f13.net

Red band trailer (lots of blood and cutting) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ceBXUyuv4Q0)

Raimi, Tapert, and Campbell are all on the project as producers.  Raimi worked on the screenplay, as did Diablo Cody (of Juno fame).  Director and cast are a bunch of unknowns.

I can see myself going to the midnight showing for this one, having it be completely horrible, and still enjoying myself greatly.

Damn, that looks pretty fun.

Why?

I don't care who signed on as a producer.  This does not need to be remade.

On one hand, tree rape, on the other.... :oh_i_see:


Seriously though a remake could be enjoyable except they look to be taking the saw torture-porn route which I never liked.

If you're going to complain about Evil Dead being remade on principle, then to be consistent you must also complain about Dead by Dawn.  Which was pretty much superior to the original in every way.  Although with that one Raimi took it from mostly straight-up horror to half horror and half slapstick comedy, whereas with this one he looks to be going back to the horror roots.  I'm interested to see how it turns out.

Without the semi-comedy angle I'm not really interested in this. I think Evil Dead 2 was about 10x the movie that Evil Dead was.

agreed.

No, it's not about Bruce as none of the characters are named Ash.  (Which would have pissed me off a bit.)  When I first heard about it, I thought "Great, redoing the first movie so it flows a bit better in to Dead by Dawn (Evil Dead 2) and Army.  Give some more background on the cabin, etc.

But no.  Instead it's looking more and more like a "real" horror movie that takes itself seriously.  No thanks, come up with a new name instead of trying to lure me in with an old franchise.

Yeah, no idea what they were thinking. No one loved Evil dead for its realistic depiction and serious tone.

How can you ever remake something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7fWOHsO4GE

Stop trying to make me rage by confusing Evil Dead with Dead By Dawn, god dammit.

Yeah, "Ash" dies at the end of Evil Dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1s3x9zPeIs

I always figured he just got beat up by trees or whatever for a while, not necessarily killed.  But it's open to interpretation. 

Like a David Lynch film.

New trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHDJm1D2ELw) is here.

That looks amazing.   :awesome_for_real:

*BOM BOM BOM BOOOOOM!*  :oh_i_see: Trailers nowadays suck ass. And clouds suck too.

Anyway. Could be good for a larf. I don't particularly like the bits of exposition that make it clear that they have to kill the posessed. That was part of the horror of the original. Nobody came up with a goddamn game plan. Shit just happened.
I think that's part of the problem of remakes. The original films were made because Sam Raimi wanted to make some fucked up horror stories. This remake, like all remkaes, looks like they want to retell Sam Raimi's story, but without being Sam Raimi in that place and that time, so they lose the spirit of the thing.

That thing in the cellar is not my mother the Evil Dead I remember.

Buckets of blood pouring out of people.

Is why I'm planning to see the midnight showing.   :drill:

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s-8z7_5iC-c/UH4e3WEn9uI/AAAAAAAAAe8/nxAkfp3fprA/s640/evil+dead-blood.jpg)

Isnt there a point in the original movie where you actually see ALL the blood in the movie change color because part way through they managed to completely use up the ENTIRE stock of fake blood they had budgeted for, and had to make their own for the rest of the movie, which turned out to be a much darker color then the original stuff?

About to go see this.   :drill:  Will report.

The good: nice visual effects, mostly practical stuff.  Once the movie got going it had good energy, with half the theater screaming and the other half laughing at the sheer absurdity.  The sets and locations were really good, with a lot of nice visual callbacks to the original movie.

The bad: the writer had no sense of tone or pacing.  I'd recommend walking into the movie about halfway through so you can skip all the boring angsty exposition at the start about how the sister has a drug problem and the brother neglects everyone emotionally and wah wah wah.  Get to the blood spray please, you're bringing me down.

I don't regret seeing it by any means, but I'm unlikely to rewatch it or add it to my DVD collection.  Being as I'm a huge fan of the series and the genre as a whole, I suppose that's somewhat damning.

It seems that a lot of horror remakes fail in that same way - be introducing too much character backstory and explanation in a failed attempt to accomplish I'm not sure what. Halloween being a good example.

I didn't really mind the backstory and characterization at all, but then I thought it also worked in Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning  (that's the one with the younger brother who is trying to dodge the draft). Take that however you will. I did think this movie fell apart a bit in the las few minutes, but that's a discussion for after more people have seen the movie. I also do give this movie a lot of credit for using practical effects rather than cg, and for following the spirit of the first Evil Dead (and even some aspects of Evil Dead 2) while not just straight up remaking it with the same characters.

Does it take itself seriously or is it as funny as fuck like Evil Dead 2?

It's much closer to the original Evil Dead on the scale of how seriously it takes itself.  Which is to say, more so than the sequels.  I was laughing a lot, as I tend to do at over-the-top horror movies, but there aren't a lot of jokes. 

Actually, my biggest problem with the backstory-building in the first half of the movie was that it was too serious -- if they were going to pad things out to build suspense (which is fine), funny things should have been happening, not serious family/addiction drama shit.  Even though it was trying to be a "real" horror film, the first Evil Dead felt very lighthearted right up until people started dying horribly.

I did like how she was sitting on Ash's old car at the start of the show. That was cool. It seems a set up for a sequel at the end though. I thought anyway. I liked it, like all horror movies my wife hated it. I suspect at some point down the road I may add it to my movies that I rewatch.

My only disappointment was that they went full on FUCK SHIT COCK BALLS. This was the first movie I've seen in awhile where the language jarred me, but it was only because the original managed to do horror without using a fuckton of cursing. I had seen that Sammy was part of this one and expected the same. Wrong.

That's because it is. Ferdi's said he's already in-process for making ED2 and had announced it at SXSW.
http://www.movieweb.com/news/evil-dead-2-remake-and-army-of-darkness-2-will-lead-to-evil-dead-7

Campbell's been going around on the Junket for this one, which actually has turned me OFF of the movie. If you have to haul-out Bruce for a movie he's not in, I'm not inspired to watch it.  According to one interview, you can blame Diablo Cody for the cursing.  She's the one who did the pass for 'youthful language.'
http://www.iamrogue.com/news/interviews/item/8615-iar-exclusive-interview-bruce-campbell-talks-evil-dead-remake-and-army-of-darkness-2.html

Did none of you stay for that after credits scene?  Just wondering since no one has mentioned it.

I was not allowed.  :grin:

To call it a scene would be to overstate it. Really not much to say about it.

I have a serious crush on Jane Levy (Mia).

She can do dry humor comedy on Suburgatory (sort of like a non-pregnant Juno); I haven't seen the latest movie but frankly the world does not need another torture porn movie. On the other hand  :grin:, it would be nice if the sequel went comedy-horror. To tell the truth; I would doubt it given the heavy horror of this one, but still one kind of hopes.

I wouldn't really classify this as torture porn (else you would have to go back and reclassify the majority of R-rated horror movies that). Torture porn to me, which I think of as stuff like Saw and Hostel, tend to not to involve the supernatural and the pacing of any scene involving violence tends to be slower so the audience can focus on each individual injury or torment. For the most part in Evil Dead the violence is fast paced enough that with a few exceptions you don't really have time to focus on any particular wound. I mean, you see some pretty painful looking shit, but you don't really get a chance to dwell on it in the same way you would with one of the torture devices in a Saw movie.

I caught this last weekend and I am a HUGE fan of the original series...  Overall I do not regret seeing it but I like Samwise am not going to buy it on dvd, blueray whatever. The pacing was pretty jarring to me and it just did not flow that well. Also the cgi work really stuck out to me as a fairly poor quality. When the jeep was crossing the river at the first why did they CGI it?

At any rate I really wish they had gone more the comedy route than the semi serious route. I did find myself laughing out loud at things there were not supposed to be funny.... Although in my own defense people around me were doing the same thing.

On a side note I was horrified when I saw some parents brought their 4 year old to it. The poor kid cried and wailed a lot and they had to take him out of the theater.

Evil Dead Director says remake has no CGI. (http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/171733-evil-dead-director-says-remake-has-no-cgi)

Now I actually want to watch it again.  I could have sworn the plant rape was done with CGI.

Are you fucking kidding me ?

People are morons.

I'm sure they'll also bitch at the kid for not sleeping or being afraid of the dark from here on out.

My question is, as it's R why did nobody at the theater tell them "don't do this" or "we won't LET you do this."  Our need to "not get involved" has reached stupid proportions of apathy.

An R rating merely means you have to parental permission\supervision to attend the movie when you're under 17.  If the parents bring the kids in most movie theater companies won't say anything unless the patrons complain about the kid being disruptive.

Some theaters have restrictions on the being able to bring kids under a certain age into R rated movies after a certain time, but that's largely for the consideration of other customers. Ultimately it's not the responsibility of the people at the theater to tell people they're being shitty parents.

Not in the same league, but I remember parents who brought their young (4 - 6ish) daughter to a screening of "Jurassic Park 3". After saying, "HELLO!" to every new face that popped up on screen, the poor girl screamed through the first dinosaur scenes. I think they took her out after that.

My 5 year old would probably just laugh inappropriately the whole time.  I convinced her very early on that "scary" movies were actually funny.  "See the vampire trying to run with his head on fire?  Silly vampire, going out in the sunlight."

--Dave

 :oh_i_see:

I'm sure most of the people on this board don't work in any sort of customer service related job, and thus can't appreciate the difference between enforcing an actual rule (like the R ratings policy) and enforcing a rule that doesn't actually exist in a Won't Somebody Think of the Children effort.  As it is, some people get pissed off at the former. The latter would piss more people off and likely get somebody fired. Ultimately in the U.S. at least it would be up to the MPAA to make changes to the rules, or for the chains to expand their "no children under 6 in R rated movies after 6" that most of them have (which again is from a standpoint of doing it for the sake of the other customers as opposed to concerns for the children), and even that creates other problems, like theater hopping.

Like I said though, ultimately it's the parent's job to raise their kids. You can't expect the guy at the theater to do it, any more than you can expect the guy at the grocery store to tell parents to put away some of the junk food and buy some fucking fruits and vegetables. If people are bringing their kid to the theater to watch Evil Dead, I would guess they're watching the same kind of stuff at home.

Nope and my buddy went out and grabbed a drink part way through and asked mentioned to the ticket guy about it. He just shook his head and said there is nothing that you can do.

As far as the cgi comment goes then he did some weird camera tricks to do a few things without cgi. The jeep scene at the first just looked fake as hell. The plant rape scene looked like stop motion to me to be honest.

This guy thinks there is "very little" cgi   http://www.starpulse.com/news/Evan_Crean/2013/04/07/weekend_movie_preview_evil_dead_and_ju whatever that means.

It's different over here, clearly.

I have seen, and have done, the 'Hoy, Mate, Take your Kid Out the Damn Theatre' before.  My mother tapped the fuckstick in the seats in front of me, who had a 5 year old freaking out as heads were lopped heads off and said 'Can I take your child outside for a wee sweetie or something, she seems scared'.  Chap quickly removed himself from the theatre.

In my view, while it might be the parents job to raise their kids, it's also a community job to ensure that lines are not being crossed.  I don't want to see a drunken dad leathering the fuck out of his kid in a shopping mall and I AM going to stop and ask 'everything ok here'.  Similarly, I will ask a parent if the action they are taking has really been thought through.  Do I have any authority, moral or otherwise, when they tell me to go fuck myself ?  No.  Of course not.  Do I expect people in a theatre/job situation to make a big deal if they think they're getting fired ?  That's up to them.

But I know personally I simply could not stand by and watch.  And I'd WANT someone to do the same thing to me if it was Elena.


Also, the fruits and vegetables analogy is a little off.

Well I'd definitely say that it's easier to not just stand by and watch when it doesn't actually involve your job. I work at a movie theater. If a kid is being disruptive I can ask the family to leave, but if not I can't just kick people out on moral grounds unless I feel like being unemployed. If I'm just at a theater watching a movie, then there would be nothing holding me back from saying something to the irresponsible parents, although again given the rules in place I'd generally be considered the one who is causing a disturbance at that point and be the one kicked out. As a non-parent myself, in either situation I'm also sure the conversation would rapidly come to the "if you don't have kids how the hell are you going to tell me about parenting" card being played.

The father beating the kid situation I think would get quick response from people, at least around where I live. Also, try living in the U.S. for awhile and you might find promoting a reasonably proper diet to be a bigger moral imperative than keeping young kids from watching Evil Dead. I would imagine eating junk most of your childhood has longer lasting ramifications. Anyhow that's probably a longer tangent about MPAA and ratings policies than people need in an Evil Dead thread, but I was just set off a bit by Merusk's characterization of the theater people being apathetic and just minding their own business, which I'm sure he didn't actually mean anything by but it's just one of those things where somebody outside of your line of work criticizes it without understanding that there are reasons why things are done the way they are. It's the same reason I get annoyed when people comment on the pricing of snacks in theaters.

I can see entirely where you're coming from.

Interesting. UK cinemas are required to refuse admission to anyone who is underage as part of their licensing agreement (Licensing Act 2003, Section 20 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/section/20))  Cinemas will do it as well - I was behind a family at a cinema in Nottingham who couldn't understand why they weren't being allowed to bring their 8 year old in to see Watchmen because, well, superhero films are kids films right?

Funniest story I heard was from a friend who worked in a cinema in Leeds who had to turn away a couple who were bringing their toddler into see an 18 rated film. The thing is, it wasn't the toddler that was the problem - the parents weren't old enough themselves.  :awesome_for_real:

See, Ironwood said what I was thinking.   I also put it on the theater managers, not the staff.  You have every right to refuse service as a business in this instance.  Our cultural need to "not get involved, keep your head down and out of their affairs," is at play here.  So we'll stay uninvolved in clearly out-of-bounds situations then complain about how shitty our society is.

To be fair in the UK if you stick your nose in you're unlikely to get shot.

Well, I did once intervene with a guy being handy with his girl and got the shit kicked out of me, if that helps.

Doesn't really stop you doing it again.  Though it does make you keep an eye on the woman throughout, since she was the one that started the attack.  No gratitude, I fucking tell you.

I'm actually really curious what you have to say about this, as I am one who continually comments on the pricing of snacks in the theatres. I probably go to a movie theatre at least once every couple weeks and I've never understood that pricing other than they can charge it because people will actually pay it.

It's the only way the theater makes money. Ticket prices are set by the distribution companies, so theaters can't make rent, pay and utilities money off of them.  Concessions are the only way they stay open. 

 :drillf:

All well and good. Unfortunately, in America, we are litigious as fuck and all think we are special cases who can handle it. So in the case of 4-year old in Evil Dead, the theater tries to stop the parents, the theater gets the shit sued out of it and suddenly everyone is that much more gunshy about actually trying to be decent human beings.

We are a doomed fucking civilization and we've done it all to ourselves.

True Story.

Merusk's answer is correct.  Studios end up with a high percentage of the box office sales so they can keep bringing us $200 million masterpieces like Jack the Giant Slayer and Battleship. Concession sales are the bulk of a theater's income.

The amount of the box office the movie theater gets increases with the number of weeks the movie is in release.  For big blockbusters, the theater's take can be as little as 15% for the first two weeks.  For movies without a big opening week expectations, that figure is 20%.  At least that's what is was when I used to follow movie theater stocks.

On the snacks, I have never ever had trouble sneaking in my own food in my wife's purse.  I will usually cave and buy a drink, though.

So wait -- would I be doing my local theaters a favor by waiting to see movies until they're almost on their way out?

Yes.  In week 4 and beyond, the theater will get much better economics.

I do not know how the 3D craze affects box office share.  It seems like the ticket premium should go to the theater for investing in 3D visuals, but I suspect the studio gets a hand in the pocket somehow.

The motivation for studios to make 3D movies in the first place is for increased box office grosses so I can't see theaters taking a larger than usual percentage of that. "Premium" type theater experiences would generally be the theaters way to get increased revenue from ticket sales, but I'm not entirely sure as that's not really my area of expertise. I do believe the studios, or at least many of the major ones helped fund the digital switchover to some extent for the big chains. With most studios completely doing away with film this year, I've seen a number of articles saying that it's the smaller local theaters who are having the problems getting together enough money to go digital and are facing having to shut down.

Hohoho.  That one singed my fucking eyebrows just reading it.

So I finally watched this tonight.

This was shit. The guy with the glasses and long hair was a terrible fucking actor. The blonde girl served no purpose to the story before her possession - you could be forgiven for forgetting she was even in the movie. Nothing was scary... just gross. Very, very gross. I have not seen the original so I can't compare but this one just reminded me of the Hostel type of ow that looks like it hurt blearg substituting for scary.

How?  How have you not seen The Evil Dead over the past 33 years?  And why did you choose to watch the 2013 remake before watching the Sam Raimi directed original?  Why, Haemish?  Why?!

It was on a pay channel. Also, I'm lazy.

You really ought to watch the originals.  They will make you laugh if nothing else.

The originals are so-bad-it's-good territory, but Army of Darkness is fucking fantastic.

I've seen Army of Darkness and love it. This one seemed to decide that it wanted its gore to be so ridiculous it was funny only it forget that it had no sense of humor to begin with.

I love Army of Darkness, but I'm going to have to say Evil Dead 2 was better.  Its just the most awesome mix of dark comedy, gore (comedic gore mind you), and pulp cheese ever.  While Army of Darkness was more slapstick spoof comedy (not that theirs anything wrong with that).  Evil dead 1 is fine for what it is.  A fun project done by a couple of Michigan college students in the early 80's.  Actually in that regard, its great.

Have not bothered to see the remake.

Cabin in the Woods was more of an Evil Dead remake to me than this was.

This was a remake of the original Evil Dead.  Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness were a different take on the idea that moved into the comical zone - and were much better IMHO.  I enjoyed this film for what it was, but I'd rather have seen Army of Darkness 2 rather than a reboot that went back to the original concept.

I am very much looking forward to the Evil Dead series as it should be more in line with the comical side.

A lot of the stuff from the original that was comical and over the top camp when it was stop-motion SFX and Campbell mugging for the cameras, was just dark and disturbing in the remake. In the original the tentacle rape scene was funny (probably unintentionally), you just couldn't take it seriously, in the remake it was was just *nasty*.

--Dave

Yeah, that was a lot of my problem with it. Removing the humor just made it icky and I'm not a huge fan of icky for icky's sake.

ED2 was already basically a remake of ED1.

Also ED2 is amazing. Just the right amount of horror and ridiculousness mixed together.

I thought the original Evil Dead was awful. So a remake would probably suck too.

Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness are great.

The new ED remake, to me, was like Disney doing a remake of Song of the South that retained 'a good old nostalgic look at slavery'.

At the time of release, both of the original versions of the films were acceptable.  Now, the subject matter is not acceptable, and the way it was used is offensive.

However, elements of the property have lived on and evolved into something that isn't offensive in the same way.  As a result, we have to be careful about how it is used and viewed to keep the offensive material from resurfacing within the scope of the current usage of the properties.

I think the new Evil Dead was a bit too nostalgic and failed to realize that we're not living in the 80s anymore.  That is why I'm looking forward to the new series and getting the property back into the hands that evolved the concept...

Uhhh, the remake was produced by Sam Raimi - he had every opportunity as producer to keep this from getting fucked up. Your post makes almost no literal sense whatsoever. What subject matter is not acceptable in this day and age that was in the '80's? Tentacle rape?

There was 1/10th of the sensitivity you find today.  People thought the tentacle rape was weird.  They did not object to it the way it is objected to now...

Did they include a tree rape scene in the remake?  I haven't actually seen it.  Honestly, the original Evil Dead isn't that bad, gore and violence-wise, when you compare it to some of its contemporaries. 

Also, if you think increasing sensitivity has resulted in tamer films you're out of your mind.  Go watch A Serbian Film or any number of other movies that have pushed boundaries over the past ten years.  Films, even mainstream films, are far more over the top and violent/gore filled than they have ever been.  The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was R, and banned in many locations, for instance, and it didn't even have any blood in it.

What Ruvaldt said. This movie was like Hostel compared to the original version. And yes, there was tentacle rape in the new one though compared to anime, it was tame.

I literally have no idea what jgsugden is talking about.

I didn't say there was less violence /inappropriate content - just that the acceptance of it is less.  If you believe that rape scenes are received the same way as they were in the 80s....

I don't recall anyone objecting to the tentacle rape in the Evil Dead remake. At all. Ruvaldt here didn't even know it had been included in the new one, which would lead one to suggest that you are talking quite spectacularly out of your bunghole. Yes, people may be a bit more sensitive these days to rape scenes - which would be a true statement except that it has fuckall to do with this movie since there was no media uproar about the tentacle rape.

You're right, but not in the way you think you are.  They aren't received the same way because they're more accepted now than they were then.

In the '80s I Spit on Your Grave was banned in many countries and areas for its brutal depiction of rape.  Same goes for The Last House on the Left.

Now?  They both have mainstream remakes that were shown to audiences across the world and raked in millions of dollars.  And don't tell me that's because they toned down the rape scenes.  The Last House on the Left remake's rape scene is much more gut-churning/difficult to watch than the original.

Also, Irreversible is a thing and it is from 2002.

Ugh.

Done.

Don't blame you  :ye_gods: