Richard L. Haas III’s review published on Letterboxd:
"I read a passage from that book and it was some sort of prayer. I released something... I released something evil."
What a way to kick 2023 off: with a bang. And brilliant timing too as the first Evil Dead Rise poster and teaser dropped as I'm writing this review with the official trailer dropping when I probably finish writing this tomorrow. I've got my hopes for that film, but it'll be interesting to see how it fits in this muddied timeline. While I've heard that the 2013 film (the one I'm reviewing now) takes place in a separate universe, my own head-canon prefers to recognize it as a semi-sequel to the original trilogy and precursor to Ash vs. the Evil Dead where we see what the cabin was up to. Shame, though we will never get that Ash/Mia team-up film that was said to follow an Army of Darkness sequel… I wonder if it would have followed the theatrical cut or the director’s cut… but I digress.
This was a very controversial film when it was released— but not in the way you’d think. It wasn’t because of the excess amount of blood, or even the tree rape (which was somehow less and more brutal at the same time than the original). It was controversial because it divided the fans in half faster than a deadite eating a chainsaw. One half embraced the new darker, more realistic tone while the other thought the seriousness sucked the soul out of what made the franchise special. As you can tell from my rating I’m in the former camp. Here’s why:
Director Fede Álvarez basically made The Evil Dead the way Sam Rami had set out to make it in the 80s. And it's actually pretty cool that Rami used the Evil Dead name to help rising talent in the way that he was when he made the original. If Rami had a bigger budget, tighter script, better actors (sorry 1981 Bruce Campbell), access to 2010s filmmaking equipment/technology, and frankly, hindsight, I genuinely believe that he would have created something like this. Perhaps with more comedy though. However, if he did, I doubt it would have as much of a following as it does. While I had a blast with this film, it lacks the janky charm of the original as this is admittedly your generic 2000s remake schlock in the same vein as Michael Bay and Brad Fuller’s Platinum Dunes reboots— it even features the dude with long hair and glasses trope as an homage to the original era.
Despite this, 2013’s Evil Dead still brings a good amount of worth to the table. As a stand-alone film, it offers some great special effects, amazing cinematography, and some truly unique editing that often utilizes an incredible use of silence and sound restraint. As for a reboot, it arguably has the most reasonable explanation for why there are in the cabin, had some great callbacks such as the severed hand, wonderful reinterpretations such as Mia under the cabin’s basement hatch, and some rather inventive retcons in the lore such as the Necronomicon not being able to burn— explaining that Ash didn’t destroy it when he burned it if the reboot is in the same continuity.
One thing I can’t figure out if I like or not is how the script plays with audience expectations on who the “new Ash” or Final Girl/Guy would be. (That being said, SPOILERS in this paragraph.) In retrospect, I guess I kinda spoiled it above like I did with my friend who I watched this with. Long story short, I called Mia the new Ash and he became confused when she became a deadite, inhibiting the Cheryl role instead. In the film, you’re supposed to think David would be the Ash character as he functions very similar to the beta version of Ash that appears in The Evil Dead. So when Mia is healed/split from her “Abomination” self and David dies, it becomes evident that she is the Final Girl of the film. When I saw this at the cinema, I’m sure I thought it was a big-brain movie, but rewatching now, it feels a little messy. Ash turning into a deadite and splitting (literally) from his bad self worked in Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness because it happened early on, having it happen mid-third act in the reboot basically allows for a survivor that hadn’t particularly “earned” it.
Regardless, it was a welcome change of pace and a solid entry that felt at home within the universe. It’s like I said in my Army of Darkness review: Everyone has a different idea of what the true Evil Dead tone is although every entry (except for Ash vs. the Evil Dead and perhaps Evil Dead Rise) have vastly different tones. Let’s enjoy the series for it core horror, sometimes bonkers comedy, and revel in its unflinching boldness to always be willing to try something new while still playing in familiar ground.
Probably should mention, seeing this movie in theaters back in the day marked the first time I met one of my long-lasting friends from college, so there's some nostalgia at play here.
