Reviews & Ratings for
Evil Dead More at IMDbPro »

Page 1 of 13:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

167 out of 309 people found the following review useful:
Dead on arrival, 25 March 2013

Author: cheese_and_meatballs_please from New York, USA

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Why why why why why did I get excited for this film? Why do I keep doing this to myself lol. A horror remake with modern gore effects and a fresh take on the best the eighties have to offer. It has to be a winner right? WRONG! This is the latest in a long line of horror remakes that just fails in almost every dept. Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Halloween. Elm street. Omen. Hills Have Eyes. I Spit On Your Grave. The Fog. Fight Night. Friday 13th. Amityville. I kid you not, i paid to see them all. Lined up for pre screenings or opening midnight showings. Always excited. Always disappointed afterwards lol. In many cases, I was more gutted than the slasher victims on screen lol. The only two remakes that were decent was The Thing prequel and The Crazies.

At least Evil Dead didn't skimp on the blood and guts. There was plenty. But it did not have an effect. Too much of something may as well be none at all for the impact on the viewer.

My biggest gripe is it just wasn't scary. I was pumped when I saw the promo posters saying it was the scariest film ever. But it wasn't even the scariest film I have seen this week lol. The cast tried, but they were either too drab and lifeless when alive or overacting and too animated when dead lol. Happy medium reached NOT! All in all, they would have been better off leaving the original film as is, to show what a great low budget horror film should look like. now when teenagers hear of the horror film 'Evil Dead', they will think of this pile of trash instead of a verified classic.

131 out of 239 people found the following review useful:
Evil Remake, 3 April 2013

Author: pam_nagovski from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Save your money. This film is a cash grab of the highest order. A truly shallow attempt to remake a film all horror fans hold dear to their heart.

When Sam Raimi shocked and delighted the world with Evil Dead, he did so with the purest intentions and divine talent. Original story. Groundbreaking gore effects. Stunning visuals. Mesmeric tension.

A masterpiece.

He did so without the desire for box office statistics, nor did he pay shills to promote the film. He simply poured his heart and soul and genius into something he truly loved.

This pale, insipid, vapid excuse of a "remake" is an Evil Dead film in name only. Nothing original. Nothing enthralling. Nothing shocking. Just......nothing.

The sooner Hollywood realizes film audiences are SICK of these types of tepid imitations, the better. Classic and much-adored movies should be left to age gracefully and to find audiences on their own terms, for generations to come.

The Mona Lisa was not repainted. And if it had of been,, the copy would be spat upon and condemned as a FAKE! Well, this FAKE is even worse.

1/10

135 out of 248 people found the following review useful:
not very good 3/10, 3 April 2013

Author: raimifan13 from Austin, USA

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

disappointed with this. saw it at south by south film festival and i was not impressed. i didn't ever think it was going to be anything special and would pale against the excellent original, but i expected more.

the gore was over the top and silly. the tree rape was thoughtless torture porn. it wasn't scary. it was not imaginative. in fact, it was boring. and that is the saddest thing. so much effort put into shocking and outraging the audience with blood and guts, when the net result is tedium.

glad raimi had nothing to do with it lest he become like romero, and lose luster with his ill conceived later films.

3/10 is the very best i can muster. sorry.

128 out of 237 people found the following review useful:
Disgusting violence for violence sake., 3 April 2013

Author: Anmarie Griffith from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Extremely sickened by this film. I have never sat through a film where I simply wanted it to end. Graphic sickening torture porn for soulless sociopaths. No story to speak of, which the original had in spades. Amateur acting, with nobody approaching the charisma and screen presence of Bruce Campbell. All this film had was buckets and buckets of cow blood and pointless violence. That's all it was. Pointless violence.

If you are an adult of rational mind and have any sense of decency and values, do not watch this film. If you are a sociopath teenager, with an appetite for violent video games and torturing small animals, well this film will probably suit you perfectly.

Believe when I say the only scare you will get from this film is the horrific acting. Everything else is nauseating and quite boring violence.

not recommended.

150 out of 288 people found the following review useful:
Should titled 'Normal Splatter B movie', not Evil Dead, 25 March 2013

Author: AcidSquirtyNipples from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I cant stand why Hollywood do the movie and call the remake when not like first movie. This called Evil Dead but it not Evil Dead like first Evil Dead. It normal cheap horror movie with the cabin and the blood. It have normal the teenager and normal the bad acting. Normal the gore and normal the one survivor hero who kill the badness. That is OK because that is normal. But it not Evil Dead. Why they try and lie to the people by saying it is remake? It not the remake. It only have one or two thing in first movie like necromonicon the chainsaw and girl in the basement. Everything else is different and not the Evil Dead. No laughing in the movie like other the Evil Dead. No the scares and the fright. Just gore to cover story not in.

I not like fake Evil Dead. I not like the normal splatter movie with Evil Dead label. This dishonest lie and not what should do to try and get audience. Should just make own film and let people think good or bad with out fake name.

I sure you agree.

157 out of 302 people found the following review useful:
This Film Was Not Good At All. Terrible, In Fact, 25 March 2013

Author: Keenan Johnson from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Far too much emphasis on blood and gore effects at the expense of quality acting, coherent writing, addictive story, skillful direction and genuinely horrific shocks. And this seems to be the common strain among critics. A fixation on guts and bone. An almost complete neglect of everything else.

Raimi made a classic film. A masterpiece. It had balance. Great actors. Great ORIGINAL story. Exceptional gore effects. Superb direction. Hilarious humor. Terrifying shocks. So why call this new film "Evil Dead"? Just release it under another name. Its not a remake. Its a pale, insipid, soulless imitation.

I'm glad I saw it for free.

1/10

15 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
A Splatter House Fun Fest, 6 April 2013

Author: Jay Schizo from United States

I'm not one for remakes of classic horror films. I despised the Dawn of the Dead reboot and the slew of other horrid abominations to cinema that have followed in the wake of awful remakes that seem to be the poison of Hollywood these days; however, this was a most pleasant surprise. I will give nothing away as I feel this is a horror film that must be seen. Does it capture the magic of the original? Maybe not as The Evil Dead is one of my all-time favorite films and nothing can quite compare to the grueling and disturbing masterpiece given us by Sam Raimi all those years ago. Does it bring anything new or exciting to the table? You bet it does! This was a film exceeded in its gore factor only by the unsettling atmosphere of the movie. It's obscene, depraved, dark, and filled with violent delight. I was expecting the worst and found myself enthralled and appalled and ultimately so glad that I bought tickets. If you enjoy horror flicks as much as I do then nothing should stop you from seeing Evil Dead. Despite the poor user reviews I've seen this was a true feat of horror filmmaking at its goriest glory.

16 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
A Remake Done Right?, 5 April 2013

Author: keith-kanderski from United States

Is this film perfect? No. Is this film better than the original? I think the question is unfair. To a younger generation, I can see how they'll prefer this over the original. To my generation, I can see how we'll prefer the original. It's just the way it is.

The film contains lots of gross-out, bloody scenes (much like the original). The film contains some over-the-top scenes and acting (much like the original). Once the carnage begins, the film is basically about the carnage (much like the original). The film contains some wonderful dark humor (much like the original).

The setup of the addict trying to kick her habit (and not for the first time) logically keeps the kids at the cabin when the audience sees things starting to get a bit strange. The new ending was cool and freaky. Overall, they did a great job creating the atmosphere of an Evil Dead film.

However, I'm reading most of the negativity surrounding this film is due to a lack of story, bad acting, under-developed characters, and lack of scares. Again, these same criticisms are what make the original so great. Bruce Campbell had three films as Ash. His personality really started to take shape in Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn and was further enhanced in Army of Darkness. It seems as though most people are comparing this latest remake to the trilogy, as opposed to the original.

There are some aspects of the film I could've done without (like some of the random jump scares that were inserted). Overall, I felt as though there was a bit of tension in the crowd, which is what makes a good horror film.

Finally, the musical score was great.

As to the devoted followers of Sam Raimi who are happy that he "had nothing to do with this film." He was a producer on the film and kept tabs on things as they went, wanting to give the new filmmakers space to make their own film but not allowing what he thought was a piece of crap to share the Evil Dead name. Yes. Sam Raimi endorses this film, and he was involved.

For me, growing up with the original, I will always cherish that one. When the two DVDs are sitting side-by-side, I will reach for the original more often than the remake, but I think the remake disc will get plenty of wear. Go into this film with an open mind, and I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
I appreciate this remake., 5 April 2013

Author: r-w-h-j from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me start off by saying that I LOVE the original 'Evil Dead' Trilogy by Sam Raimi. I'm not like the lame hipsters or pathetic fanboys/fangirls who immediately dismiss remakes of classic horror movies because they aren't the same as the original. Well remakes aren't supposed to be the same or better than the original. I loved the spirit of this raunchy creepy gore filled remake of 'Evil Dead'. Well it's also more of a re-imagining since the main character of Ash is totally gone. But I gave it a chance. A good horror movie is a good horror movie. Sure we had the horrible remakes like "A Nightmare on Elmstreet" and the piece of trash "Friday the 13th" remake, but there have been some good ones. "Fright Night" had a great remake. "The Hills Have Eyes" had a decent thrilling remake. Hate me for saying it, but the first "Halloween" remake by Rob Zombie was awesome. I am definitely NOT saying that this "Evil Dead" remake is anywhere close to being as awesome as the original, but it's still pretty great. I see it more as a sequel than a remake.

There's nothing I could really spoil if you've seen the original movie. The only thing I will say is that the iconic lead character of Ash played by Bruce Campbell is replaced by the female lead of Mia played by newcomer Jane Levy. Many are enraged by this change, but I accepted it. I mean honestly, it would be even worse if they decided to remake the Ash character with a new actor. Seriously, no one can fill Bruce Campbells shoes. That being said, I was actually impressed with the approach the film takes this go-round. The opening is also something new involving a demonic possession to give the movie a little of a backstory.

The imagery is beautifully gruesome. The tension builds up in creeping terror fashion. There are even certain aspects of the remake that pay great homage to the original Evil Dead. The terrifyingly creepy cellar scenes. The demonic Necronomicon book is present of course. When they read from the book you know right away that horror is about to follow. The movie has a constant feeling of dread. It's honestly like if Tim Burton made a straight up relentless horror movie, and disregarded all of the humor. Also, the dark humor from the original trilogy is nearly extinct in this movie. But that doesn't take away from it. It just adds to the terror. The make up effects are disgustingly real. Don't see this movie if you have a weak stomach. I read that they refrained from using CGI effects in this movie to stay true to the spirit of the old school approach of the original. I loved that they chose to do that. The demons and zombie-like creatures in this had the true 'Evil Dead' feel to them. I was so creeped out the entire movie. I felt like a kid again watching "The Exorcist" for the first time. The voices of the demons will surely haunt most viewers for nights. I definitely closed my closet door after seeing this movie. The directing is nice and creepy. This movie has a lot of good examples of how a horror movie should be made. The actors and actresses give believable performances. The lead actress who plays 'Mia' was so good in her terrorized performance. Sure sometimes the characters made stupid decisions, but come on, we all remember the part when the girl walked into the woods alone just because she 'heard something' in the original Evil Dead right? If the characters don't make at least one stupid decision in a movie, then there wouldn't be a horror movie right? I can tell the filmmakers put a lot of effort into this remake. This wasn't just a remake to cash in on the success of the original, well at least I hope not. I can tell the filmmakers knew how the fan base of the original trilogy would react to certain things. I'm glad that the original director Sam Raimi and original star Bruce Campbell helped a lot with this movie. They also had help from Robert Tapert, the producer of the original. If they weren't there to supervise, I can tell this movie wouldn't have been half as good as it is.

Now I'm not saying this is the best horror movie in years, but it is a damn good one. This is definitely the best remake. Also one of the best horror movies released nationwide in theaters. The movie also has that 'independent' feel of the original while also having a mainstream feel at the same time. There are some 'arthouse' type moments too. I really appreciated this movie. It terrified me and made me and the audience cringe and wanna cover our eyes. I even cared for the characters. Not like most horror movies where you can't wait to see the characters die. I wanted these characters to live. It was a great tragic movie, just like the original.

All in all, don't dismiss it as just another pointless horrible remake. Give it a chance. If it helps, try to act like it isn't a remake or Evil Dead. Don't even look at the title. Just watch it as a good scary horror movie that terrifies. But most of all, DON'T keep comparing it to the original. See this as a standalone movie. It'll pay off.

P.S. Stay after the credits. There's a nice treat for 'Evil Dead' fans waiting.

25 out of 43 people found the following review useful:
Disgusting. Socially Irresponsible. Pathetic Storytelling, 5 April 2013
Author: info-12138 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie confirms the fact that most of the filmmakers who believe they have something to offer the public in the "horror" genre have no "bloody" idea how to do it. This has been the trend for at least a dozen years, or since the "Torture Porn" phase was unleashed on the public back in the day of "Saw" and "Hostel." How many human limbs can be severed is not a scary narrative. Sorry, it's not. It's merely disgusting and pathetic.

Horror is a very popular genre, no question about it. I'm even a fan of it, but not when it is presented in such a profoundly vaporous way as this movie. Remember when we cared about the lead characters, like in "Alien" or "Exorcist." Hell, "Jaws" made this piece of evil tripe feel like a student film. The scariest part of this movie IS the acting.

Can you imagine the look on the EFX crew when the director asked them to make it "rain blood?" Get those rain machines cranking and spew the bodily fluid over the entire set. "Excuse me? You want to do what?" the SPFX guys probably asked.

This is a gore fest for all the wrong reasons. Perhaps, if the audience would start to walk out or, better yet, not even bother buying a ticket, we could begin to see the studios and the writers coming to market with intelligent, scary stories that can really get under our skin.

I wish Fede got the memo because he did not deliver the goods. Instead, all he managed to do is show us how much blood he can spew on some really unlikable characters, and bad actors.

Page 1 of 13:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

Related Links