Evil Dead Remake

Off Topic
61

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Not the same without Bruce FUCKING Campbell and his awesome crazy gaze.

[/quote]

No matter how much I try and force my mind open, this pretty much sums it up.

Not one of the Evil Dead movies would have worked without Bruce. Army of Darkness showed you can rip away every single element, change any monster, any location, any weapon, any situation, any eventuality, and you still have a movie that people will call the “sequel” to Evil Dead.

Now try this. Take Bruce Campbell away from any of those movies. Hell, take Bruce away from any SCENE in any of those movies. And the movie no longer works. It is turned instantly into a shittily produced B- horror flick (or fantasy, in the case of AoD).

Try this one, too: Think about the plot of any wildly popular trilogy series. Now, imagine how the fans would have reacted if the ENTIRE SETTING, ATMOSPHERE, PRODUCTION QUALITY, SCOPE, MOOD, and GENRE!!! of the movie were suddenly radically upturned for the final installment in the series. People would howl like you switched their Coke to New Coke.

Yet, how did the VAST majority of fans react when this happened in the Evil Dead series? Pretty much like the two cops in Superbad reacted to McLovin’s explanation that he only had one name: That’s badass!

62

Before I elaborate because I’m very familiar with both novels, which ‘twist’ (or PERCIEVED twist)
are YOU referring to? That Farantino was a Zombie all along revealed when he saw his own snuff film, and are you comparing that to the end
of B.R. that Scott allegedly stole? There are plot points within BOTH films and Novels that others may
percieve as ‘twists’, 'just wanna make sure we’re on the same page as you didn’t elaborate initially
just the same.

63

[quote]Karado wrote:
Before I elaborate because I’m very familiar with both novels, which ‘twist’ (or PERCIEVED twist)
are YOU referring to? That Farantino was a Zombie all along revealed when he saw his own snuff film, and are you comparing that to the end
of B.R. that Scott allegedly stole? There are plot points within BOTH films and Novels that others may
percieve as ‘twists’, 'just wanna make sure we’re on the same page as you didn’t elaborate initially
just the same.[/quote]

You should’ve asked that before. The very famous twist I’m referring to is in the movie but NOT the short story.

I didn’t elaborate because it spoils both movies. What did you think I was talking about?

64

In other news, Snape kills Dumbledore, Tyler Durden isn’t real, Soylent Green is made of people and Jesus dies at the end of The Passion of the Christ.

65

[quote]Karado wrote:
LOL yeah, I remember that last line from TZ, classic.

No, not ‘Sleepaway Camp’,yes that was the 80’s, this was TRILOGY OF TERROR, from
Dan Curtis, (creator of the original DARK SHADOWS series BTW.)
It was 3 suspense/horror stories made for TV, and the LAST story is widely considered
to be the best horror short for TV probably ever…man that ending
still gets me. Keep in mind there wern’t 100’s of channels back then so millions were tuned in…‘seems like
my whole school was talkin’ about this one the next day lol.
It DOES start out slow (pre-ADD era)…stick with it.
Anyway, be honest and give it the ol’ critique when you can…see if it ‘holds up’ today.
enjoy.
[/quote]

Finally got to watch this, Karado, and all I can say is THANK YOU! That was absolutely exquisite! I know they came out about a decade later, but it reminded me of the old Tales From the Darkside series, many of which were done in the same kind of one-act-play, single actor monologue script style as this one, although this one certainly sets the bar for quality.

I really appreciate the introduction. Again, thanks!

*edited tags

66

I really liked Karen Black’s performance, too, and it did not take much research before my respect for her was pushed even higher. I was looking her up after watching this and found this on IMDB’s Trilogy of Terror page:

[CONTAINS SPOILERS, if you have not watched this yet, then get back up there and watch it!]

[i]Karen Black contributed much to the 3rd segment “Amelia”. She re-wrote her first conversation with her mother on the telephone. Black wanted to emphasize that the mother was controlling and manipulative. The original words made the mother out to be too nice. Making the mother controlling of Amelia would make the audience more on her side when we realize what is going to happen to the mother when she comes to visit.

…

The idea of grinning and showing fang-like teeth similar to the ‘zuni’ doll - the final and arguably the most chilling image in the film - actually came from Karen Black herself. [/i]

67

Your welcome, only the best man…If I have any other gems I can think of, I’ll
post it here, but you just witnessed a short and memorable classic that’s very
hard to top.
Lol, they sell it’s memorabilia even today…T-shirts, Calendars… I guess they did make an official
replica of the Doll not long ago…maybe Ebay has one, but I SURE don’t want it,
Fuck that, lol.
Glad you enjoyed it.

68

Damn it, now I’m going to have to watch Dead and Buried (for the 1st time), AND Blade Runner (again)…

Regarding Return of the Living Dead – it’s such an amazing movie, in its own bizarre way, that almost everyone associates zombies with someone groaning ‘braaaaaains.’ Even people who’ve never seen RotLD have that whole ‘braaaains’ thing in their…brain.

69

Meh, nothing even comes close to the original The Thing.

Never really understood the infatuation with gore. You don’t need excessive gore to make a good horror film.

70

[quote]SSC wrote:

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:
Alright so maybe i didnt miss out too much by not seeing Cabin in the Woods…
[/quote]

I think that’s pretty much the opposite of what was said in this thread… ? Just watch it dude. Learn as little about it as possible beforehand.[/quote]

The impression im getting is its just a mash-up of elements/characters from every classic horror film jammed into one movie trying to pay homage to the genre. Am i wrong?

71

Fucking with a masterpiece trilogy should have it’s consequences.

Go in with LOW expectations gentlemen.

Think ‘Phantom Menace’.

72

“Damn it, now I’m going to have to watch Dead and Buried (for the 1st time), AND Blade Runner (again)…”

Actually I’ve always thought BLADE RUNNER was mostly a bore, the SFX DO hold up very well,
and it’s fantastic at sucking you into it’s ‘world’, and I credit the score by Vangelis
in assisting greatly doing that…effectively hypnotic in spots, but looking at it again on
Cinemax in HD recently, I still just couldn’t get into it, and frankly I don’t quite
understand it’s hardcore devotees in the same way I don’t understand “Trekkies”.
I like B.R. in it’s own way, and even can enjoy me some Star Trek, but some devotees,
well…I think they need to get a life…lol.

73

[quote]roybot wrote:
In other news, Snape kills Dumbledore, Tyler Durden isn’t real, Soylent Green is made of people and Jesus dies at the end of The Passion of the Christ.[/quote]

You forgot the most important one:

Kevin Spacey is Kaiser Sosay (sp).

74

Evil Dead 2 is in my top 3 of all time. It never lets up for a minute.

Workshed!

75

[quote]SSC wrote:
Sinister … Martyrs

There will always be gems to be found, sometimes one just has to be persistent in their search.[/quote]

I was really pleasantly surprised by Sinister. The opening scene in particular. Martyrs was good too, pretty fucking horrible.

I thought the original Paranormal Activity was good. All the sequels have been turd though.

76

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:
The impression im getting is its just a mash-up of elements/characters from every classic horror film jammed into one movie trying to pay homage to the genre. Am i wrong?[/quote]

I’m inclined to agree with this, however I’m sure it’ll be violent and gross enough to be entertaining.

77

roybot wrote:
“…and Jesus dies at the end of The Passion of the Christ”

No he didn’t, you must have went to the bathroom at the end.

78

[quote]SSC wrote:
… I’ve been much more impressed with much “quieter” horror films in recent years … [/quote]

There was a film out not long ago (Pontypool) where the scariest parts were the ones in the beginning where you saw nothing, but your imagination went wild upon hearing how a man outside was describing the horror that was occurring around him.

Actually, Roybot once wrote up an excellent post about it:

[quote]roybot wrote:
Pontypool - gorehounds be warned, this is a zombie flick with no visible biting or brain-snacking: the action takes place in a small-town radio station where the staff attempt to defend themselves against a zombie virus with a very novel way of spreading itself (it transmits itself through language, so you’ll either love it or you’ll hate it), while reporting on the infected.

Most of the carnage takes place off-screen, and comes in the form of eyewitness reports phoned into the station from the radio weatherman who was trapped outside when the plague hit.

His description of the zombies’ attacks, his attempts to survive and his encounter with a zombified boy are some of the creepiest stuff I’ve seen in a horror…
[/quote]

79

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Fucking with a masterpiece trilogy should have it’s consequences.

Go in with LOW expectations gentlemen.

Think ‘Phantom Menace’.[/quote]

Its not fucking with the trilogy. Its a remake. Phantom Menace was a prequel.

(and i dont care what people say, i like the prequel episodes to the Star Wars series)

Also, when the original directors come back to make it, it deserves the benefit of the doubt in my opinion.

80

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:
The impression im getting is its just a mash-up of elements/characters from every classic horror film jammed into one movie trying to pay homage to the genre. Am i wrong?[/quote]

Yeah, that’s a pretty “snapshot” way of trying to summarize the movie, and not wildly accurate either. It’s definitely a really smart, witty but unique movie and I’d recommend it to anyone who’s a fan of the genre. I haven’t met anyone IRL yet who didn’t thoroughly enjoy it. (FWIW, I drove 30 miles out of my way to buy it the day it came out on Blu-Ray…!)

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I was really pleasantly surprised by Sinister. The opening scene in particular. Martyrs was good too, pretty fucking horrible.

I thought the original Paranormal Activity was good. All the sequels have been turd though.[/quote]

Yeah, Sinister’s “reel” scenens were truly the crowning jewel of that movie. It was a good movie all-around (could’ve done without some of the GOTCHA! moments,) but the build-up and suspense of those scenes, coupled with the extremely off-putting soundtrack that would play during them, was definitely awesome. I also got really lucky, though, and saw the movie by myself one late dreary night with no one else in the movie theater, so that was a good experience.

Lol, yeah, Martyrs is fucked up. I like how the first half goes by, as crazy as it is, and you think it’s coming to an end and was just a short movie. …and then there’s the entire second half that’s pants-shittingly unflinching. Great movie, too bad lots overlook because of its French origin/subtitles.

And I do agree with the original PA! The sequels were awful, definitely. I kind of think of it as the Saw franchise - on closer inspection, the first installment was really pretty damn decent, all things considered. All the other ones muddle down the relative ingenuity and execution of the first one, though. :confused: