Evil Dead or Evil Dread?

NOTE: Normally, I do not review films that are so readily available as it is not part of the original intent of this blog.  However, I felt compelled to write this review.  It won't happen again.

I don't get to see many new movies that move me.  Call me a cynic, but most of the films that have come out lately have been rehashes, sequels, and prequels to films that were already good in their own right, but for some reason the big kids in Hollywood think it's a better idea to throw some modern glitter on them repackage and sell to the A.D.D. generation.  Why mince words, it's what we've become.  We're so busy posting on facebook and twitter, being constantly updated about what's going on miles apart that we've forgotten what it's like to read a newspaper in the morning or sip a cup of coffee while looking at life outside the windows.  I'm guilty of this behavior.  I think we all are at this point, so let's just jump right in and allow me to say that the Evil Dead remake, while filled with many things that I love about horror films is a continuing example of everything that is wrong with the Hollywood studios right now.

"But-but-but," you may be protesting right now.  "Isn't it a little harsh to say that THIS is everything wrong with Hollywood?"  No.  I don't think that's too harsh, but before I explain why, let me say that I did have a bit of fun watching this film.

"Wait a minute, didn't you just say-"

Yes.  I went into the film with low expectations.  I had eaten a delicious meal with some friends and then we drove off to Westwood Village where we bought our tickets and pricey concessions and took our seats in a wonderfully old single screen theater (complete with red velvet curtain), sat down and immediately took notice of the much YOUNGER audience surrounding us, complete with cellphones, loud voices, etc.

This also didn't really bother me, it's to be expected of the UCLA area.  So let's dive into it.  I went in with low expectations, because I'm an ardent fan of Evil Dead 2.  I've always been of the opinion that while I can respect Evil Dead (the original) for what it started off, that the sequel was a perfect blend of pulse pounding rhythm, creative story telling, horrific gore, and hilarious slapstick camp.  However, I knew that this was a remake of the first film so I accepted the fact that it couldn't really be what I was hoping for and leaned back in my chair to see how it would unfold.

The first big mistake the film made was by attempting to make an emotional back story about the two leads for the audience to care about them.  Mia and David (the brother and sister) had a crazy mom, David left Mia to take care of her while he went off to Chicago, she got hooked on Heroin from the stress of it all, she's trying to quit via isolation and cold turkey deprivation, everyone has mixed feelings because of their past BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, enough.  This is not creative storytelling in the slightest, it's just formulaic plot building coupled with bad writing.

Furthermore, the audience is at this movie for one thing and one thing only, to see 4 out of 5 teenagers (or 20 somethings in this case) accidentally unleash an evil upon themselves and get picked off one by one in increasingly creative ways.  So why are we wasting time with this over used back story?  You know how long it took until Ash's sister gets taken by a tree in the original?  Not as long as it took them to discover the "Book" in the remake.

While I should be applauding the effort to create anything outside what has become the norm of modern horror conventions this is the one place where I say: No.  Stick to the original.  Add poorly written dialogue, 4 rather wooden terrible actors, and the only thing left is the production value and the gore, which THANKFULLY, lived up to my expectations.

Jane Levy, ironically, was the only actor that I cared about seeing on screen, because she was capable of being subtle among a bunch of future soap opera stars and day time TV movie actors, when she's not being a crazy possessed demon creature or portraying the horrifying nature of quitting heroin cold.  The rest of the film manages to pander in semi-subtle ways to fans of the original while amping the pace up to 200mph for the new which brings us to the carnage at last.  The kind of carnage that should have started about 10 minutes into the film instead of the junior high "Where were you when we needed you?" dialogue that had me stifling laughter.

I like Diablo Cody, but she, like anyone else, is not infallible.  The same way that box office numbers only tell you just how easy it is to trick people into buying a movie ticket, or conversely, just how many people want to see some creative slaughtering in a safe environment.  So, okay, I liked the editing, I liked the gore, and there were a few times I felt genuinely anxious.  Why am I blasting this movie as hard as I am?

Ultimately, Evil Dead has taught us that remakes/re-imaginings/sequels/prequels will continue to flow from Hollywood rather than new and creative ideas from new and creative people like the bloody vomit in the above picture, right into our faces.  Some of my friends will tell me: Why can't you just shut that off and have some fun with the movie?  I need to remind you, I did have a little fun, I was laughing quite a bit through the film, but that doesn't make it good and that doesn't make the implications of it's success in the box office any brighter for the future of the Horror Genre.  Quite the opposite, it's spelling out a death toll to creative story writing and reminding us that all you need is good make up, editing, and a lot of fake blood.

"Aren't you contradicting yourself?"  A little bit, but life is built on contradiction.  Evil Dead is an escape film. The problem is that while I escaped during the viewing, I came back to reality and realized that I could have just watched the original and enjoyed it just as much, if not more.  Taste is subjective and THIS Evil Dead just didn't taste good.