The Evil Dead: 1981 v 2013

WARNING: The following review contains spoilers

              In 1981, Sam Raimi made the decision to turn what was once a college project into a feature length horror film. Set in a cabin, in the middle of nowhere, Raimi’s work epitomises one of the key features of any horror film: Isolation.  The story of ‘final boy’ Ash Williams has since been harshly criticized and Raimi himself has admitted there is at least one scene he regrets. But the tale has transcended generations, even spawning its own TV series: Ash Vs The Evil Dead. In terms of the version made in 2013, however, the internet has been proliferated with questions and opinions on whether it is a remake or just a delayed sequel. And today, I will throw my hat into that ring.

The Friendship Dynamic

              The group of friends involved in the horror that ensues in the reclusive cabin are three girls and two males – a sister, her brother, the brother’s girlfriend along with his best friend and his significant other. This group and the order of deaths (or possibly conversions is a more accurate way of describing what happens) are exactly the same in both films; the girls first, beginning with the sister. It is interesting to point out, that the sister in the 2013 version is actually our lead and ‘final girl’ so to be taken first adds a different twist.

Mia – The New Ash?

              Here is where to the story is slightly turned on its head. When I first watched the 2013 film I did not realise it, but re-watching in order to write this review, Mia is not Ash.

It is an understandable first comparison to make, they are our respective ‘final girl’ and ‘final boy’. However, Mia is actually the new Cheryl. When we first meet her, she is outside drawing the cabin and on the first night, we see Cheryl drawing the clock. This is also shown in the fact that it is Mia and no one else that goes through the incident in the forest, adding a new turn in our tale. Also, for anyone who watched the original film and was expecting this version to be a remake when it was realised, they would naturally have expected David to be our lead. Score one for Mr Raimi on that trick.

The Illicit Forest Scene

              As previously mentioned, Raimi has been criticized and has since stated that he regrets the use of this scene. The original has been described as gratuitous and may even have left woman in the audience feeling rather uncomfortable (and I understand why). He claimed that this had since been ‘dulled down’ for the later film. This is where I disagree with Mr Raimi. I feel that this is quite an intrinsic scene as – even though the rising of the Evil Dead is brought about by the reading of the book – this is the start of the real trouble. For me, aside from the lack of typical horror film ‘boob shot’, both versions are pretty identical. The only difference, and this is the part I find most interesting about the more recent version, is that it is the lead female that endures the horrific attack.

Demon Cinematics

              The look of each film can be accredited obviously not only to the director’s vision of how they would like it to look, but also when it was made.  Talking in terms of the 1981 original, you can see that the origins of the film are based on his college creation – even the style is quite reminiscent of what it may have looked like. The amazing part is exactly how good each of the demons looks, almost the way the average person would expect a zombie to.

              On the other hand, in 2013 – they look more human. Yes, there are skin mutilations and a reasonable amount of blood from them, but for me this brings something different to the fear Raimi is trying to ensue.

              When they look as human as they do, it brings in the idea of familiarity – which in its own way can be terrifying. If a monster looks like you – how are you to know it’s really a monster? However, what scares me watching the original film is the transitions between human and demon. Especially in the case of Linda. The demons looking so different to the human form is how they fool Ash when they turn back for a just short scene to draw him to them. The creepiest thing about Linda’s transformation, is that she is almost turned into a life-like doll. Her eyes are completely white – like Shelly and Cheryl’s – but her face is made up almost like porcelain and she just sits and giggles, even singing what sounds like a nursery rhyme. In this instance, I will always prefer the 1981 version.

Remake or Sequel

              Firstly, post-forest attack, in the first film Cheryl begs of Ash to take her away from the cabin and into the city, as does Mia to David in the second. Ash agrees, David does not but Mia leaves anyway. But neither get away. In both instances, the bridge is gone. Now, the question is – if this is a sequel, who rebuilt the bridge? We know the cabin is abandoned, and as far as we know Ash never leaves.

              Secondly, the chainsaw. For viewers of the 1981 version and its direct sequels, we know that Ash takes the chainsaw – firstly to remove Linda’s head (unsuccessfully) – then to replace his infected hand with it, in order to fight demons further down the line. So again, if the 2013 edition of Evil Dead is a sequel – how is the chainsaw still in the shed for Mia to be victorious in the end?

              I have seen many argue that the 2013 film is a sequel, due to the door already being broken at the latch, claiming this is due to Ash and friends breaking into the cabin. I would just like to point out – they do not break in. It is clearly shown, twice, that they use a key to enter the cabin – both on arrival and when Cheryl returns from her fateful night in the forest. Now the door is broken open, I will agree there, but only when ‘demon’ Cheryl is trying to attack Ash towards the end of the film, and it is a little more than just broken at the latch.

If I am completely honest, I would need more than just a broken door to change my mind. However, I will say – I definitely enjoyed the 2013 film more than I did when I watched it the first time and truly I think I can now say, I like both films reasonably equally for the different ways the story is portrayed.