Rate/Comment on Evil Dead 2 (1987)

Discussion in 'Reader Polls' started by Ash28M, Oct 6, 2004.

?

Rate/Comment on Evil Dead 2 (1987)

  1. 10

    37.0%
  2. 9.5

    14.8%
  3. 9

    18.5%
  4. 8.5

    3.7%
  5. 8

    7.4%
  6. 7.5

    7.4%
  7. 7

    3.7%
  8. 6.5

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. 6

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. 5.5

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. 5

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  12. 4.5

    3.7%
  13. 4

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  14. 3.5

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. 3

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  16. 2.5

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  17. 2

    3.7%
  18. 1.5

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  19. 1

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  20. 0

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. PMcG_6

    PMcG_6 Guest

    9 for me. Good but not as good as the first.
     
  2. Rocker10

    Rocker10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    458
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A perfect 10 for me. My all time favorite movie!
     
  3. Mortis

    Mortis GARBAGE DAY!

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    7,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I can't get enough of the ED flicks. I gave it a 10.
     
  4. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    Wow. Going back over a lot of these old topics and threads to see what I posted about them / how I voted... This one I never chimed in on, but I voted. I voted my old 2000-2001 Blockbuster rental opinion = 4.5. I rewatched it, I dunno, 6 or so years ago when I bought the DVD (at Wal-Mart) (saying that everytime, neverfail, makes me feel like a back porch banjo prodigy) and I decided because of The Internet that I had to settle on a higher score and felt it was maybe a 6 on its best day.

    I know a lot of people love it but it seriously gets to me when people say it's better than the first film yet it exists to distance itself as much as possible from the first film. To just be-different not so much to make money, and not as much as it should be to further the franchise or make a fascinating Sam Raimi artistic statement at a time where he had so much talent... but to sort of say that Raimi was ashamed of the original. To make concessions / somehow bend to the few who made such a controversy out of the original as to suggest it was too much or that it was dangerous somehow. So... he just downright kiddie-fies Dead by Dawn to make sure no one could get confused. It almost feels like he made the sequel with no teeth just so he wouldn't alienate his chances of becoming a major Hollywood director. (Although, since he is and has become one... Can anyone tell me what that really got him, other than the Spiderman franchise? That it was so worth burying a vastly potentially superior, darker, creepier Evil Dead II.)

    It really is worth pointing out, though this is such a creatively rich and wildly inventive film that so many people love, that as true horror it just feels so compromised and robbed of being as scary as it could have been. As scary as the original was. All because of one scene. Which he wasn't expected to copy anyway. So, why did he have to rule the entire film by one scene? He made sure the entire film was constantly reminding the audience that they would not see something horrific. The whole thing was strictly cartoonish. Which never works for an 85-90 minute feature.

    Something like Peter Jackson's Braindead / Dead Alive feels like a vastly better, more go-for-broke and risque, incarnation of what Raimi was trying to do with Dead by Dawn. Which is also funny: even Raimi's sequel doesn't quite go all the way...

    I'll admit, technically, it's a good film. But I will never be able to shake off that initial disappointment from the day 15 years ago when I rented it on VHS and was like: what the hell is this???
     

Share This Page