![]() Sam Raimi endorses this film, and he was involved. As to the devoted followers of Sam Raimi who are happy that he "had nothing to do with this film." He was a producer on the film and kept tabs on things as they went, wanting to give the new filmmakers space to make their own film but not allowing what he thought was a piece of crap to share the Evil Dead name. Overall, I felt as though there was a bit of tension in the crowd, which is what makes a good horror film. There are some aspects of the film I could've done without (like some of the random jump scares that were inserted). It seems as though most people are comparing this latest remake to the trilogy, as opposed to the original. His personality really started to take shape in Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn and was further enhanced in Army of Darkness. Again, these same criticisms are what make the original so great. However, I'm reading most of the negativity surrounding this film is due to a lack of story, bad acting, under-developed characters, and lack of scares. Overall, they did a great job creating the atmosphere of an Evil Dead film. The setup of the addict trying to kick her habit (and not for the first time) logically keeps the kids at the cabin when the audience sees things starting to get a bit strange. The film contains some wonderful dark humor (much like the original). Once the carnage begins, the film is basically about the carnage (much like the original). The film contains some over-the-top scenes and acting (much like the original). The film contains lots of gross-out, bloody scenes (much like the original). ![]() To my generation, I can see how we'll prefer the original. To a younger generation, I can see how they'll prefer this over the original. ![]() Is this film better than the original? I think the question is unfair. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2023
Categories |