The Evil Dead

I am going to be reviewing the original Evil Dead film.

I saw the original Evil Dead on Chiller a few years back, and liked it, but just recently re-watched it, and must say simply what could be a controversial opinion to some, since this is seen by many as a true gem in 80's horror.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Hellraiser, and Child's Play were all great films, but I wouldn't include The Evil Dead as one of them.

I just didn't think it was that well done of a film. While the sequels were impressive, I found the performances to be mediocre at best. And while the great Bruce Campbell was particularly good in its sequels where he became the Ash we all know and love, I didn't find his performance to be all that good in particular.

I simply did not believe in anything he did in this film. I didn't believe him when he was afraid. I didn't believe that he loved his girlfriend. I hardly believed in anything that he did. And while the film had an 80's charm to it, it couldn't salvage itself from mediocrity.

The make-up was odd at times (it like they just slapped it on and called it good at times). you could also see the actresses finger in one scene where it broke out of the cover of the make up glove, or whatever. And the face that is supposedly on the cover of The Book of the Dead looked like one big lump. It didn't look like a face at all!

The performances by the women, however were good, especially from the one that was raped by the trees. I was convinced from her performance. I found the women in this film to be good (at least she was), but some of the lines from the other male character were delivered quite poorly.

When it was over, I thought, "This is supposed to be a great horror film? I didn't find it to be great at all." I did however find it to be overrated, and I must say that the remake is far superior than the original in performances (a stellar performance given by Jane Levy), horror, and effects.

I must say, Army of Darkness was a lot better, but I've still yet to see Evil Dead II, but I think it will be a far better sequel than the original.

1981, shoestring budget, amateur actors, fake shemps galore... what exactly were you expecting out of it?

And to compare the original and the remake is like comparing apples and oranges. And the second film actually makes it so watching the first film is basically unnecessary, the second film starts with a re-written, shorter version, a summary almost of the first film before making it's way into actual Evil Dead II territory. And as much as I love AoD, it's like a comedy, fantasy, horror hybrid, Evil Dead is a horror film. So you must prefer comedy, fantasy, horror hybrids over horror films.

__________________

I would put The Evil Dead ahead of all the movies you mentioned. I'm not a fan of the sequels and I hated the remake.

If something isn't that good, it isn't that good- no matter what the budget. And I personally thought Army of Darkness was brilliant with all their one liners. The Blair Witch Project had an incredibly low low budget, but I found that to be very well done, and very scary.

I don't prefer comedy, fantasy and horror hybrids over horror films. I just don't view this particular horror film as a winner. There's probably horror films you don't like that are considered classics.

I've heard of how great it was, but it was really lacking. Like you said amateur actors.
And I say amateur actors oftentimes make for an amateur movie, and I say in this case, it was definitely amateur.

I liked the remake alright, but don't consider it superior to the original. It's worth noting that it can afford to have better performances and effects by virtue of having a greater budget due to trading off the original's strong reputation.

Others have said it, but yeah, Army of Darkness is quite far removed from the original in terms of tone and approach. Evil Dead II sort of bridges the gap between the two in that it is more deliberately comedic than the original but not quite as comedic as Army of Darkness. Can't imagine what you'd make of it, though. That being said, you'd think a sequel would be 100% guaranteed to be a better sequel than an original film.

Yeah, but how does something being amateur automatically make it bad? You hold up The Blair Witch Project as an example of a well-done low-budget horror, but can you really say that the actors in it are any less amateur than the ones in The Evil Dead?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

You are right. The remake had a higher budget and could afford better performances. And with out the original, there would be no remake.

I'm going to watch Evil Dead II tonight. I'm sure it'll be good.

No, being amateur doesn't automatically make something bad- not at all. It can make something bad oftentimes (but not all the time). The lack of acting skills can be very charming because it brings a more innocence to the characters. Take Friday the 13th for example. It had that 80's charm. Evil Dead had it to, but I think it can sometimes hinder a movie when this happens. Though the people who played the evil dead did a great job portraying something that was nutso psycho.

I actually thought The Blair Witch Project had fairly good acting. I felt what the characters were going through. It seemed real to me. And people mistook it for being real as well.

That's a dumb way to loose credibility that early.

Also, obviously Evil Dead II will be a far better sequel than the original, since the original has no way of ever being a better sequel than anything or even be a sequel for starters, so there's that...

Anyways, jokes aside but keeping the laughs, your criticism comes across as pretty laughable and weak to me. You criticize an extremely low budget amature picture for its (in my opinion extremely impressive) make-up effects? They had almost no money and that chick in the basement still scares me. And then you compare the movie to Boring Witch? Why don't you show me where all that blood and gore is then? Oh yeah, that's right, it doesn't have any. Blair Witch follows a formula that basically costs whatever the film rolls costs to make the damn movie.

When I read this post....

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Sequel...movie...I see it now.

Anyways Halloween had a budget of $300,000. Friday the 13th had a budget of $550,000. While both had effects (but not as many as Evil Dead), I find both to be better than Evil Dead. Some scenes in Evil Dead were odd, and tended to go a bit long on the gory sequences, and spitting white stuff, and making noise. It wasn't scary though it tried to be. And all three films were incredibly low budget. I just personally didn't find Evil Dead as captivating as the other two.

I find Blair Witch Project to be a fascinating film. But it depends on your taste. If you don't like it, you don't like it, which is okay. I happened to love it, and saw something that was quite revolutionary in fact that started the whole found footage craze. If adjusted to inflation Blair Witch would make over $230 million in the U.S. Evil Dead would make just over $6 million. Evil Dead isn't even on Blair Witches radar. It may be seen as better by many, but money wise it isn't even close. Blair Witch was a phenomenon. Evil Dead is a cult classic.

P.S. The chick in the basement was scary. I agree with you.

Did it though?

It certainly wasn't the first movie to do this, watch Cannibal Holocaust for a similar experience. Also, I don't recall many found footage style films coming out after Blair Witch. To me it seemed like a one-off. So what really kick started this found footage trend? Blair Witch came out in 1999, but [REC] and Paranormal Activity didn't come out until 2007. I would point to those two films as the kick start to the current trend of found footage films.

Did Donner's Superman from 1978 start the whole Superhero craze? I don't think so. It was a success, I'd point to Singer's X-Men from 2000 because it falls in line with the current state of films. I hope you see the correlation I'm going for here. Blair Witch was indeed before the trend, but it didn't 'start' the trend.


I'd also point to Evil Dead having a longer lasting legacy than Blair Witch. Sure it made a boatload of money, but when they decided to do a sequel, it abandoned the found footage gimmick and the film actually bombed at the box office. Why was the film successful in the first place? Was it the marketing? I remember people thinking it was REAL. It made some money and that was it. Evil Dead had a huge influence on the genre and filmmakers today. It launched a directors career who went on the make Spider-Man. I would take those elements over a few dollars, any day of the week.

But let's crack down on some numbers. Evil Dead had to fight being banned in a lot of places, had to fight being slapped with an X rating and was released in 128 theaters.

Blair Witch had a theatre count of 2,538 theaters.

I think I see a difference there.

I see what you're saying. But maybe Blair Witch was like X-Men, and Cannibal Holocaust was like Superman.

I agree that Evil Dead has a longer lasting legacy then Blair Witch. And you make a very good point on the marketing of Blair Witch, and Evil Dead was very influential.

I didn't know it opened to 128 theaters. I guess you learn something new every day. Though we have yet to see if it would have reached Blair Witch numbers.

Army of Darkness opened up to over 1000 theaters and made over $11 million in 1992, which would be over $20 million adjusted. Its sequel wouldn't have reached that even with increased theaters, which leads me to believe that the numbers wouldn't even dent Blair Witches.

Evil Dead might have made over $120 million adjusted if I were to do the math if Evil Dead's numbers were increased to Blair Witches. That's substantially less then Blair Witch.

its a bit unfair to look at a 35 year old film by today's standards . today the special effects are much more advanced and overall technology is vastly improved .

anyway , this thread prompted my to see the movie for my first time ever . 30 years ago when i was a kid , a boy had challenged me to see the movie in a cemetery in the dead of the night . i had accepted the challenge , but there was the problem of arranging a video player and TV in the middle of a cemetery . so it never happened .

finally i saw the movie after reading this thread . and i thought that i really should have seen it 30 years ago---cemetery or no cemetery , i should have seen it at home at least . for i would have surely enjoyed it at that time ; would have got appropriately scared and lost my sleep even .

today when i saw it , i was laughing at the childishness of some scenes like the women stupidly laughing and their garish makeup when they are possessed . no jolts hit me ( like they do in today's horror movies ) and i didn't feel scared at all . i was more bothered about not waking others in my house by all the screams emanating from the speakers because i was seeing it in the dead of the night---yeah , i did keep that part of the promise i made to my friend ( i have lost contact with him ) , even though it was in my home that i saw the film not a cemetery .