I read a rumor somewhere that there was a cameo planned or filmed but then it was taken out because they weren't sure if they wanted this movie to exist in the same universe as the other originals.Sheo_Dagana said:
Escape to the Movies: Evil Dead
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I think it's to do with how they go about it. It recaps the first movie within the first few minutes before moving along, but it treats it as part of its own plot, without ever even acknowledging that there was an earlier film. And it also changes that major plot point.RT said:
I actually thought about this for a little bit last night: in order for the first and second movie to exist within the same canon and have ED2 be a proper sequel, it would have to be understood that the book cannot be destroyed, and that every time it is, it works its way back into existence. By this logic, the new Evil Dead is also not technically a remake but a sequel. It's still a reboot that exploits the iconic imagery and repurposes specific scenes of the orginal, sure, but it has its own story and characters and could justifiably be set in the same universe as the previous movies with the Necronomicon being the one link. (Star Trek proved "we're a sequel but we're not" to be a pretty damn effective element for rebooting)
Also though, for ED1&2 to be proper canon with each other, there would need to be a pretty damn good explanation for Ash's amnesia. Or maybe the first one died and the second one is a clone, capable of taking much more physical damage but more mentally unstable. Or maybe they were twins who both ended up going to he same cabin, and both had the same name. Or maybe it's just a movie and I shouldn't think about it so much...
...Or maybe the Necronomicon caused a rift in time and is fucking with Ash's head, causing him to relive things without him noticing. [small]Or maybe there's a consipiracy of evil woodland creatures. Or maybe...[/small]
Rather fitting since I had first heard about the Evil Dead series thanks to Roger Ebert on a guilty pleasures episode of At the Movies where Ebert showed Evil Dead II as one of his picks.
This movie is similar to all other remake movies, it wasn't produced the way fans intended it on being. Too much irreverence for the old script was forced into the script so its nothing like the old ones, it looks like they wanted to go a new direction with this movie obviously but Fede used elements from the Ring or something. What i expected to see, was a nightmare at the cabin in the beginning then bruce campell going on another adventure in the past to retrieve something or similar to the 3rd but with comedy in it as well but after a quarter way into the movie, you know theres gonna be none of that in it. Then He or the main character would go back to the nightmare he left from where the book sent him, and save what was left of his friends. I really think Fede Alvarez put to much thought into it ignoring the flaws he created. To sum it up this movie is your stereotypical horror movie of the 2000 era. But it was alright but not a movie i could watch again, i give a 6/10.
Saw it today. It was..okay. Kind of forgettable for me, and featuring some of the dumbest characters I've ever seen (and a lot of that was in the terms of horror-movie-these-guys-have-to-make-really-stupid-decisons-to-keep-the-plot-moving). I face palmed so many times.
I will say though that when someone was stupid in this movie, they paid for it. Holy crap, did they pay for it. It was like an extremely gory, satanic version of that japanese game show that punishes you for being an idiot. In a way, that balanced out my annoyance with the brainless characters.
You know this cast is screwed when your most capable character is not only a recovering drug addict, but is stuck being possessed for 90% of the movie.
I will say though that when someone was stupid in this movie, they paid for it. Holy crap, did they pay for it. It was like an extremely gory, satanic version of that japanese game show that punishes you for being an idiot. In a way, that balanced out my annoyance with the brainless characters.
I didn't know Roger Ebert had died, makes me quite sad, he was the first critic that I had read a review from and though to my self this guy really knows what he's talking about.
Might just rent this movie, the original was over the top and I'm a bit too squimish to go see this on in the cinemas.
Might just rent this movie, the original was over the top and I'm a bit too squimish to go see this on in the cinemas.
So not just another cash in. and i saw what potentialy could be a raped by a tree scene too? this is one to look forward to.
Roger Ebert did a lot to foward review industry, but thats pretty much all good i can say about him. I watch a lot of movies, and i stopped looking at his reviews because all i saw is pure nonesense when i read them. Oh wait, he had that games are not art one too, didnt even bother remembering that till i saw somone mention it in the replies.
Roger Ebert did a lot to foward review industry, but thats pretty much all good i can say about him. I watch a lot of movies, and i stopped looking at his reviews because all i saw is pure nonesense when i read them. Oh wait, he had that games are not art one too, didnt even bother remembering that till i saw somone mention it in the replies.
I have a hard time believing in Movie Bobs "Boston" accent, so it is always weird to me when people fawn over it. As some one who has grown up in Boston you would be very hard pressed to find some one who still talks like that. The only people that sound anything like that are townies and old white people both of which are minorities. It just sounds so fake and exaggerated that I cant help but thinking its an act. I just had to let that out of my system as this is something I have thought since the first time I have heard it.
OT: Interesting review. Bob compared it to The Hills have Eyes, so I'm just wondering if it is more or less scary than that film.
OT: Interesting review. Bob compared it to The Hills have Eyes, so I'm just wondering if it is more or less scary than that film.
I saw that too! The best part is that it isn't really there all the time, but when it shows up it shows up with a vengeance!kailus13 said:
To be honest I think he does it for fun nowadays more than anything because people found it cool when he first showed it. I also think he hams it up a bit at times.kailus13 said:
I've been following Bob long enough to remember the first time when he outed it (there was no indication for a while beforehand) and then explained it, along with how he has voice training to surpress it.
Being a professional I doubt Bob "slips" unless he wants to, especially seeing as he can edit and re-do these videos as many times as he wants. It seems to be that since we accept his accent on this site at least, he can choose to "stage slip" into it to empathize certain points as if he's losing his cool in a way a profesional making a recorded product like this never would.
Such are my thoughts.
In response to the guy your quoting, I personally didn't find "Evil Dead" or "Hills Have Eyes" paticularly scary but I am a jaded horror fan. It's very hard to get a rise out of me when I go out expecting to see a horror movie, and when your dealing with such a well known franchise, and especially remakes of movies you've already seen, it becomes kind of easy to view them objectively. That said I think "Evil Dead" was far better than "Hills Have Eyes", which is a matter of opinion of course. Both have decent FX and some pretty gruelling scenes, but I guess at the end of the day I tend to prefer the supernatural horror of "Evil Dead" and it's set up.
To be honest I'm sort of waiting for/hoping for, a remake on this level of Dario Argento's "Demons" trilogy. I think the third one (actually called "The Church", as opposed to Demons 3) was lacking and could use a re-do for reasons I won't go into. I'll also say that while the original was best, a certain last stand in a basement parking garage in "Demons 2" stayed with a then-less-jaded me for a long time.
I bought the trilogy when I first heard about this. Loved the first 2, liked army of darkness. I just finished watching the reboot. IT'S F#~£_]?,¥ awesome!!!!!!!! If u like horror, you will definitely love this. The ballsy-est evil dead since #2. Don't miss this. It's beautiful. Spring breakers was sleaze as art. This is gore as art.
Well, if you want to consider his BEST Outing outside of "Evil Dead" it wouldn't be movies, but "Adventures Of Brisco County Jr." which went on for two seasons with him in the title role. A two season run (ie it got renewed) was kind of amazing given the subject matter and how off kilter it was. It remains a cult classic, and I believe probably inspired more than a few campy productions to come.Spot1990 said:It's not Raimi but Bubba Ho-Tep might be Campbell's best non-Evil Dead outing. And seeing as it's kind of on topic even Ebert liked Bubba Ho-Tep, giving it 3 stars out of 4 and saying "It has the damnedest ingratiating way of making us sit there and grin at its harebrained audacity, laugh at its outhouse humor, and be somewhat moved (not deeply, but somewhat) at the poignancy of these two old men and their situation."Fasckira said:He pops up in quite a few things as side characters too, like the Hercules and Xena series, but if you want a real Campbell/Raimi treat then you should check out "My Name is Bruce" [http://youtu.be/QZLv3Z7L5lY] where he plays himself.Hannibal942 said:
That said I think Bruce realizes he works best as a supporting actor, or in B-movies that don't take themselves seriously. Given that he's been a writer, a director and a producer as well as an actor I'm sure he's had plenty of oppertunities to take a more prominant role (especially given his cult following) but chose not to. He also seems to have been able to find work consistantly, even without Raimi, and even now he works as a co-star/major supporting actor for "Burn Notice" (unless it ended/got cancelled, I hadn't followed it too heavily since I don't watch a lot of TV on TV, been meaning to watch it on Netflix though). Apparently he took his fairly goofy character in that show and made it popular enough where he got his own made for TV movie focusing on the character's backstory.
The point I'm getting at here is more or less that while Bruce has been mostly a cult/B-movie actor as far as his movie roles, he's also had a decent amount of "small screen" success which goes beyond simply playing an occasional bit in the TV Hercules/Xena-verse. When you think about it he's had a pretty bloody successful career compared to most people in Hollywood, especially when you consider the length of time he's been working. On some levels I wonder how it would affect his popularity with geeks if there was more conscious realization of how successful/accepted he actually is, I'm sure plenty of actors would give their left arm to have his career.
The remake is good, but the "final boss monster" so to speak is a let down. A solid film, but lacked some of the more important elements of the Evil Dead franchise; primarily lacking loud over the top monsters.
