
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.