« The Flowers of War trailer | Filmstalker | Men in Black III teaser trailer online »


The Evil Dead remake isn't really The Evil Dead

TheEvilDead.jpgAccording to reports the remake of Evil Dead is taking a slightly different direction to the original Evil Dead and there are two key ingredients missing from the remake.

However it may not actually be a bad thing for the film and it might turn out to be the best choice for the adaptation.

Extended details have appeared online from someone who has had contact with someone else on the production and has told them some details about the film, as tenuous as always, but the information we've found out is rather interesting.

There are two key changes in the new Evil Dead over the old The Evil Dead, one we knew about already in a way that there is no Ash. We knew Bruce Campbell wouldn't be returning but the key here is that there is no character like his in the new film. There is no one hero to save the day, which makes the story quite a bit different and more of a group effort.

The other key change and this is down to Ash not being there as well, that there is no comedy aspect to the film. Sure there's humour in it but this is all in the moment and darker, more escapism humour than the comedy element we saw in the original Evil Dead films.

There is another one, okay so I can't count, and apparently the contact in the production talking to Moviehole through /Film is that there are a lot less cheesy effects, which is no surprise really considering there will be an increased budget and that this won't be a team trying to cobble together what they can.

The big changes though are no comedy and no one hero character. The whole tone of the film is apparently changing towards the horror and away from the comedy, this could make the new Evil Dead a complete horror film and likely to frighten the pants off of you.

Personally I think this is great news and a strong direction for the film to move in, and it does distance itself from the original, it's almost not an Evil Dead film although the core of the story will remain.

This time the group heading out to the cabin are going there to help a friend kick her drug habit, and that's where they find the Book of the Dead, read it, and open all manner of hurt on each of them.

What do you think? Good direction with the horror aspect? I'm up for it.



Sounds to me like there won't much of what I loved from Evil Dead movies in that remake... It could still end up good but still, not what I was hoping for... Humour was really important in Evil Dead movies, it was equally dosed with horror...

Humour was important to the Evil Dead series of films, but the original is a relatively straight, and pretty grim, horror film. Scared the pants off me when I was 13! The humour overload started with Evil Dead 2 and peaked with the rather wonderful Army of Darkness. Sounds like the remake might be quite true to the original.

Well the original, while I'm very fond of it, was pretty much overwritten by Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn and its style was further cemented with Army of Darkness. So when I think of Evil Dead, I rather think of the two later movies.

I tend to think of the original when I hear the words Evil Dead. The sequels are fine and lots of fun, but there is a raw energy to that original which still makes it an interesting film to watch now.

I'm not sure what 'overwritten' means? Films don't overwrite each other no matter how many times they might be rebooted. The original is the original, everything else derives from that no matter what the style. Besides, the Evil Dead series internal continuity is insane anyway. Each film basically rewrote the continuity as it went on. No version has a definitive continuity, it's simply a matter of taste. And for me, it's the first raw blood splattered version everytime.

I'm not talking of other films here when I use the term "overwritten", I'm talking of Evil Dead. I'm not talking about a movie that gets rebooted ten years later with a new director and team because the studio wants to reach a new audience.

The second movie overwrote the first in that it was what Sam Raimi wanted to do from the start with the first movie but couldn't because of the budget restraints and other difficulties.

It overwrites the first in that it takes some elements from it and adds new stuff while leaving other elements behind and also because Army of Darkness(the sequel) is in direct continuity with the second movie and not the first.

The only movie that is not in continuity with anything is the first one.

Again, I'm a big fan of the original. I own the book of the dead edition (the one that used to cost 80$, not the one you get bundled with the Evil Dead II book of the dead for 30 bucks nowadays). I love how raw it is and its got a lot of heart and is really unique but it was also kind of an experiment, a draft even. Sam Raimi clearly was looking for his style which I think he really developped and nailed in the later movies of the franchise.

Can I agree with you both here? That's not me sitting on the fence either, I love the first and it was much more of a horror film and probably sits much better with this idea of a remake.

However the films after The Evil Dead (the film, not "Evil Dead" as in terms of the franchise) have really gone down the comedy horror route taking Ash to the fore of the franchise.

It's interesting, does that mean that thinking only of the first The Evil Dead film it would mean that leaving Ash out of the equation isn't such a big deal after all?

Aren't you the slightest bit afraid that we're gonna end up with "The Cabin 3: Evil Dead" rather than a full blown Evil Dead movie?

I mean yeah, as I said before, the first one was great (and still is) but I can't help but feel like what they're aiming for now could be just another generic, Wes Craven type of movie where a group of people try to survive some kind of ordeal in a far removed location only to end up being picked apart one by one.

When you think about it, Evil Dead(the franchise) revolved around one character, more specifically its torture inflicted by the horrors(comically coated or not) that were unleashed on him and, subsequently, the world through the necronomicon. Even though the first movie featured supporting characters whom had their moments, it still boiled down to Ash in the end. Because he is the last one standing, the deaths of his friends only serve as means to add to his grief and struggles. Quite literally in fact as most of them(all of them? I haven't watched the movie in a while) come back from the dead to mentally or physically torment, assault and torture him. And now that character stands removed...

I know I sound like I pretty much gave up on the movie before it even started filming but that's my feeling so far. The movie could end up great and I could stand corrected. Maybe it needs to set itself apart from the rest of the franchise in order to be accepted and to let artistic freedom the team needs to make it their own and come up with something original that sill pays tribute to its source material, I'll just have to see.


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories


Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:



Help Out

Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34