Evil Dead (2013)

It’s truly a rare occasion when a horror film is remade and is equal to the original and the 2013 version of “Evil Dead” is such a film! This is a movie in which I will not blink twice and have any issue with people saying that they loved the newer version more than the original. The original was made by a group of college aged friends who only knew the basics of film making at the time, barely had a budget, and had to come back several times to the cabin in Tennessee to finish the filming the movie, and yet it’s a classic that has inspired a legion of other film makers and has a massive fan base. The new “Evil Dead” had a small but modest budget, had a cast with some real credentials, and a story concept that was as good as gold, which turned out to be a great film and is easily one of the best movies I’ve seen all year. This project is an example of people who love the movie so much that they get together and present the basics of the story in their own way. It doesn’t hurt that Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell, and Robert Tapert gave their blessings as well as served as the producers. Director and co-writer Fede Alvarez saw the project as happening 30 or so years after the original events took place but by avoiding any attempt to point that out (besides the car!), this movie plays out as a remake and not as a sequel of sorts. There are too many coincidences between the two films not to be a remake, but enough differences that this is truly its own film.

There are several similarities in the two films that you have to look closely to notice.

1.       The most obvious is that the cabin looks the same, at least from the front. In the original, we never got to see the cabin clearly from any other angle. The car that Ash and his friend used to get to the cabin is parked and rusting in the back behind the cabin.

2.       There are two couples and a sister of one of the guys.

3.       All of the characters in the remake become possessed in the same order as their counterparts in the original, beginning with the sister who is attacked by the tree/forest.

4.       David, Ash’s counterpart, is dressed in the same colors and has the same hair color and frame.

5.       A character in both films cuts off their hand after it shows signs of possession. This is one of the two elements from “Evil Dead 2” to be used in this film.

6.       A great and powerful entity is summoned and is vanquished by a lone survivor. This is the second element borrowed from “Evil Dead 2”.

7.       The Naturom Demoto is found in the basement.

There are differences as well, which make up the rest of the film and don’t need to be listed. It’s best to watch the film and see what they’ve changed.

SPOLIER!                              SPOLIER!                              SPOLIER!

What I REALLY didn’t like about the film was a moment during the prolonged showdown. When Mia becomes pinned to the ground by the jeep, she finds the strength to rip her arm apart and run away. What?? Is she a lizard? No! How the hell can anyone do that?? It’s not like her arm was that badly damaged from the jeep falling on it at any time before that. And I feel that it completely takes away from the act of self-mutilation of when Natalie cuts her hand off in the kitchen.

Mia, the "Cheryl" counterpart

 Natalie, the "Linda" counterpart

 David, the "Ash" counterpart

1981 demon

 2013 demon

Ash, Linda, and Cheryl,  1981

David and his friends, 2013

Author's Note - Remakes

Remakes are a touchy subject for many people. There are several that feel like they are nothing more than an excuse to cash in on a recognizable title without even trying to make a decent movie. Michael Bay is guilty of this with his attempts to reboot both the “Friday the 13^th” and “Nightmare on Elm Street” franchises.

Some remakes feel like the cast actually respect the original and just want to have fun making their version; these are fine because they feel more like plays whereas nothing new is usually added but some characters are fleshed out more or are played out with a different style. Some of these films actually use the original novel as source material more so than the original film production.

Then there are the very few where the cast, director and actors, are taking the original idea and are adapting their own interpretations. This approach works at times but can easily backfire as well. Just because your passion for the film and your ideas in how to fix it or make it better might not actually be the best for the project or the legacy of the original film.

While preparing for this theme, I’ve noticed that the opinions of people who saw the original versions versus those who are now just old enough see the remakes makes a large difference. Younger viewers are more accustomed to seeing CGI in almost everything, expect more violence and realistic gore than films from the 1970’s and 1980’s, and want to see cast members that they are familiar with. Keeping these notes in mind, I will try to write my reviews as neutral as possible.