Evil Dead [2013, remake] Review

I remember the first time I watch Evil Dead. It was in college at a friend's family house during Thanksgiving break. We also rented Reindeer Games. I mistook Ben Affleck for Keanu Reeves because the film was that terrible; but that is another story. I had already watched Army of Darkness and Evil Dead II in that order mind you. I liked horror films well enough. I was more interested in the origin of the antagonist when watching it. I knew it would be a low budgeted film. I was still impressed by the film; even with the paperback version of the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis. Bruce Campbell is quite a gem for many pictures.

I miss Bruce Campbell for this film.

The Remake does a little twist to why four “young adults” are out at a creepy cabin in the middle of the woods. The sister Mia [Jane Levy] is a drug addict who wants to clean up her act. Her brother David [Shiloh Fernandez], his girlfriend Natalie, Eric and Olivia join her at the siblings' old family cabin out in the middle of the woods. You can easily call the cast by the roles they play: Sister, Brother, Girlfriend, Nerd, and Doctor. Technically Olivia is a RN, which is pointed out as plotty goodness and not fully addressed. Eric is pissed that David left and never visited them when he moved. This is fleshed out by the back story of Mia and David's mom getting ill explains that his disappearance and the reason why he wants back in Mia's life. Olivia plays the sympathetic part and total bastard through the movie. Eric is the nerd who is far too inquisitive for his own good with no background to why he was interested in the occult. Natalie plays the girlfriend, but more on that point later. That is all the background these character were given.

The Remake itself was decent. As a horror movie it held up on its own. It was a well contained story. I felt the pacing was tight and consistent. I did not notice very much CGI. There were many practical effects and were well done. The movie tires to break the mold of past horror films as a whole, but those moments were few and far between. Many times it was the same shtick, sprinkled with homages and lines from the series. It had the same trappings like any other horror film, which is fine. You should always keep some basics. However, there were some problems.

I neglect to mention there is a cold opening at the beginning. The film makers play up some quite important plot points that could easily indicate a reason that the cabin would be watched so nothing evil could take place again. Perhaps that'll be in the sequel; yes there is a sequel in the works. I was not expecting much for characters, but the set up felt rushed for the gore and horror. For example Natalie could have been a little more fleshed out. She had just one defining moment and it was quiet a doozy. It looked like her character was there just to fill space with out any significance. The other characters had their respective roles as I mentioned above, but she could have been an Ash or anything to be honest.

In conclusion, the writers gave out the lines of the past movie like it was candy to feed the Evil Dead fans with little or no consequence. The characters are squandered many times for the sake of pace. It played out like a typical horror film. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but I was hoping for something a little more unique. I do find that amusing to say about a remake, but originality can happen from time to time. The film ran for 90 minutes. If the movie was fleshed out for the characters; it would easily loose the pace of an Evil Dead film, something the film makers were aiming for. It looked great and sounded well. There were times when whispers of dialogue would pop into a scene. The first time I happened, I thought it was another moviegoer. The film would be worth a matinee price for a horror fan. An Evil Dead fan would have some misgivings for it. I would rate it middle of the road, 2 ½ out of 5.

An Indifferent Cloverfield Review

A quick intro to my reviewing style. I prefer to give a recommendation that is for the general public. Not for the niche groups out there or a personal preference. However, I must admit that last remark is a bit of a lie since movie reviews and selection at the "blog" level is all about opinion and personal preference. I digress. I try to evaluate the film to what tries to present and what it accomplish.
For example:
I recently went to watch Alien Verses Predator: Requiem. I expecting just about nothing and had a blast. The real question to address is: Would I recommend this film to the viewing public. Probably not. It is best for the Predator or Alien fans and the sci-fi/horror genre. It does accomplish what it came out to do, but don't have high expectations. Go to the cheap show too.
I hope you all enjoy this brief review of mine.




When I saw the first teaser of Cloverfield, I thought it was going to be a 9-11 film. I was expecting many jerky camera angles abound and a strong sense of patriotism; kind of like WTC, but not as preachy. I may have preferred if it was such a movie because then I could have seen a whole film. For the record, I did watch some subsequent trailers and found out it was a monster movie. Also, I will try not to spoil the movie very much. If you do leave comments, my non-exsistant readers, then please try not to spoil for others or at the very least have a label warning or two.

I would like to delve into some plot points of the film, but that would spoil the film too much. As I said before, I would like not to spoil the film for those who want to see it still. So lets talk a little about the monster with vague details, then get to the heart of the matter. I actually did a little extra reading before i wrote this bloggified review. Listed in the wikipedia entry for Cloverfield, it states that Abrams wanted to make a movie monster for "our generation". One that wasn't Godzilla or Gamera like. He wanted something new and different. The creature design and concept was a nice classic approach that had some familiar somewhat modern [movie] concepts to it. This alone could not save the film.

I'm not saying Cloverfield is a horrible film. I want to recommend the film. It is well made. The shaky cam was not too distracting to the presentation. At least there was some justification to sixty percent of the shaky. To give the film a word, it would be: quite decent. Hell, it even made sense to why we watch this movie through a video camera. The film had a strong and consistent plot. There is a great sense of connectivity between characters, especially the two main leads. The unfortunate side turned its ugly head once the film had ending. It felt as if I had only seen half of a film.

Yes, Internet. I know I am suppose to interpret what happens after the film, but damn they don't give you much left to work with. When I leave a film with questions to be answered, I like to have three quarters pre-fulfilled. I see the world as a half filled kind of guy, to me that is what this movie felt like. Half Full. The main concept presented was "How do normal folk try to survive a monster attack". In addition the plot involves time, save a relationship between the two main characters. I find it an interesting approach to the monster genre. Less is more is fine and good for the monster's scattered appearances. I understand that the film wanted to focus on the couple and citizen's reaction to a disaster to this scale. The romance subplot seemed to be a major factor point. Enduring love and all that good stuff.

If you want a traditional monster movie, don't go to Cloverfield. There are no stereotypical scientists. There is no exposition about the creature's creation. There is no explanation to his ravaging (thou to be honest, do you really need one for a monster movie?). I found these qualities of the film the most charming. I wish there was a bit more monster thou.

The film does try and partially succeeds with its goals of creating a new monster for the 21st century and having a new perspective on the monster genre. It does fall flat when it trying to be different as well. A moviegoer is presented with a partial story, which I hope is intentional. Aside from the main characters, their objectives, the appearance of the and the ravaging there after from the monster; almost all other elements of the story were left to the viewers imagination. I find this a bit unfair. Even from the small snips of the world Cloverfield is from; there is a definite story about the world out there for the viewers to learn. Much like the mayonnaise jar that to the world of Lost, the world of Cloverfield is only released bit by bit. Unfortunate for us, we don't get seasons of Cloverfield for things to be exposed. There is some promising news of a sequel if the movie does well. Oh, and in Japan, there is a plan to create a manga that will act as a prequel to the movie's events.

In the end, I have a strong indifference to recommending the film for the general public. It is good enough for the matinee, but not for shelling out the full movie price of ten dollars. I only paid 9.75, but I still want to makers of Lost to give me my 4.75 back or at least a couple (meaning two, three is NOT a couple) free downloads from iTunes for their show.

I give the film:
2.5 out of five Babylons