A commentary and review from someone who's actually seen the movie

Rating: 8/10 (11 April 2013)

After actually watching the new movie last night, I came to this sight and began reading many of the "reviews" and came to the conclusion that a lot of the reviewers didn't like the movie because they either hate the movie simply for existing or hate the movie because it didn't live up to unrealistic expectations or they haven't actually seen the movie. That being said, I admit that the film ain't perfect, but it was an enjoyable experience and overall, I liked it a lot! Is it a re-make or a re-visioning? IMHO a re-make sticks to the original source material with only very minor changes. A re-visioning uses the source material as an overall premise only but takes it in a different direction. Using that criteria the new film is clearly a re-visioning of the original and should be viewed on it's own merit. I've seen the original films dozens of times. I've even read a couple of books about them. I'm no expert, just a fan, but I can tell a good film from a bad one. On it's own, the new film was well made. The script was lean and fast paced. The gore effects were good. The young cast was as good if not better than some in various other recent re-visioning. The film didn't break any new ground, but it was entertaining and one of the better ones out there. The film begins with a short prequel that attempts to set the mood. Personally, I didn't care for it. I understand why it was included (to explain the presence of the book, etc) yet it looked like it was added at the last minute. There are standout performances from Jane Levy (Mia) and Shiloh Fernandez (David) as well as relative newcomers Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas and Elizabeth Blackmore. The characters behave like you would assume. Even Olivia (Lucas) a trained nurse acts appropriately when she finally realizes that she is way out of her depth. Blackmore's character (Elizabeth) could have had a bit more to do though. Director Fede Alvarez, a newcomer to feature film-making does a decent job of pulling together a fast paced, gory ride. Even the obligatory gold Oldsmobile was present! Originally rated NC-17, a few cuts were necessary to ensure an "R" rated film. Hopefully, an unrated version will be available on Blu-Ray. The gore SFX were good enough to convince some people that it was all CGI! There are few jump scares and the pacing is a little too fast to build up a decent atmosphere in parts, but the overall feeling of helplessness does come across in the latter half of the film. Overall, I thought the film was an enjoyable experience and it succeeds in paying homage to the original while still standing on it's own. Now to respond to some of the more negative comments. The new movie takes itself too seriously. The original film was NOT MEANT TO BE FUNNY! Raimi and company wanted to make a serious movie that scared the Hell out of the viewer. What most people find funny in the original film is, actually, due to amateur acting, and a minuscule budget (no re-takes). Several reviewers have even mistaken humor in the 2nd and 3rd films for being in the first! The gore was emphasized over storyline and character development. The gore was the major selling point of the original film! The original film was released with an "X" rating for GORE. It was primarily due to Stephen King's "ferocious" review that it got major distribution. Character development? What's Scott's last name? How do Ash and Scott know each other? There's almost no background given for the original characters. The gore and visual effects were the main concern as per Raimi and Campbell themselves. In comparison, the new version has better character development by far! Too much CGI effects. If you believe that then you haven't seen the movie, nor have you read anything about the making of the movie. Either that or the physical SFX were SO GOOD that you couldn't discern them from CGI. From day one, everyone involved in the new film has stated that CGI was only used for a couple of touch-ups in post-production. The acting in the new movie is terrible compared to the original. Have you seen the original? Richard DeManincor (Scott) blows his lines twice! Ash gets "trapped" under a 10 pound bookcase! Re-watch the scene in the new movie when Mia begs David to take her home. Compare the intensity of her performance against any performance in the original film. The dog and it's death was unnecessary. This is only IMHO but the dog was the one that found the basement door. Also, because of the dog's death, David storms into the bathroom to confront Mia only to find her scalding herself in the shower. This leads him to drive her out of the woods thereby discovering that they were trapped. It was a simple way to get the plot moving in a logical manner. The witchcraft/Satanic angle was dumb. Yeah, the intro could have been done better. The movie simply doesn't go into details and is meant only to explain the presence of the book and all the dead cats. There are other issues I could address but I got other stuff to do and writing this review was a good time killer and hopefully, a bit informative. All I can really say is that everyone's tastes are different and trashing a movie based on misleading or false information is pretty low. I recommend that if you're considering watching this, or any other movie, watch an online preview, read a few reviews, take everything with a grain of salt then decide for yourself. If you think the movie is your cup of tea, it probably is.