Wow...from what I heard, thought you'd love it. I said it before, without Bruce that old Evil Dead feeling is gone. It has to have a serious tone or would simply fail. I always take your opinion seriously so thanks. I honestly didn't think it would be anything special TBH cause nothing horror cinema has offered the past 3 years has been IMO. Everything mainstream has become a tired cashgrab.

I really think it's these big budgets that kill the genre. There's too much emphasis on polishing a turd instead of innovating and being passionate about the story you want to tell. The orginal ED is a perfect example of using limitations to your benefit. In this movie, we have so many flickering lights and earthquakes and excessive set designs in an attempt to be more "real" that it comes off as all the more fake.

Your review, calling it "garbage" and basically worse than a turkey (which you say the 2013 reboot is) indicates a 1 star movie but for some reason you give it 2 stars - which suggests it has some redeeming features? But the fact you have absolutely nothing positive to say about it says otherwise.

Anyway since when does an Evil Dead movie not deserve a bigger budget? Why can't an Evil Dead movie be "straight horror" and why does it have to have a "camp" tone? Why does it have to feature Ash Williams battling deadites over and over again? We have/had the TV series for that and yeah it was great and I wish there was a season 4, but we don't really need another movie about it. You're never going to recapture the magic of Evil Dead 2 so why bother trying to here in 2023. Like Vince says, it has to have a more serious tone or it's going to fail. Why can't it be told from the perspective of a different bunch of characters in a different setting? The characters, whilst not particularly memorable as you say, were all more likeable than in the reboot/remake and the performances by the two lead actresses were pretty great. I liked the mother a lot.

And I don't get your complaint about it being so dark you can't see anything either. I could see everything going on perfectly fine, the "dark" aesthetic was brilliantly utilised so perhaps it has something to do with the projector in your theater, I really have no clue.

There were inventive scenes or at least scenes "borrowed" but given a different spin, such as the keyhole scene, the lift wiring being used in place of tree branches and more than a few nods to the originals (one obvious eye ball scene) and there was even a nod to The Shining (not just the lift).

Gory? Yes. Fun and scary? Yes and yes.. well, perhaps more creepy than scary. And the final "The Thing"-type creature was delightfully grotesque.

Going by the turkey challenge rules, a turkey is anything less than 50%. I've certainly seen worse movies, but I was checking the time to see how much more of it I had to sit through. One redeeming quality is a short runtime. Fuck yeah!

I'm all for changing things up from a stale formula. I never said anything about the series needing more or less horror or comedy, and I never said anything about it needing Ash. It just so happens that Ash's entries have been always been a win. I think the first Evil Dead is straight-up horror and it's one of my all-time favorites, proving that comedy isn't necessary.

The mother was fine. I was rooting for her to kill everyone out of otherwise sheer indifference.

And yes, the movie absolutely was dark. Washed out browns and blacks in a murky apartment, and it ain't my theater's projector. Maybe you just have 25/20 vision. Maybe you think AVP Requiem was well lit also.

No I don't think that at all. The difference is here I could perfectly well see everything that was going on despite the dark and murky aesthetic. As for AVP Requiem, yeah, from what I remember I had no clue what was going on there.

TBH Markus cause without Ash it's just another generic possession horror film which are a dime a dozen these days. Why call it Evil Dead?...why, cause it's another Hollywood cashgrab hoping on memberberry returns, that's why.

Yeah that's a fair point. I saw a critic basically say the same thing, but for me you can still tell its an Evil Dead movie even without Ash. And it's a good one at that. In fact I don't think anything in the Evil Dead franchise including the TV show and even the remake/reboot is bad. It's a consistent franchise as far as I'm concerned and this new one deserves it's place.

Look, I haven't seen it so I can't really say. I saw a review days ago from an Indy critic I trust and said it's got lots of gore and some good cinematography including the keyhole scene which I mentioned here. I saw the 2013 remake at the cinemas and can say it's average at best IMO. It was ok but did I want to go buy it on DVD/BR when it was released...hell no! Is it a film I wanted to own and revisit over and over again like the trilogy?...no! I think Raimi and the producers saw this and is why a year or 2 later Ash vs Evil Dead came out as a series. Put the Evil Dead name to bed already IMO.

I bet you wouldn't be nearly as hard on it if it wasn't called Evil Dead.

The opening title card was pretty fucking awesome. The rest of the movie I did like, but I don't think it quite lived up to the opening. And I had no problem seeing anything that was going on.

The kids were kind of headscratchers for me though. The youngest daughter was cool. But the middle one, the short haired activist, was kind of a bitch. I'm not sure if the movie was promoting her lifestyle or making fun of it. It did kind of seem to be a joke when she said "that's culturally insensitive!" But then you have the "son." At first I thought it was funny that the girl looked more like a boy, and the boy looked more like a girl. But after a little while, I realized that boy IS a girl. I looked it up afterwards, and sure enough Danny was played by a trans person. But the movie never makes any reference to this. Was the character supposed to be a real boy or a transboy?

God, I sure hope they were making fun of her lifestyle. I was happy to see her get infected. And the son, yeah, I wasn't sure what was going on there either. I guess the moral of the story is that if you want to be PC and trans or dyke, you will die a horrible death? And the mom was bound to die for allowing it? And the only reason the little girl made it was because she was normal? Ish? I would raise my rating if that's the case, but I know it isn't. And this isn't me being "culturally insensitive" either. This is just me being an asshole, because it's funny.

Box/Znep sound like they need a disclaimer,

warning this film will trigger snowflakes
you think I jest and of course I do, But I know you are better, let children be children, let adults be adults.
Now this shit dont trigger me, it does you, so ask yourself why are you triggered?
Znep you have good musical tastes so why does this trigger you?
I suggest you get a mirror , and explain it to the mirror, why this triggerd you, you will realize its nuts the reason.
btw this film is shit & box is mostly right why

I think it's stupid because it all exists to create a stir. People are angry about their beer being trans because pop culture has nothing better to say to them. I wish they would stop redefining gender-identity. I'm tired of hearing about it.

Not triggered, just commenting on some things I find odd/funny about the movie.

If that was all in a movie made 10 years ago, I wouldn't even have noticed, but it's kind of hard not to now with the whole modern trans movement being as big as it is.

I'm all for people having the freedom to do what they want. If a person feels more comfortable dressing and acting like the opposite gender, good for them. Where I have a problem is that now it is demanded that everybody else must see them how they see themselves. If you don't play along, you're piece of shit. It's somehow even considered controversial to see a problem with allowing easily-influenced minors to take cross-sex hormones and have irreversable surgeries sterilizing them for life. If you don't see a problem with that, you're insane.

The movie didn't seem to be trying to push a message one way or the other on the issue, so it's fine. I'm not mad at the filmmakers, but just the inclusion of transness nowadays has me rolling my eyes, like here we go again. Like I don't see enough every where else I look.

Mate how many films with trans ppl are on here
https://bloody-disgusting.com/
does it make an apparence in oppenheimer, featuring the crossdressing gay hoover , or trumps favorite lawyer the (not gay at all) who just liked to have sex with 100s of men roy cohn

I'm sorry, but... huh?

just ranting mate.
I was just pushing back on the notion that a lot of films nowadays have trans people in. I would guess less than 5%

Look on the https://bloody-disgusting.com/ site, Im guessing maybe only oppenheimer film (Im not sure if a crossdressing hoover or cohn shows up)

gay characters have been a staple of horror films for decades (usually lesbians) true trans has been less though their have been a few memorable chacrters, like psycho or glen or glenda or sleepaway camp

I wouldn't call any of those examples true trans. Norman Bates had dissociative identity disorder, Angela was forced into it by his crazy aunt, and Glen or Glenda was about a crossdresser.

Hide and Go Shriek and Fatal Games are pretty decent trans slashers though.

Is there much of a difference? between crossdressing and trans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestism


Hide and go shriek is pretty good, fatal games less so

WRT the film, box is essentially correct, nothing to do with evil dead at all.
And feels more like J-horror

Transvestism and crossdressing are the same thing. But I'm talking about transgenders here. A transvestite is a man who acknowledges that he's a man, but just likes to wear women's clothes from time to time. A transgender believes that they actually are in fact the opposite sex, and are trapped in the wrong body.

fair enuf, understood. Gonna watch unwelcome (IIRC it was recommended by you) I'll keep you informed if theres a trans in it (sexual or vestitie)