What was so good about The Evil Dead?

H

harmonica44

I watched it recently for the first time, with a date. She liked it, I didn't. Now the movie does have good special effects for microbudget, and Sam Raimi's first feature. But for me a lot of it came off as the same effect over and over. Mostly possessed people's heads being blown and torn apart, and guts coming out of their faces. This is fine a few times in a horror movie, but this happened over and over again. There wasn't really a lot of surprises or plot turns either.

So I am wondering why this movie was such a hit, even with critics, it scored high. Unless gore on it's own, is just really popular and that was enough for people at the time.
 
Because some people like bad movies. There's this myth that if a movie is SOo bad, then that makes it good. The Evil Dead falls into that cultish idea.
 
The whole film was completely OTT for the time. It caused a lot of controversy too. Showing somebody stabbed through the heel with a pencil or having somebody raped by a tree was considered unacceptable for the time. It was banned here in the UK for nearly 20 years!

Still, the chessy, OTT gore, the melting zombies, the tree rape... it all adds up to create a classic "Video Nasties", the kind of thing that us low-budget horror fans love.

I don't think the "so-bad-its-good" philosophy applies here. The Evil Dead is a good film.

It's hilarious too...!
 
It's like The Room. Horrible movie, especially from a filmmaking point of view, but a hell of a lot of fun to watch. So bad it's good.
 
The best thing about the Evil Dead is that it was filmed on my fathers land near Morristown Tennessee. I was young and didn't care about making films but after seeing the Evil Dead's ("Book of the dead" at the time) set and all the activity involved it created the desire in me. Funny because it was a low budget small operation but to a young kid it was massive. At the time I had no clue who Samuel Raimi was hell no one did but my Father (Who still has no clue who Sam is) let him use the land for free as long as my older brother and his best friend who were into super 8 films could help out on set. I was lucky enough to visit the set a couple of times.
 
I agree that there are a lot of movies out there that are so bad that they are good like My Name is Bruce or Shoot 'Em up, for example, but for me I just didn't think The Evil Dead was bad enough to be good enough. It tried to aspire too hard, and didn't seem to know how to have fun with it's own cheesiness. I realize it was controversial though.
 
Last edited:
It's quite possible that you just don't like horror films. Nothing wrong with that. And honestly, when most people are talking about how good Evil Dead is, they're talking about Evil Dead 2, which is a slapstick horror-comedy. I like the first (always have), but in many many ways, it's not a good movie. But I connect with where they're coming from, which you don't (this is going back to the taste vs. quality thing I harp on about).

To really get Evil Dead, you need a little perspective. When it was made, it was done by a couple guys who were very much like most of the folks around here. They wanted to make a movie. They drove across the country to find people to give them money. They made a supernatural horror story to the best of their untrained ability, because that's what they wanted to do. They loved it. They didn't make the movie for you or me, they made it for themselves. They didn't complain about not understanding every nuance of filmmaking...they just went out and did it. And people connected with it.

Funny that you mention My Name Is Bruce, which is a comedy which hinges ENTIRELY on being a Bruce Campbell fan. Anyway, Evil Dead does have a sense of humor about itself, but it's a "get it or you don't" sense of humor. Watch 2 (and Army of Darkness)...they're more obvious comedies, and you'll get it. You might not like it, but you'll understand where they're coming from a little better. And 2 is the one the critics tend to like.
 
I personally don't believe in the whole "so bad, it's good" philosophy, because that just means the movie sucks and you don't mind watching it with some friends and making fun of it. That doesn't make the movie good. If you're laughing your ass off at something that isn't supposed to be a comedy (I'm looking at you, Troll 2!) then that's a bad thing, movie-wise.

I don't see how people make a hobby out of this, and why some people actually try to make a "so bad, it's good" movie (Robert Rodriguez made that Grindhouse crap)
 
The reason I like The Evil Dead is because of its eerie atmosphere especially the part when they are driving down the track in the car.

I cringe when I see the tree rape scene and I think it wasn't really necessary. The story may be predicatable but the character of Ash played by Bruce Campbell turned the stereotype of the final character, or final girl as it's known on its head and instead of a woman being alone and faced with the horror it's a male but he does things that a final girl does (make no mistake here I am not saying Ash is a girl).

From a filmmaking perspective you have to take era into account. This film when viewed from where we are now in the film industry is archaic, rough and could be considered sloppy but at the time it freaked and disgusted audiences and the audacity they showed as filmmakers to create something like this is what was recognised.

I prefer Evil Dead II but the first Evil Dead is still an important part of Sam Raimi, Robert Tapert and Bruce Campbell's careers because it gained them recognition.

But I can certainly see why some people wouldn't like The Evil Dead.
 
I watched Evil Dead II after, and like that one better. They don't over do it on the gore and effects, and it's not as repetitive. I still didn't like it on a first viewing though, because, well I didn't really care about the characters, and thought it was kind of by the numbers with them. Still a lot better for me than the first one though. I started watching Army of Darkness, and not finished yet. So far I like that one a lot better. You don't care about the characters in this one either, but it's funny so far. I think Bruce Campbell's style of acting works a lot better here than it did in the others.

And to answer the one user, I do like horror films but The Evil Dead, just didn't really scare me though. Not in the same way that Silence of the Lambs, Carrie, the original Last House on the Left do for example. It did start out eerie for the first act though, I will give it that.
 
Last edited:
The Evil Dead is a fantastic film. I do not think the original intent of the film was to win and Oscar or scare viewers. I'd guess that the main goal was to be a fun horror flick with over the top scenes. I think that goal was accomplished.

Jax, "good filmmaking" vs "bad filmmaking" is purely subjective. Can you say that it was honestly bad filmmaking? Evil Dead is considered a widely popular cult classic in the horror genre. I would argue that's good filmmaking.
 
You absolutely must put things into "historical" perspective as well. You couldn't do great digital effects except on a "Star Wars" budget, so you did the best that you could. There was no such thing as the internet, and cable TV was in its infancy. It was also the '80's, the age of big hair and excess. Midnight films were events; you got wasted out of your mind and with a large group of friends went to see "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" - probably in full costume - and cult films like "Pink Flamingos", "Reefer Madness", "The Harder They Come", "Eraserhead", "The Warriors" and "The Gods Must Be Crazy" to name a few, or slasher films like "Evil Dead" and many others trying to cash in on the success of "Halloween." Or you went to see concert films like Led Zeps "The Song Remains the Same" or Pink Floyds weirdly wonderful "The Wall."

Part of your job as a filmmaker critiquing a film - not being a critic but seeing a film on its own merits - is to appreciate the historical perspective involved.

Just for fun, here's little of that perspective...


Cost of a new home: $76,400.00
Median Household Income: $17,710.00
Cost of a first-class stamp: $0.15
Cost of a gallon of regular gas: $1.25
Cost of a dozen eggs: $0.91
Cost of a gallon of Milk: $2.16

Iran hostage crisis
John Lennon assassinated
Inflation rate hits 13.5%
Prime rate hits 21%
Reagan becomes president
Mount Saint Helen Erupts
Famine in Ethiopia
Beirut barracks bombing
Soviet war in Afghanistan
Invasion of Grenada
Iran-Iraq war
Challenger disaster
Beginning of the AIDS pandemic

MTV Launches
Arcade games became popular
Sony Walkman was the first truly personal portable music system.
PCs first came on the market in a big way
VHS and Betamax started appearing in homes

Films

Ordinary People
Chariots of Fire
Gandhi
Terms of Endearment
Amadeus
Out of Africa
Platoon
The Last Emperor
Rain Man
Driving Miss Daisy
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Batman
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Back to the Future
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Top Gun
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Crocodile Dundee
Fatal Attraction
Beverly Hills Cop



Disco, Punk and New Wave were competing music genres
 
JoshL said:
...2 is the one the critics tend to like.
Click to expand...

Actually Josh, I think you'll find 'Evil Dead 2' holds only a meagre "98% Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes. 'The Evil Dead' has 100%! ;)

In all honesty, I do prefer 'The Evil Dead' over it's sequels. I do think that 'Evil Dead 2' lost the charm of it's low budget, amature predecessor. The filmmakers got a little too ambitious for my liking; the roughness of the first film is part of what makes it so enjoyable. Then again, I love low-budget horror, so I'm probably biased...


mussonman said:
...Robert Rodriguez made that Grindhouse crap...
Click to expand...

Not sure if you understand the concept of Grindhouse. He (and Tarantino (and Eli Roth, Rob Zombie and Edgar Wright)) weren’t trying to make a film that was “so-bad-its-good”. They were trying to make a great film that appealed to people like me, people who liked “The Evil Dead”. Personally, I think they succeeded.
 
The Grindhouse movies were Campy, the footage was distorted to add grain (at least in Planet Terror, I'm not sure about Death Proof) and the acting was...... I'm not gonna delve into a rant here....

They did the cheesiness as some strange form of meta-comedy, that didn't provide any laughs, just slight giggles at the thought "Ha! There are movies like this!"
 
“…to add grain” is a bit of an understatement. There were burns, scratches, hairs, an entire missing reel… all-sorts added, to make the film look like a print of the movie that may have circulated the states in the 70’s. ‘Planet Terror’ was shot digitally, with all these effects added digitally, ‘Death Proof’ was shot on film, with Tarantino abusing a physical print of the film to get the desired effect. That’s how ‘The Evil Dead’ would’ve looked if you went to watch it at the cinema at the time of its release. That was the whole point of ‘Grindhouse’.

Anyhow… I thought ‘Planet Terror’ and the fake trailers were really funny (‘Death Proof’ seemed to miss the point, to my mind). But then, I also thought ‘The Evil Dead’ was funny.
 
Yes, that's a better explanation of the film reel look.


I thought the trailer for Machete was funny, but Planet Terror and Death Proof should've just been trailers as well.
 
mad_hatter said:
Actually Josh, I think you'll find 'Evil Dead 2' holds only a meagre "98% Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes. 'The Evil Dead' has 100%! ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, the problem with retrospect. This was not the case at the time. You'll note from the 3 "top critic" reviews, only one is from 1981. None for ED2. Once something reaches "cult classic" status, it's easy for critics to say they loved it back in the day. But I remember ED2 coming out, and many critics being shocked by how much they liked it compared to the first. I remember the Siskel & Ebert tv show, Siskel hated it, Ebert raved about it. But to be fair, critics rarely like horror movies.

I also love low-budget horror, and I'll enjoy a bad horror film a thousand times more than most comedies. But we're in the minority there, and that's okay too.

As for intentionally bad movies (as opposed to bad movies that are funny), Lost Skeleton of Cadavra is necessary viewing, doubly so if you've seen a lot of 50s sci-fi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top