Guest Review: Evil Dead (2013) is a solid horror remake...

Evil Dead

2013

92 minutes

Rated R

Evil Dead is a surprisingly faithful yet reimagined retread of the legendary Sam Raimi film that pushes the limits of commercial theatrical wide release horror films.  This is a horror film that isn't afraid or ashamed to be one.  With a intense, blood-drenched finale that should leave a packed theater cheering, Evil Dead falls on the side of good remakes.

The story of this iteration of Evil Dead surrounds a girl, Mia (Jane Levy), who is being taken out to an old abandoned secluded cabin, once owned by her family, to hopefully detox her current drug problem.  Along the way to assist, are 2 of her friends and her brother with his girlfriend.  Upon exploring a smell in the basement, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) and David (Shiloh Fernandez) find a ritualistic set of dead cats and the Book of the Dead.  After reading some passages, wild things begin to happen to Mia.  Should her friends believe the things she says or is it her trying to escape cold turkey detox?

Brandon Peters ranks the Evil Dead films...

RANKING THE EVIL DEAD

Well, this is the shortest rankings I’ve done so far.  If I did French Connection or John Carter, there could be shorter ones.  I really love the Evil Dead franchise.  I think it’s a perfect trilogy as is right now.  All three films are great on their own level.  I’m not against additional films in the series or the remake that’s being done.  The remake has a heavy hand from Sam Raimi AND Bruce Campbell, so I trust it.  And the fact that they both WANTED to do the remake is encouraging.  My only worry is that it’s a good film, but I’m hoping its not overhyped.  There’s a lot of crazy praise happening for it.  I feel I’m someone pretty well versed in horror/desensitized, so it takes a lot to genuinely scare me.  And you got to make your over the top gore count for narrative and character to give it that impact you want from me.  I’m excited for it though, I really am.

Now…lets RANK

Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part V: Drag Me to Hell (2009)

Brandon Peters has returned! Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new Evil Dead remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the Evil Dead series. He continues with a bonus look at Drag Me To Hell. For those who want my original theatrical review, go HERE. Otherwise, without further ado...

Drag Me To Hell

2009

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring:  Alison Lohman, Justin Long, David Paymer, Lorna Raver, Dileep Rao

Rated PG-13 (I watched the Unrated cut)

You tricked me, you black-hearted who-o-o-o-o-ore! You b-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-itch!

                        ~Goat

If you’re question why I covered this film in my EVIL DEAD retrospective series, then you’ve never seen Drag Me To Hell.  And if you haven’t seen Drag Me To Hell, stop reading, go out and Netflix or BUY it (it's like $5 at Fry’s).  You've been missing out on one of the best horror films of the previous decade. 

Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part IV: Army of Darkness (1992)

Brandon Peters has returned! Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new Evil Dead remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the Evil Dead series. He continues with a look at Army of Darkness. As only a casual Evil Dead fan, this was an extra-special treat as this isn't a film series that I've memorized by heart. This was as informative for me as I hope it will be for you. So without further ado...

Army of Darkness

1992

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring: Bruce Campbell, Embeth Davidtz, Ian Abercrombie, Marcus Gilbert, Richard Grove…also Bridget Fonda and a line-less Linda, Night of the Living Dead remake’s Patricia Tallman as a deadite and Wedding Singer’s Angela Featherstone as an S-Mart girl

Rated R

Good. Bad. I’m the guy with the gun.

            ~Ash

With the success of Darkman, Sam Raimi was finally able to bring to life his vision of Ash fighting deadites in medieval times.  Originally titled The MediEvil Dead, the film was the first in the series to be backed by a major studio.  However, the film is still done on the cheap.  Bringing the comedic aspect of Evil Dead 2 to the forefront this time around, Raimi unleashes an insanely fun, quotable film featuring an encore performance by Bruce Campbell and a tribute to the comedy and adventures Sam Raimi enjoyed growing up.

Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part II: Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn (1987)

Brandon Peters has returned! Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new Evil Dead remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the Evil Dead series. He continues with a look at Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn. As only a casual Evil Dead fan, this was an extra-special treat as this isn't a film series that I've memorized by heart. This was as informative for me as I hope it will be for you. So without further ado...

Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn

1987

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring: Bruce Campbell, Sarah Berry, Dan Hicks, Kassie Wesley, Ted Raimi

Rated R

We just cut up our girlfriend with a chainsaw.  Does that sound “fine”?

                        ~Ash’s mirror image

The second installment of the Evil Dead trilogy is the bridge between the first film and Army of Darkness in terms of tone.  Whereas the first film was a straight horror film, the 2^nd adds a level of humor while still able to maintain jumps, scares and intensity.  This film is definitely one of the earlier and most notable films in the splatstic sub-genre of horror. The film also serves as pretty much a big budget remake of the first film. 

Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part II: The Evil Dead (1981)

Brandon Peters has returned!  Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new Evil Dead remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the Evil Dead series.  He continues with a look at The Evil Dead. As only a casual Evil Dead fan, this was an extra-special treat as this isn't a film series that I've memorized by heart.  This was as informative for me as I hope it will be for you.  So without further ado...

The Evil Dead

1981

Director: Sam Raimi

Assistant Editor: Joel Coen

Starring: Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Hal Delrich, Betsy Baker, Sarah York

Rated R

Now the sun will be up in an hour or so, and we can all get out of here together. You, me, Linda, Shelly. Hmm... Well... not Shelly.

                        ~Ash

Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead is one of the kings of cult classics and one of the best horror films to grace the screen.  A super low-budget feature with the drive and ambition of one many times its budget, The Evil Dead holds its own and is able to keep hold, not fall apart and stand the test of time.  The film flies by with genuine scares, gore effects and camera techniques truly feeling like a master learning his craft.

Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part I: Within the Woods (1978)

Brandon Peters has returned!  Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new Evil Dead remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the Evil Dead series.  He begins not with a retrospective review of the first Evil Dead film, because that would be too easy.  No, first he's giving us a look at Within the Woods, the 1978 short film that Sam Raimi made in order to get funding for The Evil Dead.  As only a casual Evil Dead fan, I've frankly never heard of this one, so this was as informative for me as I hope it will be for you.  So without further ado...

Within The Woods

1978

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring: Ellen Sandweiss, Bruce Campbell, Scott Spiegel

Not Rated

You're only cursed by the evil spirits if you violate the graves of the dead. We're just gonna be eating hotdogs.

                        ~Bruce

Sam Raimi's desired vision for The Evil Dead could not come to fruition unless he had more money than he could come up with himself.  So, in 1978, he decided to make a short film, as sort of a trailer to hope to scare up the money to make the full film (yes, that was a pun, sometimes I just can't help it).  Raimi's movie premiered in front of a midnight screening of Rocky Horror Picture Show to a good reception and he was able to acquire most of the his desired budget to make The Evil Dead.

Weekend Box Office: Oz: The Great and Powerful summons $80 million, with all signs pointing towards a leggy run.

I've said this before, but one of the problems with modern box office analysis is that it treats studio tracking numbers, which are supposed to be internal figures that can be used to adjust marketing in the run up to release, as ironclad box office predictions.  More often than not, pundits use tracking in a way that creates a preemptive doom-and-gloom scenario where a new release is painted as a box office turkey before it even opens *or* its used to give unrealistic expectations to a new release so that studios are then forced to defend what is actually a solid debut.  Such is the case with Oz: The Great and Powerful (trailer/posters).  The $215 million Disney prequel debuted with a strong $80.3 million this weekend.  Alas, due to rumblings and arbitrary presumptions that the film would open with as much as $100 million over the weekend, mostly due to the project's token similarities with Alice In Wonderland, Disney may now be forced to defend what is easily the biggest opening of 2013 by more than double and the third-biggest March debut ever behind Alice In Wonderland ($116 million) and The Hunger Games ($153 million).

The good news/bad news regarding the decidedly un-feminist female characters in Oz: The Great and Powerful.

Full-on spoiler warning...

Unfortunately pretty much everything I feared about Oz: The Great and Powerful, right from the second trailer, turned out to be true, at least from a gender perspective.  It is indeed about three seemingly powerful women sitting around and waiting for a random man who fell out of the sky to not only attempt to save Oz but, more importantly, shape all three of their respective destinies.  The film also equates beauty with virtue in a rather explicit fashion, with somewhat laughable scenes of Rachel Weisz's Evanora complaining of jealousy over Michelle Williams 'pretty face' seemingly oblivious to the fact that said evil witch is played by *Rachel Weisz* (spoiler: Rachel Weisz is insanely hot). It's not just that Mila Kunis and Michelle Williams play seemingly strong female characters who constantly yap about needing some prophesied male wizard to swoop down and save their asses. The biggest problem in the film is that it allows its feeble and somewhat selfish male hero to basically define them and their actions.

Oz: The Great and Powerful earns $2 million at 10pm/midnight.

Let's do the quick midnight math, shall we?  Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful earned an impressive $2 million at 10pm/midnight last night.  Now this isn't a geek-friendly comic book sequel or young-adult literary property in the vein of The Hunger Games, so midnight frontloading should be pretty limited.  That's a bit less than the $3.5 million earned by Alice In Wonderland and larger than the $1.6 million earned by Snow White and the Huntsman.  If we were talking about Thor 2: The Dark World, a $2 million 10pm/midnight number would mean around $40 million for the weekend, with an expected 5% of the weekend represented in advance showings, with potential for even harsher front-loading   But for a 'normal' movie, we're usually looking at between 2% and 4% representing the midnight number.  And let's be honest, this thing is going to explode on Saturday if only due to the lack of family films in the marketplace.  So offhand I'd wager a 3% 10pm/midnight take for a $66 million Fri-Sun debut, as Alice in Wonderland also did 3% of its $116 million weekend at midnight (as did Snow White and the Huntsman in a $56 million debut).  But the lack of family fare could mean an even bigger growth during weekend matinees and the film arguably has less 'must see now' factor due to the fact that Burton is a more mainstream name than Raimi.  So let's just call it 2.5% at 10pm/midnight for a $80 million weekend take.  But don't be too surprised to see it flirting with $100 million by Sunday.

Scott Mendelson  

Oz: The Great and Powerful gets an FX-packed Super Bowl tease.

I'm still not uber-impressed, but I imagine I'll like the marketing more where James Franco talks less.  It's no secret that the current season is absolutely starved for kids-faire.  My daughter literally asked me today when there would be more kids movies for her to see. Whether or not I end up dragging her to this (my wife wants to see it too apparently), I imagine it will benefit mightily from the lack of such family-friendly fare in the first two months of the year, akin to The Lorax opening to $70 million last year for the same reason.  Come what may, it reminded me that I probably ought to show her the original Wizard of Oz, as I imagine she'd enjoy that one. It's also a fine education in the whole 'color vs. black-and-white' issue since she didn't end up seeing Frankenweenie.  This certainly looks visually impressive, with a sparse and less cluttered look compared to Burton's Alice In Wonderland.  The laughing at the end pretty much rules out Michelle Williams as the 'wicked witch', so now it's just a question of whether or not Rachel Weisz (who the laughing voice sounds most like) is the real villain or merely the red herring to hide Mila Kunis's true villainy.  Anyway, this is probably the last major tease we'll see until release, give or take the usual clips released online.

Scott Mendelson        

Oz: The Great and Powerful gets four new character posters. Why I might owe Disney a slight apology.

This banner dropped awhile ago, but I never got around to posting it so I'm using it at the top for convenience.  After the jump you'll get the four character posters that dropped on Friday but officially dropped from Disney on Monday.  In my essay last week about The Little Mermaid 3D, I included this film as a Disney property that was technically targeting boys but had female appeal.  I still stand by that statement, as the film is clearly James Franco's journey.  But it must be stated that the film also has three major female characters, all played by actresses of note and at least one of them playing something other than the love interest (I'm presuming some misdirection with Mila Kunis being revealed as the main 'wicked witch').  It doesn't mean I don't think the film looks a little iffy or that Franco seems to be attempting to give a bad performance, but it does mean that we'll get a major would-be tent pole where the major female characters outnumber the major male ones.  That frankly doesn't happen all that often so it deserves notice when it does.  Also of note is Michelle Williams's role in this, as it represents the acclaimed actresses's first tentpole appearance and her first major role in an overtly commercial picture since oh, Halloween: H20 in 1998 (you could say the superb Dick in 1999, but that flopped anyway).  Yes I know she cameoed in Shutter Island and did a voice in Where the Wild Things Are, but you know what I mean! Anyway, the character posters are after the jump.  And no, I will not be posting the 12-second teaser for this Sunday's Super Bowl commercial.

Scott Mendelson

Only James Franco can save the dames in second trailer for Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful.

Pretty much the same as the first teaser.  This thing looks pretty spectacular, and I can see where the $200 million went.  But the dialogue is painfully on-the-nose, the acting feels oddly stilted, and the narrative seems to center around a bunch of magical women who are helpless against the tyranny of a wicked witch until a random man arrives to save their ass.  One presumes that at least Rachel Weisz is revealed to be villainous and one hopes that the story ends on a somewhat somber note, as befitting Oz's somewhat crooked role in the classic Wizard of Oz story.  Still, what's being sold is a Mad Libs 'random white man must save us' story that made John Carter and Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes remake so dull, complete with the likes of Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, and Michelle Williams (plus possibly Abigail Spencer) treating Franco's clearly hapless visitor as the greatest thing since sliced bread.  The film may be more complicated than that, and I'd argue the talent involved implies that it may well work out.  But the film that Disney is selling is painfully derivative, arguably far more of a rip-off of Burton's Alice In Wonderland (which was of course a 'random white woman must save us, without the pre-adolescent fantasy present here) than any of the would-be copycats that we've seen over the last 2.5 years.  Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful opens March 8th, 2013.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson        

Watch/Discuss: Sam Raimi's Wizard of Oz prequel, Oz: The Great and Powerful, gets a badly acted teaser.

Not much to say here, as the first of I presume several Comic Con trailers comes online (The Lone Ranger screened for the convention, but it's not online yet). It looks like Disney and Sam Raimi are clearly trying to emulate Alice in Wonderland via The Wizard of Oz. Oddly enough, the acting is actually pretty bad in what little of it we see, as James Franco (Oz) ', Mila Kunis, and Michelle Williams (Glinda the 'Good Witch') come off as stilted and uncomfortable with the fairy-tale trappings. I'm sure Rachel Weisz will kick ass as Evanora (IE - the Wicked Witch) and the $200 million visuals will be a feast for the eyes, but the oddly 'off' lead performances should put up an immediate 'danger' signal. Anyway, Oz: The Great and Powerful opens on March 8th, 2013. As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful gets a teaser poster. Is it the next Alice In Wonderland or the next John Carter?

It's going to be a slow week at Mendelson's Memos this week, both because I have holiday-related family stuff and because I have a slight case of writer's block (I don't want to incessantly whine about The Amazing Spider-Man and not much else is happening news-wise at least until I see Savages on Friday morning).  Anyway, Disney dropped this poster for Sam Raimi's $200 million (!!!) Oz: The Great and Powerful, which is apparently a prequel to the original Wizard of Oz.  Disney is opening this on March 8th, 2013, or the same weekend that Disney's Alice In Wonderland debuted in 2010.  Let's hope they have better luck with this James Franco/Mila Kunis/Zach Braff/Michelle Williams/Rachel Weisz tent-pole than they did with their last first-weekend-of-March entry, John Carter.


Scott Mendelson

While you're at the office, listen to this Spider-Man (2002) commentary with myself, Aaron Neuwurth, and Jim Dietz.

Watching this two days before seeing The Amazing Spider-Man probably didn't help, because it just reminded me how much of Spider-Man worked just fine the first time.  Having said that, this is my first commentary and one of the more enjoyable things I've done in awhile.  It's myself, Aaron Neuwirth, and Jim Dietz.  Do enjoy, because I certainly did.

Scott Mendelson

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) is the same, only much much worse.

The Amazing Spider-Man

2012
136 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

It's no secret that I have had major issues with the very idea of quickly rebooting the Spider-Man franchise.  If the film was a smash, I have argued, then studios would basically spend the next few decades merely rebooting the same dozen franchises over and over again.  Well, the Marc Webb-helmed reboot is here, and it fails in fundamental ways despite not being an outright terrible film.  It fails by both not being different enough from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man and not being better than Sam Raimi's Spider-Man.  While it is preferred to view (and review) films in a vacuum, the circumstances in this case not only prevent that but discourage it.  At its core, it is an unofficial loose remake of a prior film being sold as an 'untold story' while the studio attempts to sell used goods as a new product.  It is astonishingly cynical gambit and the idea behind its construction turn what is by-itself a moderately entertaining superhero origin story into something downright insidious.  

Newsflash: Twilight didn't invent the female-driven blockbuster and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was primarily about romance too...

As expected, the initial wave of mostly positive reviews for The Amazing Spider-Man have partially involved a form of collective amnesia. Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph called the film 'a superhero film for the Twilight generation' and states that Twilight was the first blockbuster to target women and The Amazing Spider-Man is the first superhero targeted at females, a theme that a number of critics have implicitly or explicitly stated in their critiques.  Both of these things are false of course.  Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy was primarily a romantic drama stretched over three films.  The web-slinging action beats and occasional super-villain squabbles were less important than the ongoing love story between Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson.  Kristen Dunst was as much of a main character as Toby Maguire, especially in the somewhat underrated Spider-Man 3, and the romantic arc was the main narrative throughout the blockbuster trilogy.  And as for the second claim, it's like Titanic, Spider-Man, Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, and Avatar never happened.  But in an era where no one remembers a damn thing and everyone is too damn lazy to look it up, Marc Webb is now getting the credit for basically inventing a female-skewing superhero film and Twilight is now presumed to be the only reference point for blockbusters that were popular with women.

The Amazing Spider-Man gets one last trailer. In summer 2012, it clearly suffers from the 'middle-child syndrome'.

This frankly isn't nearly as impressive as the first teaser, mainly because it doesn't add much other than to reveal some pretty big third-act spoilers (including two massive hints about the film's finale).  The interplay between Garfield and Stone is still pretty solid, and it's nice that the film A) has them get together pretty early on and B) apparently has her learn his secret at least by act three (again, why spoil that?).  Dennis Leary barely gets any dialogue this time around, which is good since he seems to be giving the film's worst performance.  The focus this time around is on the official super-villain, The Lizard (Rhys Ifans), with plenty of meaty shots of the green-skinned menace.  The web-slinging action still looks pretty terrific and the film looks visually dynamic (it has a richer and crisper picture than the relatively flat The Avengers).  At its core, the problem with The Amazing Spider-Man at this point in the game is two-fold.  First of all, it still doesn't look different enough from the Sam Raimi trilogy to justify a corporate-mandated reboot.  Second of all, it is sandwiched between what is arguably the 'ultimate comic book movie' (The Avengers) and the 'ultimate comic book film' (The Dark Knight Rises).  In comparison, the Marc Webb picture just seems like a kids' flick in comparison, a young do-gooder not fit to play with the grown-ups in tights.  Anyway, The Amazing Spider-Man opens on July 3rd.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

Thoughts on Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, ten years after its surprising and record-setting $100m+ debut.

Ten years ago, we had our first $100 million opening weekend.   Ten years ago, feeding off twenty years of anticipation, positive reviews, and a post-9/11 atmosphere that craved distinctly American heroism, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man pulled off the unthinkable.  And really, looking back on that fabled three-day weekend in May 2002, that's the thing that sticks out.  In these days of heavily-publicized box office tracking reports, with every blogger with a website playing box office pundit, with studios having mastered the art of saturation-level opening weekends down to a science, Spider-Man's record Fri-Sun debut was a complete surprise.  Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone had just broken the three-day record six months ago with $92 million.  Spider-Man wasn't even supposed to be the biggest movie of summer 2002, with that honor theoretically going to Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones.  Spider-Man was supposed to be the warm-up play, the summer kick-off picture that wetted the appetite for the big guns coming down the pike.  It was The Mummy, the Deep Impact, or the Twister of the summer movie season.  But as I discussed four years ago, sometimes the summer kick-off films surprise you.  Even so, with buzz building and free press galore coming from mainstream entertainment sources, pundits like myself were optimistically predicting an $80 million debut, followed by a somewhat quick plunge once Attack of the Clones brought the thunder 1.5 weeks later.  But as we all know, something very different happened.