Editorial: How Fans of the Original ‘EVIL DEAD’ Unfairly Killed The Remake

Expectations from rabid horror fans as well as cynical critics have turned Fede Alvarez’s Evil Dead into a bigger subject than the original star of the franchise’s iconic chin.  What was expected and what was delivered is something that has filled paragraphs online and hours of debate over 30 packs of Tecate following late night screenings (the ironic new PBR of beers).  Not even a week has passed and battle lines have been drawn in the mud.  You were either possessed by the 2013 remake or felt that it was just another mindless product of a Hollywood system that is running low on creativity.  One critic whose opinion I respect and read on a frequent basis, and will continue to do so in the future, even just flat-out stated that the film is “really bad.”  For starters, I want to start by saying the film is certainly not really bad.  That statement should be savored for such exhausting horror remakes as 1998’s The Haunting, 2011’s remake/prequel The Thing, and 2006’s unintentionally humorous The Wicker Man.  Sam Raimi’s original nightmare set in an isolated cabin in the woods was an injection of youthful and creative zeal into the horror industry in 1981; so much so that the film even impressed popular horror writer Stephen King upon its release.  Over the years the film and its star Bruce Campbell have given new meaning to the idea of cult icon by inadvertently creating a legion of fans that hang onto every line and scene as if it was a work of Shakespeare.  At no point do I question the fanbase and their love of the film.  I too, am an avid fan of Raimi’s zany Evil Dead Trilogy and have found myself over the years appreciating each of the films for their own unique style.  But even as someone who owns several copies of the film in its many incarnations on VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray (I wasn’t cool enough for Laserdisc), I attest that the original Evil Dead is not a good film.

There . . . I said it.  The Evil Dead is not a perfect horror film.  In fact, I would say that it isn’t even a well-made horror film but in an odd way that is actually what makes it so much fun.  At the time, the gore was in your face and shocking, the camera work was nerve-wracking and inventive, and the formula of normal teens trapped in a cabin hadn’t been overly exploited.  Looking back at the film in the year 2013, the film on a formal level looks poorly made and with actors who fail to make any form of impression on the viewer aside from Campbell.  What makes it as watchable today as it was in ’81 is the genuine sense of wacky fun that Raimi and company must have experienced while filming this gory indie flick.  Liberal use of blood and other colorful fluids are dispersed like champagne flowing on New Year’s Eve.  If you combine this appreciation of the gooey details mixed with considering the historical significance of the film in relation to horror history, you have a horror film that sits high on the list for many horror geeks.  All that being said, why then have I heard from a few eager horror fans who didn’t watch the film until late in their twenties admit after seeing it a few weeks ago that, “it’s okay?” You may notice though that not once in this last paragraph did I really praise the flat dialogue, nearly non-existent plot, and wooden performances with little to no attention paid to character development.  Most of us can excuse some of these film details in the horror genre.  We have even suffered through a number of unintelligible pieces of Euro horror to savor some of the juicier details and their clothing optional approach to scares. Which brings me to the question: Has what made the original Evil Dead so great not what we should also admire and praise the remake for?

Several readers of this very site and writers I have read online have pointed out the short comings of Alvarez’s remake while casually acknowledging the obvious fact, “yeah, the gore was good.”  That being such a belittling understatement is hardly my point, rather that the idea of a fun gore-ride at the movies is not enough to satisfy a large group of fans who’d rather watch a film consisting of bad 80’s cake make-up.  Better yet – they will defend the enthralling and yet senseless barrage of violence in a film like last year’s The Raid: Redemption even though a story is nowhere to be found in the 30 floors of fun the film delivers.  There’s a double standard for horror fans who can look past certain aspects of “classic” films and yet reprimand recent entries for the same atrocities.  The original The Evil Dead never strived to be a fine-crafted and well-acted film.  Budget limitations and time restraints were the least of the problems getting the film made.  And yet, out of necessity rise some homemade wacky effects and a young voice putting his love and joy for horror on film no matter how amateurish it looked.  Raimi was obviously aware of this later fact enough to have practically remade his own film in the first half of the Three Stooges-inspired sequel Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn.  And as horror has changed over the years and trends in horror have faded into the night, the effects industry continues to move forward presenting new strides in technology each and every year.  This isn’t an excuse to remake every horror film that hasn’t stood up to the test of time, but more pointing out that our nostalgia for a film can sometimes get in the way of seeing an attempt at making something new and striving for something better.  That is why I feel Raimi is making yet another remake of his landmark film and why we should go in with an open mind.

As you might assume at this point, I was a fan of the 2013 remake.  Sadly, I missed the preview screening for critics prior to the opening and so I don’t have an official review to write.  Instead of now composing a straightforward review, I felt the need to examine Evil Dead as an overarching subject and how it relates to horror fans’ expectations.  Alvarez understands the need to subvert what Dead fans (Deadites) are going to expect from a remake and begins his carnival ride through the woods with a flashback sequence that fans won’t see coming.  Upon wrapping up this interesting and shocking prelude to the film, the real story kicks into gear with an upside down aerial shot further confusing the viewer and forcing them to question whether or not they are really seeing an Evil Dead remake or some other beast altogether.  From there we meet the group of potential victims and heroes in the standard fashion, with a feeling of dread in the air that feels both playful and dangerous.  Over the course of the 90-minute feature we are treated to a subplot that is non-existent in the original film but gives this new series of events actual meaning.  The same cannot be said for the 1981 film.  What was the point of the original Evil Dead? Beware of Candarian demons? Don’t open evil books? Always be prepared with a shotgun just in case your girlfriend becomes possessed? I don’t think there is a profound message to be found in the Evil Dead series, but Alvarez and co-writer Rod Sayagues (Diablo Cody just did a quick polish on the teen dialogue) were able to strike a balance between giving some depth to the material while still focusing on what made the first film so memorable and fun: Gore.  Depending on how it is presented in the context of a story, gore can be fun.  Yet, at times, gore can also give way to squirm inducing terror.  Equally as impressive as the visceral effects is the fact that the film balances these two styles of gore in a manner that is watchable and never mean-spirited.  As absurd as the nail-gun attack appears on the screen (those guns require front pressure against a board to fire, but who cares about the logic at that point in the film), so too does the infamous “tree rape” feel intense and realistic while actually making sense in the context of this story; the scene always felt tacked on and exploitative in the original.  Is it the “Most Terrifying Film You Will Ever Experience” as the recent poster campaign boasted?  Absolutely not.  But I really don’t think it’s trying to be either, and those thinking otherwise are missing the bloody point.

It should come as no surprise to you that one of the main questions that was asked of me following my viewing of Evil Dead was whether or not I stayed for the closing credits.  The fact that the majority of horror fans seemed more pre-occupied by a pointless cameo at the end of the credits goes to show their preconceived notions about the Evil Dead franchise.  Evil Dead was never meant to be about one man.  Evil Dead was supposed to be about presenting “The Ultimate Experience in Grueling Terror” as the ’81 poster originally stated in bold letters.  Unfortunately due to age and current trends, Raimi’s original vision is now seen as less grueling and more unintentionally cute; even the grotesque pencil in the ankle scare gives way to more of a sense of black humor than a feeling of shock.  With the help of the film’s original creative geniuses, Bruce Campbell, Bruce Tapert, and Sam Raimi, a young and inexperienced director from Uruguay was given $14 mil. (Practically the catering budget for a Marvel film) and told to remake a horror film that many people place among the classics in the genre.  What he came back with was something that is faithful to the original but offers up enough of some new twists to feel fresh; a film that went the route of casting relatively unknown and adequate actors instead of placing a known star in the foreground to sell more tickets; and most importantly, a film that redefines what it means to be creative in a modern age while using almost nothing but practical effects.  Sure, the acting isn’t perfect, the story takes some liberties, and the characters make some questionable decisions, but isn’t all of those qualities inherent in the horror genre to the point of feeling almost necessary to the film? If they didn’t go down in the cellar it would be a rather short and boring film.  When all is said and done and we look back twenty years from now, will the majority of us think differently about the 2013 Evil Dead or place it in the same company as the dozens of remakes that Hollywood has turned out in the past ten years?  I can’t answer that, but I know for a fact that I will be happily watching a film from a first time feature director, whose passion for horror is evident in every frame, and even though the result may not be a perfect harmony of “good” filmmaking techniques, I can drown in all the bloody details of a unique but flawed film that is certainly of its time.