Cannes Film Festival 2013

So with a director finally attached, is the new 'Evil Dead' a sequel or a remake?

Sam Raimi's still involved, but will there be room for The Chin?

<p>Seriously... if you don't have this goofball running around cutting off his limbs and the limbs of others, how can you call it an 'Evil Dead' movie?</p>

Seriously... if you don't have this goofball running around cutting off his limbs and the limbs of others, how can you call it an 'Evil Dead' movie?

Credit: DEG

I'll be honest… I don't really want an "Evil Dead" sequel or a remake, and no matter what you think you want, I'm willing to bet you don't either.

Sure, I know the mere mention of more "Evil Dead" of any sort is a guaranteed draw for traffic, but at some point, fandom's going to have to start to absorb some hard lessons and really reconsider what it is they demand from studios.  

I'm going to offer you two benchmarks to keep in mind as you consider the idea of a return to "Evil Dead."  First, I want you to consider the remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre."  And then, I want you to consider "Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull."

And then I want to you admit to yourself, even if it's difficult, that the odds are strong that any return to "Evil Dead" is going to end in tears.

I know there are those of you out there who actually like Nispel's "Chainsaw" remake.  There is a word for people who like that film, and that word is "wrong."  I'm not even sure how anyone can make it through that thing more than once, but compared to the original by Tobe Hooper?  It's unconscionable to me that people give that movie a pass when the blueprint was so crystal clear.  Hooper's film isn't just one of the great horror films of the '70s, it's one of the great American indie films of all time.  It is a film that embraces all the things that could be limitations and turns them into distinguishing features.  It is unbelievably low-budget, but that makes it feel like a snuff film.  There's a dirty, nasty reality to the film that makes it more of a persuasive nightmare than horror films a thousand times more slick and polished.  Nispel's film is all about phony art direction and pretty twentysomethings.  It's hollow and stupid and a direct violation of what makes the original matter.

The original "Evil Dead" is about as unpolished as the original "Chainsaw," and like that film, it embraces its budget as a virtue.  That film feels handmade, and there is an energy to it that which comes from hunger, from chasing the high of pure invention, and it comes through loud and clear when you watch it.  The same is true of "Evil Dead 2," as well, which was still a fairly low-budget affair.  Those films may have a huge reputation now, but when they were released to theaters, they were true cult items, word of mouth movies that never had a chance against studio movies.  They only became popular over time, thanks to home video.  They were films that people got to discover for themselves or that were passed along, friend to friend.  I may not love "Army Of Darkness" in the same way, but at least there are things to like about it.  For me, it's too jokey, a push too far in the wrong direction for the series.  And looking at "Army Of Darkness" now, with its sensibilities toned way down in an effort (ultimately futile) to earn a PG-13 for a sequel to a film that couldn't even get an MPAA rating.

From a pure business standpoint, it makes perfect sense for Sam Raimi and his Ghost House Pictures to get back into "Evil Dead."  This is where Raimi got his start, and it's also where Bruce Campbell began his ascent into Cult Movie God status.  But if those guys get together now to make an "Evil Dead" movie with Campbell reprising his role as Ash, I am truly afraid of that law of diminishing returns kicking in, and "Army Of Darkness" felt to me like an indicator of which way things were headed.  I don't just want Bruce Campbell firing a shotgun and bellowing variations on "Groovy!"  That sounds awful to me.  I don't want them to have to struggle to strike a tone that was sort of a thrilling accident the first few times around.  I really liked "Drag Me To Hell," and there were definitely signs in that film that Raimi is still capable of this sort of mayhem, but I don't believe for a second that Columbia's going to take Raimi off the leash and tell him to make an unbridled "Evil Dead 4."  Ever.

That's not really a concern, though, because I don't think this film that we're hearing about is a sequel.  I think it's pretty much a straight-up remake.  I think there's a chance there are elements which tie this to the earlier stories, but more in the sense that the mythology is the same between the original few films and this new one, which will now apparently be directed by Fede Alvarez, who first gained attention last year with this short film, called "Panic Attack!":

There's a reason people have been reluctant to label this new film a straight remake or a direct sequel.  It's something in-between, I'm betting, building on what's come before but without really trying to replace it.  And I want to believe.  I really do.  Sam Raimi, after all, is Sam Raimi.  And the guys at Ghost House aren't faceless bad guys out to ruin movies.  They're good guys who really do like horror movies.  Good intentions aren't what I doubt.  It's the sort of luck that allows something like "Evil Dead 2" to exist.  Going back to the well and expecting that sort of luck again... it's just asking a lot of anyone, no matter how good their intentions.

I'll say this... with Alvarez directing, this is going to be a very different animal in many ways than anything we've seen in the series before.  I'm not sure I believe that "Evil Dead" is a big commercial brand, but obviously Sony Pictures believes it, and obviously Ghost House believes it, and so they're going to do this thing.  They may even shoot at the same time as Sam Raimi is making "Oz The Great And Powerful" in Michigan, which would allow him some direct input.  Right now, it's the horror press paying the most attention to this one, which is why Bloody-Disgusting and Dread Central nailed this down instead of the trades.

I just can't help the feeling that an "Evil Dead" movie without Bruce Campbell as Ash is no "Evil Dead" movie, but at this point, even an "Evil Dead" movie with him might not be the real deal, either.

 

Whatever the case, we'll be paying attention, and we'll have more for you as the story develops.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Brett G.

    You know, I see many of the points you're trying to make (and I completely disagree with the notion of liking the TCM redux is "wrong"), but here's the thing: if people don't want a new Evil Dead, they don't have to have one. Just don't see it. Ignore it. Pretend like it doesn't exist.

    I know, I know, some people's job will prevent them from doing so, but if being "forced" to see a new Evil Dead is a problem, I'll gladly step in and take it. :)

    July 13, 2011 at 4:45AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    iamnickshfsn

    " ...So. Here we are. Now we're the old people who think the younger generation's music sounds like shit. Back in my day our music was better! Not this garbage the young 'un listen to. Warble warble warble!"

    I'm just as worried about an Evil Dead remake as you Drew-iarty, but come on, aren't you bagging on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake a little harshly? It could have been sooo much worse.

    July 13, 2011 at 5:57AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Nope. I think it's wretched. I don't understand how anyone can look at it and derive any pleasure from any aspect of it. I think it's plastic from frame one.

      July 13, 2011 at 6:13AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Logo Lou Completely agree, Drew. Wait... we're still talking about Transformers right?

      All the horror remakes have been complete misfire messes to me: Chainsaw, Halloween, Friday, Nightmare. Shameful really)

      July 13, 2011 at 8:27AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Mmorse "Now we're the old people who think the younger generation's music sounds like shit. Back in my day our music was better!"

      I don't know - that analogy doesn't really work for me. This is more like a modern band covering a classic song, and 9 times out of 10 that cover is a pale imitation of the original.

      July 13, 2011 at 1:19PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    JoeK

    I get and agree with the general premise here (this generation literally has nothing of its own culturally it seems) but the examples bug me a little.

    Skull never really had a chance imo. In the wake of the prequels the internet just wasn't going to allow it and its sensibilities were too foreign to younger moviegoers in the overall. Vern's review still rings truest for me of all reviews that I read at the time. It's a better movie than it is given credit for.

    I'd be much more standoffish on Evil Dead if other players were involved, or if it was some ridiculous attempt to wipe the slate clean and begin anew. Even so as products of their time I agree people would be better off being content with what we already have and instead look for something new.

    July 13, 2011 at 7:30AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Curtis

    Agree 100%. The Texas Chainsaw remake was o.k. but is completely disposable. It's really a shame that all these remakes are so damn crappy. Or maybe it's fitting that they suck.

    July 13, 2011 at 8:24AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Dustin Hiser

    Building on the (let's be honest) tenuous mythology and moving on from Ash would be the smartest way to do this. No one could ever play Ash again.

    My biggest question is what kind of tone are they going for? There's humor of the distinctly demented Sam Raimi variety (in between all the unintentional laughs in the first one, but for the most part, I'd say that movie plays it pretty straight. Evil Dead II is somewhere split right down the middle. Army of Darkness is whole hog comedy. So what for the new one? I'd love it if they could keep the mania and the darkly funny stuff, but ditched the live action looney tunes.

    As long as it feels like they're trying to do something dangerous with it again, I'll be happy.

    July 13, 2011 at 8:40AM EST Reply to Comment
  • A_monty_talkback_profile

    Monterey Jack

    I thought you liked Indy 4, Drew. Backpeddling...?

    July 13, 2011 at 10:31AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Dave Guhrlich

    Indy 4 is flawed, but I'm glad it was made. I'll be there opening night for Indy 5 or Evil Dead 4. Hell, I wish Roger Moore was still playing Bond at 90 yrs old!

    July 13, 2011 at 12:49PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Gholson

    I'll defend the TCM remake because it formally ended the glib, 90's post-Buffy, post-Scream self-referential stuff. The movie isn't great, but the people in it actually act AFRAID, which at the time, was a godsend.

    July 13, 2011 at 2:20PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Talk about setting the bar low.

      Horror fans are the abused wives of fandom. "Well, sure, 'Halloween Part 95' is awful, but at least there's a guy with a knife in it."

      July 13, 2011 at 4:43PM EST
  • Thumb_talkback_profile

    TimB

    I've always been in the minority of people who don't care a whole lot for "Army of Darkness." Sure, its cool to see Sam Raimi go hog-wild with his kitschy take on a big Three Stooges film, but its really the furthest thing from an "Evil Dead" film. "Dead by Dawn" strikes such a perfect balance for me... its never really 'comedic' so much as bugnuts fucking crazy, and that little bubble of bugnuts crazy fits Campbell/Ash soooo well. They swung too far on "Army of Darkness" and when I watch the film these days, I find myself rolling my eyes at certain parts.

    As far as a remake/sequel/whatever, it doesn't bother me one way or another. Of any film "trilogy" out there, the Evil Dead series has the flimsiest continuity EVER anyway... so whatever narrative approach they take for the next installment won't really shock me. I'd probably prefer a modern day take with Campbell as Ash, rather than re-casting, but whatever. That short film is gorgeous and I'll always support a talented amateur getting a shot at a big genre picture. Still, I wish Chan Wook Park would've accepted the offer to direct the remake back in 2004... that could've been one crazy beast of a picture.

    July 13, 2011 at 5:33PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Thumb_talkback_profile

    TimB

    I could debate the merits of the slew of horror remakes for days on end(I don't claim to be sane), and the TCM remake is definitely one of the pillars to be discussed. It is the complete antithesis of the original film; its gorgeous to look at, the cast is easy on the eyes, the violence is much less subtle, and any and all ambiguity is removed from the antagonists.

    However, I don't agree that it is, by definition, "wrong." Why? Because despite the original film being an exercise in a micro-budget helping the effectiveness in the film, I think that entire notion is undone with Hooper's very own sequel. "TCM 2" shows what Hooper would've done the first time around with a feature-sized budgets... its big, glossy, bombastic and comical with an A-list actor in the lead. The original TCM is purely a product of its budget, I think, and Hooper has proven that by never reaching that level of filmmaking ever again.

    If Hooper himself would've made the film differently based on budget, certainly Platinum Dunes weren't gonna go barebones and raw with their first big studio production. I'm not agreeing with their approach, but I certainly see where they were coming from. I just don't think a hardcore approach to the remake was ever in the cards.

    July 13, 2011 at 5:44PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Mark

    IJATKOTCS was flawed in some areas, but still beautifully made and wonderfully nostalgic. Certainly head and shoulders above most blockbusters these days. The opening 'Hound Dog' drag chase immediately took me back to the Spielberg/Lucas glory days. I'd rank it above 'Last Crusadew', which is just a lazy Raiders retread with Sallah and Brody reduced to parodies of their Raiders characters and Ford is just there to react to Connery's lame schtick. I'm glad they made Skull, even if few others are (though i'm prone to thinking that, along with the Star Wars prequels, it's only a relatively minor group of loudmouth online 'critics' that is sullying their reputation).

    July 14, 2011 at 9:13AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Paul S

    I wish Hollywood stop all these pointless remakes. I had a great time with Raimi's Drag Me To Hell. Raimi stated his case in the first 5 minutes that he was going to f**k with me, and boy did he!
    Try to keep it fresh & original, put a bit of time and effort in the writing, get some good actors and hopefully something good will happen.
    Easier said then done, I know, but it had to be said.

    July 14, 2011 at 12:52PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web