First movie I've seen in theaters in awhile.  It had everything.  Darnell yelling "No girl, don't go in there!"  Darnell's girlfriend taking a phone call.  A 400 pound guy next to me that sounded like he just finished a marathon.  A guy who farted and yelled "That was the ghost!"  I thought about asking for a voucher for a later showing, but there's no reason to believe it'd be any better.

The reviewer is wrong. The original Evil Dead was not scary. At all. It wasn't scary when I saw it as a kid in the 80s and it's not scary today.

Don't get me wrong. I like all three. But it wasn't scary. And it just got less and less scary the longer the movie went on.

Other than that:

Lionel Mandrake: Man I cannot wait to see that movie...on DVD

I love how most of the reviews I've read praise the lack of CGI.  Take note, Hollywood!

I think the main issue with this movie is that considering they are rebooting/remaking a memorable horror film, this new version is surprisingly generic.   The first one was jam packed with details and bits that compelled you to watch, even if it was all super low budget.   This new one has 'big' moments but none of the kind of craftsmanship that fills the inbetween times with anything clever.

I keep hearing the same things in the reviews: On the negative side, it's neither scary nor smart, nobody cares about any characters one way or the other, and it has no heart.  On the positive side, there's lots of blood.

Pass.  I'd rather watch the originals again.

LesserEvil: So he doesn't mention that they are already all dead, and the whole story takes place in purgatory?

Im going to assume thats the bit after the credits you just ruined for me. Cocksucker.

Bruce Campbell.

That is all.

Trollin4Colon: LesserEvil: So he doesn't mention that they are already all dead, and the whole story takes place in purgatory?

Im going to assume thats the bit after the credits you just ruined for me. Cocksucker.

No, that's not what's after the credits.  He's ok.

Trollin4Colon: LesserEvil: So he doesn't mention that they are already all dead, and the whole story takes place in purgatory?

Im going to assume thats the bit after the credits you just ruined for me. Cocksucker.

Don't worry, that was completely pulled out of his ass. That is not indicated anywhere, at all.

I saw it on Friday with my girlfriend.
My opinion was "good, not great" but then the finale happened, which I thought was very close in spirit to the original,over the top and horribly hilarious.
It's worth a watch, but it's nothing groundbreaking. It did manage to pay homage to the original without copying it completely and the lack of cgi is definitely a plus!

/Got some weird looks when I laughed like hell during the finale.
//Credits play the tape recording from the original
///Slashies

Mugato: Trollin4Colon: LesserEvil: So he doesn't mention that they are already all dead, and the whole story takes place in purgatory?

Im going to assume thats the bit after the credits you just ruined for me. Cocksucker.

I think he's talking about L O S T.

Although that's not what happened in Lost either.  That only applied to the "alternate timeline" in season 6

lol my bad, Ive been so almost burned by game of thrones thread i assumed the worst.

Was glad to see a cameo by one of the most beloved characters that appeared in all 3 movies of the original trilogy.

Plenty of visual references to the original films.  Overall, if you are a fan, you will enjoy it.

Farty McPooPants: Was glad to see a cameo by one of the most beloved characters that appeared in all 3 movies of the original trilogy.

Plenty of visual references to the original films.  Overall, if you are a fan, you will enjoy it.

/is a fan
//enjoyed it
///didn't find out about the post end credits cameo until after the fact
////guess that means I'll be going to go see it again

skozlaw: The reviewer is wrong. The original Evil Dead was not scary. At all. It wasn't scary when I saw it as a kid in the 80s and it's not scary today.

Don't get me wrong. I like all three. But it wasn't scary. And it just got less and less scary the longer the movie went on.

Other than that:

Lionel Mandrake: Man I cannot wait to see that movie...on DVD

If you love, embrace or are just plain okay with the woods, then understandable. At least that's why it tended to be so dread-inducing to me the first few times I watched it.

****SPOILER ALERT****

It sucked

That is a spot on review. Saw it last friday and it was meh at best. If anything, it will make you Evil Dead 2 all the more funnier the next time you watch it.

Is anyone else constantly shocked by how f**king lame i-mockery is? I mean, WHAR THE JOKES? WHAR?

You call yourselves i-MOCKERY. And then you deliver a straight, bland review of a ridiculous horror movie.

SMOKE MORE POT, ASSH*TS. Do some acid, ffs. Anything to not write a straight review of an evil dead remake. Jesus christ.

This review falls into the same trap that most reviews have. It reviews the movie in the shadow of the originals and complains that it isn't groundbreaking. Well duh. Neither was the original Evil Dead- at least intentionally. That movie was so camp that it just  happened to become a cult phenomenon, it's really not that good a move (don't get me wrong, I love it). It's kind of unfair to this remake, since 1. they clearly stated they were going in a different direction 2. the only reason Sam Raimi didn't make THIS movie was because he didn't have a budget.

As for the review, I think he was spot on with the practical effects. The use of practical effects not only looks better, but because the actors/actresses have to actually interact with the blood/guts/etc. I feel we got a much more visceral performance, and it really helped with the mood. I disagree with this review, in that I think that the director did a good job creating atmosphere and tension. While I generally hate scenes that attempt to make you "jump", I thought they were well done and they even surprised me once. Also, the cinematography was exceptionally well done for a horror movie. Not only were some of the outdoor shots beautifully spooky, they never overly focused on some of the gorier parts (combined with changing lighting) giving a much more nuanced view and having a much more dramatic effect (still plenty of gore, to be sure, this movie is certainly not for the squeamish). This is the difference between a good horror movie and the torture-porn crap they have been shilling for years- the gore isn't the focal point if the movie, just something that occurs as a result of the situation in the movie. For someone like myself, who is not opposed to gore but doesn't really seek it either, it was nice that it was simply an ancillary aspect to the movie.

The movie review does make another good point, there is limited character development. I think a lot of reviews have unfairly blamed the actors/actresses for poor performances when really they didn't have a lot of range to work with. Now, to be clear, there was much more character development than your average summer blockbuster/horror movie/ etc., but compared to  good movies, it was somewhat lacking. (Incidentally, I think that is something that also needs to be pointed out- this movie was so well done that it is really being compared to a class of movies generally far above your average horror review.) For instance, the girlfriend has almost no dialogue and pretty much disappears until it's time to add her to the body count. There were a couple of sub-plots that could have been expanded on a little more as well. However, two things should be pointed out about this. First, the way the movie is structured, circumstances change very quickly- so it makes sense that they were not able to expand these subplots. Second, at least by not expanding on them they didn't ruin the atmosphere with maudlin sentimentality. While I wish character development went a little farther, I'm glad that the director aired on the side of caution and let your imagination fill in parts of the backstory, rather than do it for you and run the risk of creating generic horror-movie characters.

I realize this is fark and no one cares, so I'll wrap it up. I thought the movie was great (the first good horror remake since Dawn of the Dead 2000) and I think there are enough homages that hardcore Evil Dead fans will be amused. This is especially nice because they did so in such a way as to make you notice, without making you think it is the same movie. I think most horror fans will enjoy it and that the casual viewer looking for a horror fix will also be able to enjoy it. Definitely worth the watch.

I saw it. Not sure you could spoil it. It's pretty much gore, and more gore. It was good though.

Evil Dead was a groundbreaking film. There was noting accidental about it at all. The filmmaker set out to make that exact movie. The budget just made it a bit easier for them.

I like redlettermedia's take on it: it's a movie directed by some guy starring some people. Not bad, but very generic.

I'm a little late to this party, but yeah... Saw it on Saturday. Felt exactly the same as the reviewer. Of course, going to one of the theatres that serves beer in town made it all a little bit more enjoyable. Not unhappy I saw it, no desire to see it again any time soon... and yes... Groovy.