A remake just for the fans

Rating: 5/10 (6 April 2013)

I don't blame Sam Raimi for deciding to produce a remake of his original film. I absolutely do not. His original film, The Evil Dead (1981) has such a strong cult following that like several other films have received the Hollywood treatment of either getting a sequel, remake or prequel made in their name. What saddens me though is that I didn't find this movie anymore entertaining than its ancestor. There were a few slight pluses that distinguished it from the 1981 film but overall this remake made me favor the first one a little more.
For the most part, the plot is the same as the 1981 movie - Teenagers decide to stay at a log cabin unknowingly surrounded by evil spirits that inhabit the forest that are currently lying dormant. The only way for them to be unleashed is by one of the curious teens to read the book of evil sayings. When this is done, gradually each teen is possessed and ends up either killing someone else or hurting themselves. However, I do give credit however to the four writers of the screenplay for at least slightly changing the back-story (two of which were Sam Raimi and director Fede Alvarez). As it turns out, these teens are not up in the cabin for a vacation. Out of two siblings in this group, one has an addiction problem with drugs, so the plan was to help her break the habit.
Then again, this also confuses me because in the story, it sounded like these kids have previously visited this cabin before...so why didn't they notice all the dead animals hanging in the basement before? I don't get it. Oh and let's not forget the beginning scene. I honestly don't understand of what the relevance of it was. The characters involved with the scene are not connected in any way to the other characters that revolve around the plot...so why have it? The beginning scene was only connected to an inquiry that one of the main characters had, but besides that nothing else was explained to who these previous individuals were.
And to bill this movie as the most terrifying movie - I highly disagree. The more psychological horror movies become, the more terrifying they are. Just having a ton of gore and creepy looking demonized individuals is not terrifying, especially if you are one who has seen plenty of other gore fests. And that possessed tree rape scene...the only other thing I could not stand. Something like that, no matter how lengthy on screen is not considered entertainment. I acknowledge that it is not real, BUT why would anyone want to see that? That's not horror. I said this about the Raimi's 1981 film as well.
Besides the back-story being expanded on, I will also give credit to the acting, gore and music. The actors portrayed their characters very accurately as if they were really scared and frightened of what was happening around them. The gore was also definitely up there too. Depending on who you are, it'll either be gross out night or a "eh whatever" night. But to be honest, I'm only giving credit for having it and for being similar to its parent. I'm not saying that any of the kill scenes were original or innovative. They're more like nods towards the original.
The one thing that I am sure about giving credit to is Roque Baños for his musical score to the film. Not only does Baños create some really dark and creepy tones and even some emotional tunes to the movie, but he also creates a main theme for the actual franchise. Throughout the film, audiences will get a chance to hear the specific tune that will belong to this franchise. If composer Joseph LoDuca had done that in 1981, I also would have enjoyed the original better too. Sadly Baños is the only thing that truly stood out to me as an improvement over this run-of-the- mill remake.
Just like Raimi's first film, the remake to the original is by no means bad at being an efficient horror film, but it hardly makes anything more entertaining. The screenplay has an intriguing back-story and its score has improved but the only audiences it will truly please are its devoted fans.