Evil Dead: Chin-less Edition

I had a difficult movie watching experience ahead of me when the film began.  I was watching it not only as an avid fan of the original trilogy, but also as someone who "reviews" movies, as well as trying to separate myself from comparing every second to it's predecessor.  Here's why the original Evil Dead trilogy works so damn well: it's one of the most original horror movies ever made.  It's equal parts terrifying and hilarious.  Bruce Campbell brings a certain campiness to the film, while adding to the fun and terror sure to be had while watching it.  The way the first Evil Dead came about was a group of film students in the 70s made a horror movie, which to this day, is still one of the bloodiest movies I've ever seen.  It was incredibly low budget and every shot was done with practical means.  No CGI, no expensive locations, just a cabin in the middle of the woods and a few dedicated budding filmmakers.  It was directed by Sam Raimi (Spider-Man, Oz, Drag Me To Hell) who luckily, in college, was friends with aspiring actor Bruce Campbell.  The film was made, distributed, developed a cult following and became a hit.  So, what was the next logical step?  Well, to make the sequel, of course.  For any other filmmaker this might mean a story following up what happened to it's survivor.  But no.  If you're given a way bigger budget and a studio backing, why not try to make your film... again... but better?  That's exactly what happened.  So, Evil Dead 2 essentially remade the first film, with more money and better *cough* 80s effects for the first thirty minutes or so, then goes off on a completely separate, yet equally great and extremely [darkly] hilarious tangent.  To this day, Evil Dead 2 probably has one of the biggest cult followings of all time.  And this is the film that rocketed Bruce Campbell to B-movie stardom.  Then came the third and final film of the trilogy: Army of Darkness which is so ridiculous, to explain the plot would not only do it no justice, but might turn a few doubters away.  However, let me wholeheartedly state that the Evil Dead trilogy is one of my favorite trilogies of all time.

So, how does the remake stack up?  It's different.  I'll say that right off the bat.  Those looking for a straight up remake may be left a little disappointed.  The film is essentially humorless, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Bruce Campbell's style of humor is definitely one-of-a-kind and not something a filmmaker should try to replicate.  Chances are that if the director had attempted to recreate the Ash character from the original three, the film would've suffered for it as its fans would long for Campbell's excellence.  So, what do you do when you don't have your staple character?  Try something new.  And new they did.  Instead of the now tired plot of five friends head to a desolate cabin to party and bang, end up summoning demons by reading out of the Book of the Dead and all end up being possessed and killed plotline... a new idea has emerged.  Now, the story revolves around four friends heading to their old cabin to help other friend Mia detox from her addiction to what appears to be heroin.  It ends up being the gnarliest Intervention of all time.  While the others think her craziness and paranoia have to do with her detoxing, it's really because some hippy nerd decided it would be a good idea to read from a book they found in the basement wrapped in barbed wire and surrounded by dead hanging cats.  Damn hippies.

What I respect about this version is that the filmmakers made it their own.  They didn't try to duplicate the magic of the original, they made their own magic.  They went for straight horror and ultra-gore and, sort of, strayed from the comedic elements of the film.  And while we didn't get any of this:

 And this certainly never happened in the new one:

It's probably for the best.  I'm not actually sure anyone in today's era would appreciate the kind of absurd, dark physical comedy that made the originals classic.  It was bittersweet because while I was enjoying the film, every time a scene would approach that I knew was going to happen, I longed for the original.  But, then I also realized that in this realm of Evil Dead, if Mia's hand became possessed and she chopped it off and it started crawling around trying to attack her, I think the movie would be utterly laughed at (and not in the way intended).  So, for once I can actually praise a studio and writers for doing something smart this year.  They realized what's "in" right now and what's not going to fly with young audiences.  I know that the packed midnight showing theater I was in, and by the reactions from the crowd, that I was probably the 1% in there that had actually even seen the original trilogy.  I'm not even sure how many viewers of the demographic this movie is targeted to even know of the original's existence.  

For those who haven't seen the original (which means I'm probably talking to all of you) the film will probably be exactly what you are looking for.  It's got a few jumps, it's incredibly creepy, and there's more blood and gore in it than I've ever seen in a theater.  But, for those lucky few who have had the honor and privilege of watching the first, don't worry, what it lacks in campiness and absurd dark humor, it makes up for in buckets of blood and plenty of homages to the original.  There's nods to almost everything significant in both Evil Dead 1 and 2: the chainsaw, the severed hand, the tree-rape (yes, you read that correctly), all of it, sadly, is sans the comedic elements that made the originals great.  

The moral of the story is, first off: go get the original three and watch them back to back to back before seeing this version.  Get ready to scream, cringe, and laugh yourself stupid.  Get to love them and appreciate them because, yeah, they don't have the best effects.  In fact, they're downright cheesy.  But, they're inventive.  Something I haven't seen since.  And when there's all the technology in the world right now, I yearned for the cheap make-up and 70s/80s effects, because while this one was WAY more realistic looking (which did add to the terror of the film) the originals were able to effectively blend camp and horror into its own genre that has yet to be repeated.  And while it sounds like I'm complaining, I'm really not.  Like I said, the filmmakers made the right decision.  Viewers would walk right out of the theater if they saw the effects of the originals.  But, what the originals lack in budget, they made up for in creativity.  So, honestly, which one do you prefer:

                       OR
                                                  

                               OR

For what it had to become to adapt to a new generation, Evil Dead succeeds.  It's also good enough to stand alone on it's own.  But, if you're like me, then it's going to be difficult to separate yourself from wanting the ambiance of the first film.  You long for one over-acted brilliantly voiced line from the man with the golden chin.  You will wish for one reference to a "boomstick".  But, you'll accept the fact that in the wrong hands this movie could've been way worse.  At the very least, you'll be able to see that the filmmakers share the same love for the originals as many of those out there.  It's definitely worth a look.

B