Was this shit really that bad?
Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell both seem to think it was a critical and commercial success, and they speak highly of it in their interviews.
>>63018820
It was good for what it was, but it wasn't what anyone wanted.
It was pretty good
>>63018853
in retrospect it felt more cruel than fun but that's popular now
It was pretty good, points for having black jessica alba.
>>63018820
It doesn't live up to the originals
It doesn't have a campy b movie feel, just a generic jumps scare shitter with a similar story
IMHO it's evil dead in name only
was this shit so bad?
the thing is my favorite movie, and i still havent seen this.it was both a commercial and critical failure
I liked it. Pretty sure most people on /tv/ did too.
The problem is, remakes aren't "cool" on /tv/. Even if they hadn't seen the original films newfriends will still hate on it just so they can fit in.
>>63018969
That one actually is pretty bad.
I liked the Evil Dead remake/reboot A LOT. More so than the original and Army of Darkness too. Doesn't reach Evil Dead 2 but it sure is an intense fucking ride, and the ending with the sirens and raining blood is just awesome.
It's got a lot more teeth than the original. Sure, a lot of it was gorier for the sake of trying to one-up the original, but that's not really a bad thing. It was presented as such and it delivered on that.
On the strength of that alone, its fucking fantastic.
>>63018994
Remakes that are done right are cool, most aren't done right.
Project elsewhere
No it was surprisingly very good and much better than 2 and army of darkness
>>63018969i like itbased Elizabeth Winstead
>>63019022
this.
i enjoyed it. but i feel it has no connection to either evil dead 2/army of darkness (continuation or prequel)
It was fun. It shat on whatever horror flicks were out at the time.
>>63018969
i enjoyed it
>>63018820
It was very average. The worst thing about it is that it doesn't feel like an Evil Dead movie, simply because it lacks that weirdness the original Deadites had. Also, the gore is realistic and non-CGIed but that wasn't what made Evil Dead good, it was how over the top it was.
>>63018915
Black jessica alba?
>>63019025
I'm not projecting I'm making an observation.
People are too critical of remakes and sequels, they should be judged on their own merit as opposed to constantly trying to stack them up against the original or the first in the series. If a movie is good, the impression it will leave on you won't be something that can be duplicated.
It was plenty of fun and it distanced itself enough from the original to prevent fans from being frustrated. Also the gore/practical effects were fantastic.
Mediocre tryhard gore and lacked the humor which was signature for the series.
Why didn't they pull the plug on this as soon as Cabin in the Woods came out? Why did they make this a straight tryhard gore movie with no humor in it?
>>63019102
Me too.
>>63019176
Are you really saying the remake isn't over the top?
>>63018969
It's pretty indistinguishable from the original in terms of quality.
>>63018820
Pretty cool comedy m8, that fucking hipster getting his shit rekt throughout the whole movie was so funny.Faggot deserved it for releasing the demons.
>>63018820
No, it was fine. Better than an average horror movie. If you have to have a cult classic remade, this is pretty much how you want it done.
>>63019405
>mediocre
>tryhard
>humor
You have no idea what you're talking about
Get out
>>63019405
Cabin in the woods was trash
>>63019405
I always felt like the first Evil Dead was trying to be a serious horror movie with camp which the remake did fine with as well.
>>63019102
It's an abomination. It's essentially a remake of Carpenter's movie, but it's set up as a prequel. It fails as both: there are continuity errors with the movie it's supposed to presage, and at the same time it feels like a pointless, soulless retread of that movie.
>>63019405
Bruce Campbell said in his autobiography that the reason Sam and him got into horror was because "that's where the money was" in the 70's
Neither of them were particularly interested in horror, both of them just wanted to make comedies like the Three Stooges, but some iconic filmmaker they met told them otherwise
Also I think it worked, because they only shelled out $17 mil (including marketing) for it, and it made $100 million.
>>63019405
The first movie didn't had humor.
>>63018820
It was pretty good, but it was on a weird border of pure horror and being fun. The gore was great and the effects were really well done.
It would have been much better if the deadites weren't literally mindless zombies.
>>63019580
>$17 mil
You're talking about the original Evil Dead? No way it was anywhere close to that.
>>63019615
Never mind. You meant the remake, sorry.
>>63018969
Be warned that all of the GOAT practical effects that were made for the movie were replaced with really poor CGI last minute because faggy teenager test audiences didn't like it.
Also it makes no sense continuity-wise, they made the Norwegian camp actually mostly American (which makes no sense why the survivors can't speak english to RJ and co.) and they show The Thing's "true" form constantly in the movie. It just straight up runs around non-disguised half the movie.
>>63018969
Yes, it had potential but the effects were bad. It boggles my mind because they got really good practical effect team and threw CGI over it and it ended up looking like a bad video game
>>63019428
Compared to the originals, it really isn't.
>>63019738
Compared to the original it DEFINITELY is. It should not be compared to Evil Dead 2.
>>63019682
original looks like a video game too, just playing on bad hardware. unless you think objects in real life move in choppy 5 fps
>>63018969
No it's fine apart from the shit with the cgi.
the film was literally torture porn
>that scene where the grudge girl slices her tongue and the camera stays on it for 50 seconds
that isn't scary it's just disgusting. this movie wasn't scary at all, and the remake itself was so unnecessary. if you don't have bruce campbell in a fucking evil dead movie, it's instantly a 5/10 at best.
>tfw most of you have never even seen the proper full uncut version
>>63018969
MEW was the only good thing about that movie
I enjoyed it for the most part.
The over the top gore and practical effects satisfied the fuck outta me, though the characters themselves felt a little boring.
Its like they were just.. there to die. Which itself is fine in a horror movie, but it kept the movie from being really great.
Also it was nice to see the molesting tree making a comeback.
I was worried that the current generation of whining, easily offended liberals would spook them into taking it out of the movie.
I applaud and respect any movie that keeps itself intact to the directors vision and doesn't give a single fuck.
>>63020157
>it's good just because it said "f u" to SJW's!
stop posting anytime
>>63018820
I really liked it. The ending is really fun.
It was alright Pham
Did people hate it? I wouldn't mind some more
>>63018969
Don't watch it. Studio interference, plus continuity errors for autists like me. Such as the Norwegians using TNT to unearth the craft in the '82 version, vs MEW fighting the final boss, who activates the ship and melts the ice. Kinda gay. Plus Mac and co would have totally saw her snow vehicle sitting ten feet away from the crater once they flew by.
>>63020294
>telling people not to watch MEW
Fuck you buddy.
>>63019678
Not necessarily it's true form. By the time it froze in the ice, it had already taken the form of multiple species. It was a jumbled up mess by the time they thawed it, but it was all alien as in it hadn't replicated a person yet. I still don't know how the fuck the biology and thingification works. The prequel made it seem as if it could just touch you and meld you to it, and also that it could gestate a person and shit a copy out. The original made it look like thing cells could infiltrate you as well as the tentacles injecting shit into someone and taking them over. I don't even know. I do remember Blair melding his hand to Gary's face though at the end. Someone explain this shit to me.
>>63018820
That's because it was a critical and commercial success. Most critics liked it and it made a shitload of money. Watch it, anon. It's not as good as the original but I really liked it.
>>63018820
go fuck your mother
its a good remake,
>>63018820
It started off stron I thought the drug rehab/intervention was a really good excuse to get a bunch of people alone in the woods without their phones to call for help. Much better than no reception or evil makes the phones stop because...EVIL. Also a good excuse to ignore someone behaving oddly until it was too late. Some of the execution tone wise off, in the house even if they were done seriously or as hallucinations I would have like to see something that was an homage to the originals with appliances and furniture going fucking crazy you just a hint that this evil was oozing into everything. I really liked the cellar stuff and the wood vine rape scenes though. I didn't think it was that bad but it borders on a remake that tried a little to hard to distance itself from the source.
>>63018820
I loved it.
And while I'm really enjoying Ash vs. The Evil Dead, I'm disappointed we won't be getting a sequel to the remake.
>>63019817
Even the original was gorier and weirder with its stop-motion decomposition, giant hands erupting from the deadites, ankle skewering etc.
>>63019022
They took out the tree rape though.
>>63020588
Did you even see the same movie? A wet tentacle of thorns goes up into her cunt.
>>63021575
We see the beginning, but it's cut short.
In the original we get full tree rape.
