*Army of Darkness *was clearly campy humor. But Evil Dead, 1 and 2, I really don’t think you can call them humorous. At least not intentionally.
Yes, they *were *funny (both of them), but not in an intentional way. I think it was just Sam Raimi’s natural wry approach to life that made them *seem *funny to viewers who were tuned in to his whole gestalt, his world-view that found all of life absurd. I include myself in those viewers who saw them that way.
I’m reminded of the Coen Brothers. They have denied ever trying to make quirky, funny, campy movies. They claim to just make movies that they would like to watch. The humor/quirkiness/campiness is a natural consequence of their approach to filmmaking. I think Raimi falls into the same category. If he were actually *trying *to be funny, they would have been far less humorous than they turned out to be.
I dunno, I think the second Evil Dead had clear moments of intentional slapstick (e.g. the hand going bad) and gross-out humour (e.g. the flying eyeball). The first film is closer to what you’re talking about.
Not really. ED2 was more of a studio reboot of the original indie film. It still had Ash and also managed to mix in elements of insanely unhinged humor. But the whole movie was pinned on Campbell’s character and performance.
I’m afraid this’ll be just another empty attempt at a cabin in the woods type horror flick—but, I’ll be checking this out; I’m curious about a female Ash, but I’m not holding my breath.
I actually only ever saw bits and pieces of Evil Dead 1 and 2. Really, I never thought any of them were great movies. What made Army of Darkness entertaining was Bruce Campbells over the top campy humor and one liners.
Plus most Sam Raimi films suffer from an overuse of Xena Warrior Princess style odd camera angles and snap-zooms.
This is actually the third remake/reimagining. Before “The” Evil Dead was Within the Woods, the $1600 32 minute short that makes ED look fancy. No, the plot isn’t the same, but the ideas are.
This movie will be better if it isn’t another “female protagonist is sole survivor, or gets grabbed at the very end.” The films were about the progression of harmless Bruce into stumpy killing machine.
Totally. Plus the ending of ED2* has the coolest curve balls for this sort of film, and one of the most kickass endings/setup for the next chapter.
Color me completely surprised if this film goes in that sort of direction. Ash just cannot put the genie back in the bottle, let alone put the cork on it.
*I’m treating ED and ED2 as sort of the same film, as a remake of a film that was made twice by the same director/writer and star, I’m not sure which one they’re borrowing the most from, but it looks like both.
I think of ED1 as being like the first twenty minutes of ED2, except that there are only 2 characters instead of 5. The rest of the movie is what would’ve come after, including temporary Deadite-ification.
I sort of do too. Especially with the whole of the first Evil Dead being essentially narrated in the opening of ED2, just to get Ash to be on his own, dealing with the onslaught of demons by his lonesome.
I feel like Evil Dead, the first movie, is a legitimately scary movie. As a young kid, it was easily the most terrifying movie I had seen. Even to this day, my memory of that movie is not of one that had any campy-cheesiness to it.
Evil Dead 2 and even more so Army of Darkness, are like over the top dark comedies with horror elements.
If this is more of a remake of the first Evil Dead than the second, then a strictly horror approach is not out of line.
I never found a “SAW IT!” thread, so I take it no one checked out the Evil Dead remake during its theatrical run?
Well, it’s out on Blu-ray/DVD now and I have to say, I liked it. There’s a nice sense of dread and the gore is just insane. I also really liked that it felt like “Evil Dead 4: The Next Generation” instead of a remake. It happened before (Knowby, Ash and Friends, Ash and Knowby’s Daughter) and it could happen again. Also…
Even though he wasn’t in the movie, I loved the 3-second Ash cameo after the credits
Hated it. Hated every single second of it. If I wouldn’t have had to climb over my very large, into-boxing-and-martial-arts friend who dislikes having his movie-viewing interrupted, I would have walked out. As it was, he (and my boyfriend) also hated it, so I probably would have been in the clear.
I just felt like they missed the whole tone of the first movies and went straight with “how gory can we make it?”
I would disagree that that was what Raimi was going for. He’s know for his over the top visuals, but not out-and-out gore. I don’t think Alvarez has the creative vision that Raimi does, nor the sense of amusing irony and use of subtext. I can watch Drag Me To Hell as a straight supernatural movie, or as an allegory for eating disorders, and not have any kind of cognitive disconnect doing so. I can’t watch the new Evil Dead in any way other than as the attempt of a kid to imitate a master. What makes the original ED work is its total concession to being ridiculous. The remake is completely missing that, which is why (IMO) it failed.
I also think that Raimi has a unique ability to make ridiculous characters that the audience can… not identify with, but certainly appreciate (Bruce Campbell is a cult icon for a reason). There was not a single character in the new ED that I came out of the movie thinking “woah, X is absolutely going to be the next Bruce!” In fact, by the end, I was rooting for the Abomination.
