The Evil Dead

The first half is excellent. With a minimum of resources, Raimi manages to evoke an oppressive atmosphere of fear. The tree rape scene is something that is not easily forgotten. But the second half is terribly jumbled, as if Raimi didn't know what he wanted to do and was paying for his inexperience as a filmmaker. What I mean is that the scenes are poorly sequenced. In one scene there is a brutal death, and in the one that immediately follows, the characters look uninterested, as if not much had actually happened a few minutes before. I consider Evil Dead to be merely a good, not great, precursor to the flawless sequel. (27/06/2002)

The cult value, of course, prevails. If it hadn't become such a theme, there would be no reason to revisit this slasher, but history would have it otherwise. Today, however, the first film is like a bit of Deja vu, a strange sense of Ash having two hands, of not making fun of the Necronomicon yet, because this is the actual first encounter with evil. And, of course, Bruce is still a young innocent man here. It's interesting, but other parts of the Evil Dead phenomenon have more charm for me. (20/02/2019)

I get why this film has cult status, but for me it’s not worthy of a full score. The first half was great, but the second has several dull moments, the plot gets stuck somewhere and all I could do was wait for an ending that was clear. The final disintegration of the demons didn’t have any atmosphere due to the not very good special effects. It needs a remake, those special effects today don’t work as they should. (03/01/2008)

When I saw this legend of B-movie horror films in 1990 for the first time, to this day a functional genre cult, I was perplexed. Now that I have repeated this experience, my doubts are still there. I consider Evil Dead to be an amateur film that fails fatefully in all the aspects that are important to me. Terrible acting performances, a nonexistent script, cheapness, the idiocy of the film characters - should I continue? Even that one star I'm giving it is not for any merits because the film is bad and is taken seriously to the extent that it is somewhat amusing in its twisted way. Nevertheless, Sam Raimi showed here (at least in his camera work) that he has filmmaking in his blood, and when he adds enough perspective (which he already demonstrated in the sequel of the same title) and gains some experience, he can shoot in a grand style. Overall impression: 10%. (08/07/2013)

To etch such an innovative notch in the annals of horror at 21 requires quite a lot of filmmaking talent, and Raimi here proves with every minute that he has more than plenty of it. The perspective shots and the visual tricks with the foggy environment in the first half generate an atmosphere that is thick as oatmeal (and also delivers rape-by-tree and the book of the death), while the great make-up and an endless dose of inventive camera movements in the second half hold the entertainment value at the highest level, even though the script is stuck in one place. The watering of the light-bulbs and the window projecting blood are immortal moments with deserved cult status. A simple premise exploited to the fullest with a very unorthodox and delicate climax – modern ghost stories can’t hold a candle to this. 80% (16/01/2019)