+1 / Like / Tweet this post
Pageof 8 First / Last
+1 / Like / Tweet this post
Update says it's a remake, Raimi's not directing (he's producing), and Bruce Campbell is (possibly) not starring.|
Still... yay! I suppose.
|Yeah, true. But why quibble over troublesome facts.|
+1 / Like / Tweet this post
Tbf, the second movie was more a remake of the first, rather than an actual sequel. And that improved on the first in pretty much every way.|
Also, Sam Raimi as producer could still have a whole lot of influence over the project. So it's all good!
Well, it could be.
|Genji, swallow this!|
Give me $10 I'm worth it.
|I'm still torn how I feel about ED3, let alone the prospect of a 4th. I know Raimi likes to point at the studio executives in suits with all their money and stuff for buggering that film up, but he did a pretty good job of that on his own as well tbh.|
|Eh, I didn't think Army of Darkness was that bad.|
|Erm, the one I watched? It was on DVD, so I guess it was the director's cut.|
There are two distinct endings, both of which were released. The one you saw depends on which part of the world you lived in and which version you picked up. One has Ash ending on a high killing a deadite back in the shopping mall he works, the other has him waking up in a post-apocalyptic future.|
There are also multiple versions of the body of the film. There's a "directors cut" which is much longer (20 mins or something crazy), the US theatrical release and I think there's a 3rd version that has some of the stuff from the full "directors cut" but not the whole thing that got a VHS/DVD release, but I'm unsure.
Raimi insists that the "bad" ending is the proper one, and I can see where he's going with that as it is consistent with the other films and Ash's character. However, any version of the film basically has Ash acting like an unstoppable superhero master strategist for the whole film (from the point at the start where he fights the deadite in the pool right up to marshalling the defence of the caste against the invading deadites). So for that film, imho, the "good" is entirely consistent. The buggering up of the tone and reinvention of the character of Ash was done by Raimi, not something forced by anybody else.
The full "extended" directors cut contains a lot of stuff that quite frankly you can see why it was cut. It totally ruins the pace of the film, and the slapstick is just awful.
Oh. Well, the one I saw finished with him in the supermarket. And there was slapstick, but I'm not exactly sure which slapstick you mean. The bits with his doppleganger? The skeleton hands?|
Anyway, like I said, I didn't think it was so bad. Not as good as Evil Dead 2, but that still didn't make it bad for me.
|I didn't think Ash was a different character between 2 and 3 really. He's still a loveable mong in both. Just a mong that's good at ass kicking, Like Sloth.|
I like the film, but you have to be specific about which version you mean . I actually think the studio enforced editing saved that film, which is not a very fashionable argument. (Yeah, there's slapstick in the shorter version, but there's loads more of it that got cut cos it was just awful, and a good job too). Left to his own devices Raimi produced an over-budget rambling mess of a film.|
There are examples where studios have insisted on changes being made against the director's wishes which completely miss the point make for a worse film (Blade Runner, being a classic). Can't think of many that go the other way round!
|I love the second and third movies for what they are, goofy b-movies, but I'm not sure about a new installment. I think I'd rather just leave it for what it was, as I'm not sure who it would be directed at nowadays.|
I would say that the ash's change in tone and character were not only appropriate but necessary. In a film like the evil dead you either make him reasonably hardcore or a butt monkey as a logical evolution of the character.|
if you dont just want to retread old ground, that is.
Sure ED2 was a fun comedic reimagining of the orginal but improved in every way???? God no.
ED was a tense horror ride into an unnerving hell, the sense of dread and unease while watching it has never matched IMO. ED2 was a slapstick horror comedy pure and simple, a good one mind, but still slapstick. The less said about 3 the better! To this day I'm still unsure why he ruined one of the greatest horror movies ever made by going down the comedy route.
The article can't be found in the link but if it's a remake of the original movie with the same tone and none of the comedy of 2 I'm well up for that. A rare thing for me to say that about remakes but ED was made on a shoe string and aged badly even years ago, it's certainly a good choice for a remake, there has never been a possession movie like it (Rec 2 probably being the closest).
|Yeah, I'm not saying that it was inappropriate. But that change in tone and character also makes the "happy" ending entirely consistent with the rest of the film.|
Because he was a massive fan of the Three Stooges and decided he was a bit bored with just constantly doing horror. The decision to tone down AoD was entirely conscious on his part, and in all honesty I think it works better than just treading over the same old ground again.
bad09 wrote:Because it made it better?
I should have put 'imo' after that post, and possibly said "loose remake", not "remake". When I first saw Evil Dead 2, I had already seen plenty of horror movies, but never comedy-horror. And that part of it, imo, is what made it special. I loved it to bits.
I had no idea people felt so passionately about this!
It does. I think both versions have their merits, to be honest. I prefer the original ending because it continues the 'unlucky ash' thing but there is something to be said for 'shop smart, shop s-mart'.|
Its an odd film. Even today its a bit of a curates egg but I enjoy whichever version I watch.
|AOD gives me proper nice 'video shop rental with lots of pop and crisps' memories. It's the best film ever when you're 13|
Army of Darkness is a great film...I found it jarring when compared to ED as well, but AoD is just sublime in its absurdness...|
Never knew about the other versions being available, always thought there was only one version you could buy...
AcidSnake - He can't see your sig, avatar, images or vids and talks about himself in the third person because he's proper old-skool...UID 24017
|So, this is back on, again?|
|I'd take the news article with a grain of salt too - the amount of times Bruce has said 'something is happening' outweighs the size of his chin.|
But he wasn't constantly doing horror though he made one, ED (which was a big screen take on his short film anyway) then remade it as a comedy in ED2. The love of 3 stooges makes sense ED2 did have that kind of tone.
Well we'll agree to disagree on AoD though it was absolutely awful, one of of the worst movies I've seen. Saw it again recently and it's just painful to watch IMO.
Well I'm not saying it's not a great movie, it is, but saying it improved on one of the greatest horror movies of all time is a bit odd! I find it hard you saw plenty of movies like the original Evil Dead to, at the time there was nothing like it, to be honest to this day I don't think it's been topped in terms of atmosphere and such amazing feeling of isolation, you actually felt like you was out in that wood with them.
|I dunno but Evil Dead 2 and 3 are absolutely brilliant.|
|I thought the one where Bruce Campbell was himself was shit though.|
|Oh yeah that was a bit turd, but Evil Dead 2 & 3 are possibly two of my favourite movies ever!|
I can't help the sexual feelings I have for my Cat. I know it's wrong but when she runs her dry furry tongue up my shaft, all my troubles melt away.
|The only thing I hate about these films is the amount of shit Bruce Campbell films I've endured, just hoping for a glimpse of greatness.|