The Evil Dead review
Sam Raimi's classic Evil Dead gets a remake. The result, Ryan writes, is a film low on scares but full of entertaining splatter...
No one needed a Nightmare On Elm Street remake. The world wasn't crying out for a reworking of Halloween, or The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, or The Hills Have Eyes. Likewise, Sam Raimi's 1981 carnival of gore The Evil Dead stands alone as a masterpiece of horror cinema, and is no more in need of a modern update than, say, Citizen Kane or Vertigo.
The Evil Dead's nasty little tendrils have also spread so far into filmmakers' collective imaginations that, almost 30 years later, its woodland cabin setting has passed from archetype to cliché; the subgenre's now as old and familiar to modern audiences as the flying saucer invasion movie or the gothic horror flick was to cinemagoers in the 80s. After the arch humour of Tucker & Dale Vs Evil and The Cabin In The Woods, is it even possible to make a serious horror movie in this setting?
It may come as a surprise, perhaps, that Evil Dead 2013 makes little effort to update the premise for a modern era. There are, to the best of my recollection, no mobile phones. Nobody pulls out a laptop to Google the word Necronomicon. As established the template dictates, we’re offered a handful of youngsters, a remote shack, and a monumental slab of gory violence.
At the centre of the film we have David (Shiloh Fernandez), who’s ushered his drug-addicted sister Mia (Jane Levy) out to their dilapidated and isolated family cabin. Along with his childhood friends Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), Olivia (Jessica Lucas) and Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore), David hopes that a bit of country air, tough love and cold turkey will cure Mia of her insidious dependency. Unfortunately, supernatural events conspire against the group, and after making certain discoveries in the cabin’s basement, they soon begin to fall victim to an ancient, demonic force.
Evil Dead is the debut feature from Uruguayan director Fede Alvarez (whose short film, Ataque de Pánico!, was a YouTube hit), and it must have taken a certain amount of faith on the part of producer Sam Raimi to hand over his firstborn to a relatively new filmmaker. Although Alvarez clearly has a bigger budget to play with than Raimi did while making his shoestring original, the young protégé directs with the same youthful, maniacal energy - cameras hurtle through forests, just as they did in the original, and extreme acts of violence are captured from jarring angles.
Time may have taken the edge off the film's framework, but the horror element is as sharp as ever: blood flows in mighty geysers, limbs are detached, and household appliances are employed as weapons in a manner that would have left the BBFC quaking in the 1980s. For a multiplex film, this is extraordinarily strong stuff, from gratuitous and repeated eye damage to the bifurcation of tongues; one late instance of bloodletting even earned a ripple of applause for its sheer nastiness.
It could be argued, however, that Alvarez skips over the character introductions too quickly. The five central characters are barely sketched in, and broadly defined by their job titles - bespectacled school teacher, nurse, and so on - and even by horror standards, their actions are often downright illogical. But then again, the script - which Alvarez co-wrote with Rodo Sayagues and Diablo Cody - seldom takes itself seriously, and although it's less pointedly funny than, say, Cabin In The Woods, it shares some of Raimi's sly, rictus-grin humour. Like Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn, there's a blackly comic atmosphere as the blood begins to flow, and when characters shriek things like "My God, what's happened to her eyes?", it's clear that this is a remake intended to amuse as well as horrify.
In terms of acting, Shiloh Fernandez is handsome and stoic, but lacks Bruce Campbell's screen presence, while Jane Levy puts a considerable amount of energy into a nightmarish role that has her constantly covered in goo, mud and prosthetics. Lou Taylor Pucci leaves the strongest impression as the harebrained teacher Eric, but even he struggles to make himself heard from beneath the fury of Alvarez's direction and Roque Baños' honking (and very effective) soundtrack.
The actors, therefore, come a distant second to the true star of the picture: the Evil Dead title, and all the iconography that comes with it, from demonic figures straining at chained basement hatches to forbidden books full of unholy scrawls. At its worst, the new Evil Dead does little more than stir these elements around, with memorable scenes from the first film played out in a different order. But at its best, new Evil Dead sweeps along on its own crazy momentum, and the last half an hour is a joyously nasty exercise in gruesome horror.
Evil Dead isn't the equal of its 80s counterpart, and neither is it "The most terrifying film you will ever experience" as its tagline disingenuously suggests. Instead, it's a ghost train ride; its events are easy to predict, but its commitment to blackly comic, riotous gore makes for an often thrilling tribute to the classic original.
Oh, and be sure to hang around after the credits for a fun parting shot.
Evil Dead is out in UK cinemas on the 19th April.
Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.




Disqus - noscript
3 out of 5, meaning average then.
Before they even started their first day of filming, I could have told you it was going to be average.
All remakes are. And trying to out do the classic original? Was never going to happen.
Let this be a lesson to you Hollywood, just STOP making remakes now!!!!!!
If there's money to be made - with as little work as possible - they'll keep on making remakes.
DoG seem to be fairly kind with their movie reviews, can see this getting slated in more ruthless quarters. Hollywood will keep churning out remakes until people stop paying to go watch them.
People should only remake movies that were originally terrible but had potential to be good. Otherwise, people might actually be excited for remakes.
I agree, and I don't agree.
If someone has made a 'bad' film, why would we want to see it remade?
Name one 'bad' film that has been remade and actually been good?
I know. But this is what baffles me. WHO IS ACTUALLY PAYING MONEY TO SEE THESE REMAKES?
That is what I do not get. How are Hollywood making money from all these lame poor excuses for films.
Dredd... in a sense..
Well played. But it was more of a re-boot than a re-make.
And I personally do not think it was 'bad', it was just a very 1990's action film interpretation!
I was surprised Wesley Snipes didn't pop up somewhere.
You should read more reviews, most places are giving it a 4/5...4.5/5 etc. its far from average.
Really looking forward to this. Not expecting it to even come close to Raimi's film, but a bit of splattery fun is rarely a bad thing.
Well, for me, it was baaaaaaadd!!
Ok, Casino Royale
The Fly and The Blob!!! and people forget but the 1981 Thing was a remake
Ben Hur and The Wizard of Oz. Probably. Not that I've seen the originals.
I saw this a couple of nights ago and thought it was pretty good. I had gone into it thinking it might be crap but actually really enjoyed it. There weren't loads of huge scares, but they were in there and it did get quite tense at times (mostly because people kept making monumentally stupid decisions). Also when the action and gore started it didn't really let up for a second. Apart from a few funny lines, the humor of the original Evil Dead films is mostly absent but without Bruce Campbell I think that is a good thing. Yes, the characterisation wasn't great but it wasn't in the originals either so I don't think I can hold that against it. I only wish I hadn't rushed out at the end as totally missed the post credits bit, whatever that was.
Yes, Hollywood. Stop making films with a licence to print money. Shame on you. Anybody would think you were running a business.
As much as I love the first Evil Dead it was no masterpiece (and Rami pretty much remade it himself in Evil Dead II) so I'm all for this remake/reboot especially as Rami himself was overseeing things.
Also with remake fever in Hollywood I think the Horror genre has gotten some of the best remakes out there -Texas Chainsaw Massacre,Hills Have Eyes and even Friday the 13th (mostly) and this looks to be on par with those (I'm not saying they are better than the originals, they're not but rank a lot higher than many of the sequels from each franchise)
One of the best films of all time- The Maltese Falcon was the third version of the story. I would argue that the Manchurian Candidate and Ocean's Eleven were very well polished updates, particularly the latter as the original is fairly dull. Evil Dead 2 was a semi sequel as much as it was a remake of the first entry. Fast and the Furious is pretty much a remake of Point Break, story is identical.
Why are new versions of old stories only acceptable in the medium of theatre? Why do idiots bitch about remakes and then happily go and watch the the 22nd remake of From Russia With Love(Skyfall)? The success of Die Hard 5(despite the worst word of mouth possible)proves when faced with original material, many audiences balk and go for familiar ground.
Yawn, Evil Retread. . .
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels!