▼

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Evil Dead

For my sins, I have just watched Evil Dead.

This movie is regarded as a classic in the splatter genre, and has very high reviews both on Amazon and Rotten Tomatoes, I mean really high reviews.
But I can't figure out by what measures this is a great movie, or even a good one. To me it seems it has a mediocre story, mediocre effects and makeup, mediocre acting, mediocre directing.

4.5 stars over 682 reviews!
Is it so perhaps that the fanbase is so small for splatter than big-budget movies are not made, big talent is not attracted, and so fans have to judge the movies not be general movie standards, but only to others in the same genre, and so some movies have to come out on top?

Has nobody made a splatter movie with a decent budget, good actors, a solid story, etc?
at

11 comments:

  1. John Krumm16 Mar 2013, 16:10:00

    The only good splatter movie I've seen is Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil. Quite funny, good script, well acted, lots of blood.

    ReplyDelete
  2. emptyspaces16 Mar 2013, 17:04:00

    Would Shaun of the Dead qualify?

    I look at Evil Dead the same way I look at Rocky Horror Picture Show - it's not so much that either movie is any good (at all), but rather that some weird sense of community is gained by watching it.

    Incidentally, the first half of the third Evil Dead movie (Army of Darkness), is quite funny for its anachronisms. But do switch it off after 45 minutes or so because it's almost like everyone involved lost interest in their own movie after that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous16 Mar 2013, 22:08:00

    Quite funny, good script, well acted, lots of blood.

    No, that sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eolake Stobblehouse17 Mar 2013, 10:40:00

    Oh yeah, Shawn of the Dead was very good, very funny. I like that team's work.
    And of course it was a comedy more than a horror film. Splatter is really so over-the-top that it's hard to imagine a good one which isn't basically a comedy. If it wasn't, it'd just make us sick.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous17 Mar 2013, 20:21:00

    Shaun of the Dead was great because it was a comedy first, not like one of those pieces of shit that tries to be horror first with some Joss Whedon like comedy thrown in which never works.

    I don't think the cartoonish gore of a horror movie would make me sick it just wouldn't be the least bit scary because it's always so over-the-top.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Eolake Stobblehouse17 Mar 2013, 20:32:00

    Indeed, but I was thinking in a better film with a bigger budget, it might be more realistic. That could be challenging.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous18 Mar 2013, 14:37:00

    There would be a lot less of it were it realistic. None of this stabbing someone in the gut and having 80 gallons of blood spray out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eolake Stobblehouse18 Mar 2013, 15:04:00

    I heard from writers who had done research with policemen, that reality can be surprisingly bloody. They have a term: "high velocity blood" for the blood which is sprayed all over a crime scene.

    ReplyDelete
  9. John Krumm19 Mar 2013, 00:38:00

    Shawn of the Dead was very good too, but I watched Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil for the second time with my wife the other day and we laughed our asses off. Very fun.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eolake Stobblehouse19 Mar 2013, 12:10:00

    Yes, I just watched Dale and Tucker, and I liked it, very funny. Good production.
    And it did *not* hurt that it had the mouth-watering Katrina Bowden in it (the sadly underused secretary on 30Rock)!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous19 Mar 2013, 13:54:00

    It sprays all over the crime scene from certain wounds - like if the heart is pumping like crazy and you get a puncture to the carotid - but in horror movies (and in Japanese anime) they bleed far more than the body could contain. I don't mind the blood spraying around if it's from a wound that would do that, but chopping off a limb or cutting open the gut wouldn't produce that.

    ReplyDelete