April 5, 2013, - 6:23 pm

Weekend Box Office: Evil Dead (The Remake)

By Debbie Schlussel

I’ve never seen the original “The Evil Dead,” of which “Evil Dead” is a remake. I’ve seen some clips, but not the entire thing. But I saw this with people who saw the original, and they said this one was far more bloody, graphic, and so on. They said the dismemberment and gore factor was significantly up in this version, and that the campiness factor was down. For example, in the original, when someone’s hands are cut off, the hands end up crawling around the room. (*** CORRECTION: I’m told that happens in the second movie, “Evil Dead II.”) None of that kind of thing happens in this version. And this version is humorless. And it literally rains blood. Remakes are rarely better.


For the record, I like horror movies and thrillers, but this was a little too gory, bloody, and disgusting for me. People sawing off their body parts ad nauseam, people sawing off their jaws, people shot through with nail guns . . . not for me. But if this is your thing or you are a warped serial killer looking for new ways to senselessly torture, then this movie is for you. I found it pointless and a waste of time. Very few parts of it were scary to me. Instead, it seemed old hat and its “scariness” seemed anachronistic to me. At times I even laughed when I wasn’t supposed to at some of the absurdity that was intended to be fright-inducing.

The story: a bunch of 20-somethings go to the creepy cabin in the woods belonging to the brother and sister of the group. They go there, ostensibly, for a vacation of sorts, but really to get the sister cold turkey off of drugs. Instead, almost everyone eventually becomes obsessed by an evil spirit they’ve set free when one of the group discovers an old book of satanic spells that he utters out loud.

I’m told you should stay through the end of the credits for a “surprise,” but since I didn’t know this, I left and apparently missed it. If you’ve seen the movie, please post what the surprise is at the end.

Ain’t worth ten bucks. Not even close.

If you see this and have seen the original, please let us know in the comments section, whether or not you agree that the original was better and why or why not.


Watch the trailer . . .

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

31 Responses

Seen ’em all. Part 1 was a horror classic; it was only when they made Part 2 that they started camping it up with stupid jokes.

Without spoiling anything, I will just say the new version really came off the rails in the final 15 minutes – far too many absurd, “unexpected” twists that fail in execution and are just plain stupid.

Most egregiously of all, they employ that STUPID trope that pollutes the end of almost every single thriller and horror movie these days: a split second before delivering the final blow, the hero throws a lame putdown at the principal evildoer, i.e. “Devour THIS, motherf**ker!!” Sometimes they even have the actor execute a sketchy one-quarter turn and look RIGHT INTO THE CAMERA as they say it. I hate that. This “cute” “finishing touch” is usually enough to ruin an otherwise perfect movie; and this one is not perfect.

Just skip the sequels and the remake. The original is still an ace movie.

And the post-credit scene is nothing more than Bruce Campbell (who starred in all three of the previous “Evil Dead” movies) saying “groovy” (his tagline from the stupid sequels). Shameless audience pandering.

Sta-tus MoNkey on April 5, 2013 at 10:16 pm

I wonder if they meant ‘Evil Dead 2′ which was VERY campy and fun? I saw the original (when I was a teen) and it scared the crap out of me. I remember it being VERY scary and not campy. I loved “Evil Dead 2” (& “Army Of Darkness” which was “Evil Dead 3”) but I didn’t like “Evil Dead” (too scary for me at the time…but I guess I liked it film-wise…it just creeped me out as it reminded me of “The Exorcist”. I was a teen baby-sitting so who knows (when I first saw it!)?

The hand is in “Evil Dead 2” so that is why I ask. I could be wrong though.

This doesn’t sound like my kinda horror film (and I am a fan). I don’t like “Last House On The Left” films and I hated Rob Zombie’s (even thou’ I am a HUGE fan of his!!!) ‘The Devil’s Rejects’. I hate movies like that. Might as well watch “Funny Games” or some other film that makes me wanna do The Dutch.

But I love “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. The original (and the VERY weird and creepy #2!)

Skunky on April 5, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    What is your PROBLEM?! You know DAMN WELL that TCM2 is one of the most woefully misbegotten pieces of crap to ever come out of Hollywood’s smelly butt. Are you TRYING to get people to insult you? Or what? This isn’t a matter of “taste” or “opinion.” It is objectively, quantitatively that horrible. You WOULD like it.

    Has any other sequel in history so completely DEFILED a good movie as that one did? I doubt it; the only one I can think of right now that MIGHT compete with it would be Exorcist 2: The Heretic.

    Sta-tus MoNkey on April 5, 2013 at 10:33 pm

The history of “Evil Dead”

It started as a 30 minute short called “Within the Woods”, it is on youtube. This short was used to show investors what their money will be used for on a bigger scale. It worked.

They then made “Evil Dead”, so technically a remake. Bad acting, which made it campy but not real funny. Very graphic horror film with that 70’s Hammer Horror type special effects.

With the profits from this film they made “Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn”. The surprise here is it is not a sequel but another remake on a bigger budget. So that is 2 remakes of the same movie with the same actors and crew. This one was funnier, on purpose and still graphic.

It made much more money and got a bigger studio interested in 1992 to do a bigger budget movie. They weren’t sure audiences unfamiliar with the films would go see “Evil Dead 3” so they changed the name to “Army of Darkness”. It is the true first sequel as it continues from the end of part 2.

It made the most money. It is very funny, less creepy, more action and set Bruce Campbell in to his character type for everything he has done since (Xena etc). Funny thing is most Evil Dead fans saw the third (4th?) movie (AOD) first, then went back to Evil Dead and went forward from there.

They also made multiple DVD versions of the films, they release every so often to cash in on (like the “Boomstick”version)with alternate endings, deleted scenes and features.

This also launched Sam Raimi’s career. Since 1992 they have promised an “Evil Dead 4” or “Army of Darkness 2” but then the Spider-Man movies and money got in the way. So here we are, 21 years later and they give us another remake. Why? They didn’t think they had a big enough fan base to support a proper sequel. Translation “MONEY”. But not like the other remakes, no Ash/Bruce and no Sam.

Now because of fan mumbling about not getting what was promised Sam has announced that he will make “Army of Darkness 2” with Bruce and make it a true sequel, not another remake. He also promised that the new rebooted Evil Dead would not mix with the new Army of Darkness, he lied with the “surprise” scene at the end of the credits.

So, you can tell I was a fan but have no plans to see this version. Might Netflix it if it goes on the instant view, but not planning on it.

ender on April 5, 2013 at 11:17 pm

    Ender, thank you so much for your informative post. I did not know some of the stuff you shared. Very un-boring! I enjoy the un-boring posts!


    I should watch the first one again (as an adult). I really liked Army Of Darkness…A LOT!

    Yeah, Bruce was so fun in those films! 😀

    Skunky on April 5, 2013 at 11:34 pm

    Just want to correct ender’s assumption that Raimi is making this movie for the money. This would be correct if HE in fact was making this movie. This movie was directed by another (Fede Alvarez). It was still originally written by Sam and credit given where it was due, HOWEVER, once again, this version was written by Fede Alvarez.

    TB: Raimi is a producer of this remake. So, he’s making money. Check the credits. DS

    Tbogg on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 pm

      DS: While that is very true that he and many others from the series are making money that would be like stating that Jim Leland isn’t swinging the bat hard enough when prince fielder is at the plate??? Have a blessed one. TB

      Tbogg on April 7, 2013 at 6:58 pm

      TB and Debbie–This Evil Dead (IV) film was released through Tri-Star, which is owned by Sony. That–along with the producer credit–tells us that Sam Raimi is the owner of the property. There was a legal dispute over the next sequel, as discussed in the site that follows, but that matter was resolved in Sam Raimi’s favor.

      Ralph Adamo on April 8, 2013 at 5:36 pm

Once again I didn’t even manage to get past the first sentences of your review Debbie. Please be careful you don’t poison your brain watching these films.

You say that the “dismemberment and gore factor” (well-defined by the way) is significantly up.

No surprise there then, as it seems that “the world” is training us to love the things that our Creator, the God of Abraham, hates.

“Anyone loving violence, (God’s) soul certainly hates”. Psalm 11:5

If we allow ourselves to be entertained by gore and dismemberment, aren’t we loving violence?

The title is interesting too. The Evil Dead. Is this yet another movie that has the dead alive in some other state, thus contradicting the clear and simple words of the Hebrew Scriptures, which tell us: “As for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.” – Ecclesiastes 9:5

Wasn’t it Satan – “the father of the lie” – who told Eve that she would not and could not die? Her Creator had told her that she would die if she chose to disobey him. Satan said she would not.

She disobeyed, and she died, and returned to the dust of the ground from which she had been created.

From the title of the movie, it sounds like it is propagating that lie. But, as I said, I didn’t get past the first para of your review.

sue on April 6, 2013 at 3:11 am

Good review, Debbie. You are just about where I am with this movie—-expressing a qualified tolerance for the film given the genre which is not a favorite for either of us. Both you and I reacted much more negatively to last year’s outwardly similar “Cabin in the Woods.” What’s the difference? The characters from last year’s film were hip, cool, dope-smoking teens (remember the girl who French kissed the wolf?). The kids in this current film were basically decent and sympathetic, even if they weren’t particularly complex or memorable. That immediately made the story more palatable.

Raimi’s original “Evil Dead” films got funnier with the sequels. It was “Evil Dead II” that your friends were remembering where the dismembered hand took on a life of its own, Debbie. My favorite of the three has always been—-and here I agree with Skunky–the third, “Army of Darkness.” Gorily gruesome films are a dime-a-dozen and there have been so many of them done: the soulless Saw series would alone have numbed us all even if this hadn’t already happened with the Chainsaw sequels. Very disgusting, raw, original gore, however, mixed with preposterous and sly humor is rarer and more entertaining. It’s no accident that Raimi teamed up with the Coen brothers for a while (and even scripted a film with them) since the Coens are the modern masters of this kind of black humor. My other favorite of this type of genre mix are the films done by Stewart Gordon (most famous for his weirdly deadpan and hilarious adaptation of Lovecraft’s “Re-Animator”).

I personally thought the last shot with Bruce Campbell as Ash saying “Groovy” at the end of the film following all the credits was a nice, unobtrusive homage to the original. I wasn’t alone; there were many others in the audience who stayed and seemed to enjoy that little touch.

Burke on April 6, 2013 at 6:01 am

    Burke, your’s and Enders posts were a great primer for those who don’t know the cult following the “Evil Dead” films have. I also want to thank Ender for pointing out “Evil Dead 2” was indeed a remake of “Evil Dead”. So just as he said, “Evil Dead” has been made 3 times. That must be a record!

    Burke, I think I would like that last little final touch (at end of NEW “Evil Dead”). Usually, crap like that has me rolling my eyes (I don’t like forced or ham-handed humour…or dopey one-liners ala Schwartznegger or Bruce Willis…YUCK!) but I really like BC and of course I am an “Evil Dead” fan. (I did NOT like “Bubba Hotep” AT ALL thou’. I was disappointed at how forced and bland it was).

    I am a horror film fan! The last two films I liked (I am very choosy so I don’t like what everyone else does BUT I know what I like when I see it) were “Dead Snow” (CRE-PEE!) and by accident I saw a film about ghost chasers being locked in a defunct mental asylum…THAT was an unexpected surprise! I also like the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” remake W/Jessica Biel. I didn’t want to like it but I thought the film-maker caught the creepy feel of the 70’s atmospherics. It made me like it when normally I would not.

    The original “Saw” was an unexpected surprise, too. I never saw another one thou’. I knew the first one pleasing me was a nice gift and that I shouldn’t push it.

    Skunky on April 6, 2013 at 12:02 pm

      “Burke, your’s and Enders posts were a great primer for those who don’t know the cult following the “Evil Dead” films have.”

      I should have also included MH…

      MH on April 6, 2013 at 9:22 am

      MH’s post was just as informative. Good job!

      Skunky on April 6, 2013 at 12:29 pm

I don’t really watch horror films that much.
Since movies aren’t really competing in the plot or suspense department I guess they have to compete in the gore department.
So I suppose this sequel is exactly what you’d expect from that.

Frankz on April 6, 2013 at 8:40 am

I did, very ill-advisedly, watch “The Blair Witch Project” – or at least I started to watch it. But the way they got lost in the woods and couldn’t find their way out seemed to tie in with some deep-seated anxiety in me, and I had to stop.

My husband half watched it to the end and found it boring.

He does watch movies on the telly – but I wish he wouldn’t. So many of them are so awful. Whatever we let into our mind makes and strengthens connections in our brain. Think how God’s law to the Israelites made it clear He was concerned about that. In the Ten Words, or Commandments, didn’t he tell them not to covet their neighbours belongings, i.e. not to let certain feelings inside their heads?

sue on April 6, 2013 at 8:55 am

“They said the dismemberment and gore factor was significantly up in this version, and that the campiness factor was down. For example, in the original, when someone’s hands are cut off, the hands end up crawling around the room. None of that kind of thing happens. And this version is humorless.”
The original had the tagline, “The Ultimate Experience In Grueling Terror”.
It had an “X” rating and later was “Rated NC-17 for substantial graphic horror violence and gore”. There is a scene where the blood covers the screen as the character Shelly is hacked to pieces with an ax, with after blows to limbs being shown in closeup. In fact, it was repeatedly taken to court over obscenity.
There was virtually no humor in it, although there is a line, “She’s your girlfriend, you take care of her.”
There is a review by Scorpionsy over at Bloody Disgusting comparing the two versions, concluding that 2013’s “Evil Dead” is more tame.
The people you talked to must have been talking about the more comedic “Evil Dead II” which was much toned down from the original.

MH on April 6, 2013 at 9:22 am

WHY SUPPORT TRASH LIKE THIS? The only movie that really scared me was the original version of “The Thing From Another World” starring James Arness as The Thing. It was made in 1951 and in black and white. No blood but lots of suspense, horror and fear. Much better than what the perverts in Hollywood put out today.

Fred on April 6, 2013 at 10:57 am

The fact that you possess so little integrity as to not research the topic you write about automatically invalidates your views on this film. If you want to play the role of critic you actually have to put in the work.

B: Moron, it’s called a movie review. I’m only reviewing the movie I see. It’s not a research project. I did put in the work: It’s called, “seeing the movie, writing the review.” That’s all a movie critic is obligated to do. This isn’t a college thesis on “The Sexual Positions of Madonna in Video and Picture Books.” The fact that you possess so little intellect and actual grasp of what a movie review is invalidates your views in this comment on my review on this film. If you want to play the role of critic of my movie reviews, you actually have to have a clue. DS

Baker on April 6, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    Baker, cupcake, thanks for sharing.

    skzion on April 7, 2013 at 1:05 pm

Last year’s movie season was disappointing, this one looks even worse. The only true hit so far is Identity Thief, which will make $150 million domestic and overseas on a $35 million budget and is a very good haul for its B-list director and stars. After that you have Oz The Great And Powerful and The Croods, both of whom will make back their production budget domestically and are doing ok overseas but are only meeting expectations at best and benefiting from an almost total lack of competing family movies.

After those guys it is Olympus Has Fallen and G.I. Joe. The former will make back its manageable production budget by the end of the weekend and go on to be profitable but won’t reach $100 million or do much overseas. G.I. Joe will cross $100 million domestically but will be hard-pressed to reach their $130 million REPORTED production budget in the states alone, though it may ultimately be profitable as it is doing pretty well $150 million and counting – overseas.

After that, you have a bunch of movies that can only be considered successful with relation to their modest budgets (i.e. Warm Bodies, The Call, the bi-annual Tyler Perry movie, Escape From Planet Earth, Safe Haven … all of whom will turn profits but can’t approach Identity Thief except by combining their totals) plus the oddity that was Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters that barely made its $50 million production budget back domestically but tripled it overseas. The rest are gigantic bombs (Die Hard sequel, Jack the Giant Slayer, The Host) or stuff not worth paying attention to.

Gerald on April 6, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    Gerald, according to the statistics that you very interestingly compiled, it looks like “The Croods” will be one of the few movies to be successful this year. Almost all the others are turning out to be dismal failures. “The Croods,” of course, is the DreamWorks cartoon about the dim-bulbed, cowardly dad who needs to learn life lessons from his spirited daughter and her new young boyfriend who’s blessed with youthful smart power. In other words, the story follows the popular, politically correct template that Father Knows Worst. That’s what’s sells in today’s culture; expect ten more of the same out next year.

    Burke on April 7, 2013 at 1:11 pm

What kinds of minds like watching this stuff? It’s straight from hell. No wonder our country is going off the rails.

Gizzy on April 6, 2013 at 7:18 pm

I agree with Gizzy and Sue. When one watches this stuff, one doesn’t even realize the effect it has on her/his soul but it is devastating. It can make one paranoid, fearful, anxious and angry. And all these feelings come out inappropriately towards innocent people because the ability to discern between simple disagreement and vitriolic attack, for example, is lost. Bus so to is much discernment overall lost because of the darkness in which the mind is immersed.

Italkit on April 6, 2013 at 7:51 pm

As great filmmaking teacher Dov S-S Simmens said in some sound advice on scriptwriting:

“What’s the magic formula that launched hundreds of careers, from John Carpenter to John Sayles to Steven Soderbergh to Quentin Tarantino to the kids that made “The Blair Witch Project”? The script that everyone uses to launch their career is–in 90 pages, take 12 kids to a house and chop them up.”

Dov wasn’t actually suggesting that a first-timers’s script had to be a slasher film, but his point was that as a matter of economics and budgeting, it’s advisable set the film in a single location or a minimal number of locations. It’s one of the reason that courtroom dramas are so prevalent, particularly in TV scripts.

As Ender has described in his post above, The Evil Dead series was created by Sam Raimi and his “Within the Woods” was the prototype wherein Sam followed Dov’s advice to “T,” literally and in Dov’s broader meaning as well.

Though many prefer Sam’s “Evil Dead” (the one after the prototype), I think that “Evil Dead II” achieves the rare accomplishment of actually topping the original. Sure it’s loaded with camp humor, like Bruce Campbell’s war against his hand, which has taken on a life of its own. Note the use of Ernest Hemingway’s book, “A Farewell to Arms,” as a humorous prop, for example. Scenes like that are wonderfully imaginative. I think that in that hand sequence Sam was also paying homage to Peter Seller’s brilliant iconic performance as Dr. Strangelove, wherein Seller’s also fought with his own hand. And who could forget the incredible eerie climax and ending of “Evil Dead II”? Truly great filmmaking.

As for the next generation Evil Dead movie, I’m sure the special effects have been greatly enhanced and are far more realistic than the earlier versions. But that in itself doesn’t make for a better movie in my opinion. It all comes down to the story. The story is the heart and soul of a good movie. And based on most early indications, the story is the weakest part of the film.

Ralph Adamo on April 6, 2013 at 9:50 pm

    I really liked hearing your views, Ralph Adamo. You make quite a few interesting points. Related to your observations about stories dealing with rebellious hands (and also starter movies) is this: Before Oliver Stone made “Platoon” and “Wall Street,” he directed “The Hand,” a psychological horror film basically about a dismembered hand that crawls around and kills people. Yes, that really is how Stone got his start.

    Burke on April 7, 2013 at 12:01 pm

      Burke, I had forgotten about Oliver Stone’s “The Hand,” which I think was his first commercial film. And yes, the idea of hands taking on a life of their own in a horror context has been around for a while, first in novels and later in films. But I think that Peter Sellers’ performance in “Dr. Stangelove” and Sam Raimi’s “Evil Dead II” are the only ones where the idea is used in the movies for comedic effect.

      For you film history buffs out there, “The Hands of Orlac” was the first film that featured that hands concept in a horror film. Made in 1924, it was directed by Robert Wiene and starred Conrad Veidt–who together had worked on “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” (1919), which I think was the first horror film ever made. “The Hands of Orlac” was based on the story “Les Mains d’Orlac” by Maurice Renard. Here’s the Wikipedia story summary:

      “Concert pianist Paul Orlac (Conrad Veidt) loses his hands in a horrible railway accident. His wife Yvonne (Alexandra Sorina) pleads with a surgeon to try and save Orlac’s hands. The surgeon decides to try and transplant new hands onto Orlac, but the hands he uses are those of a recently-executed murderer named Vasseur. From that point forward, the pianist is tortured by the presence of a knife he finds at his house, just like that used by Vassuer, and the desire to kill.”

      Ralph Adamo on April 7, 2013 at 3:09 pm

        Wow! Ralph, you are a fountain of knowledge, that’s for sure. As skzion points out, there seem to be a lot of horror/slasher/zombie movie experts at this site. Add to that, I guess, a certain expertise concerning the way dismembered hands have played significant roles in the history of comedy and horror. Where else but Debbie’s blog can you find all that?

        I agree with your comment about the way the Hemingway book “Farewell to Arms” was effectively used as a comic prop in “Evil Dead II.” That’s just the sort of idiosyncratic detail that made that film so highly valued. Literate details add texture and memorability to a script–too bad it doesn’t happen more. David Russell might even have had “Evil Dead II” in mind when he used another Hemingway book, “For Whom the Bell Tolls” as a comic prop in the recent “Silver Linings Playbook.” At the end of the particular scene in “SLP,” Bradley Cooper wildly hurls Hemingway’s book out the window. Great stuff, even if many viewers may not have caught all the levels of humor here.

        Burke on April 7, 2013 at 5:00 pm

I am bit surprised that Sam Raimi would sell out in the remake arena. I would have thought making those SPIDERMAN movies would have satisfied his money hunger but it might have just made him more greedy. I do not knock him because the original EVIL DEAD movie is his property so he pretty much can do what he wants to do with it. I have seen some remakes and not have been impressed.

I have noticed that many young people think that gore is a substituted for horror/terror. I have read many IMDB posts and most young folks will say how this film or that film is not gory enough. I think many younger people have been flooded into thinking that porn gore and dismemberment is the only way they can get scared. Maybe its a generational outlook but to me, seeing excessive gore and blood is disgusting and sickening. No feeling of terror or horror just a sick feeling like when you have a want to puke. Especially when those SAW movies came out, I saw the trend of many of these new younger directors to do upmanish on the other by showing more disgusting ways to kill a human being. Seems this gore porn is getting to be more the trend now in so call horror films.

I remember seeing the first EVIL DEAD and at that time Sam Raimi was able to use some gore but also the feeling of dread of the cabin being in the woods and the film shots of the forest and the camera zooms to give the impression of the evil spirit attacking. Unfortunately with an influx of gore porn over the years have made films like this something from the past and I doubt it will get any better.

Mario on April 7, 2013 at 1:41 pm

I had no idea there were so many horror/slasher/zombie movie experts here. Seriously.

skzion on April 7, 2013 at 4:14 pm

…best account of the creation of the original Evil Dead is in Sam Raimi’s high school buddy Bruce Campbell’s book ‘If Chins Could Kill’.

Nick Fury on April 7, 2013 at 6:06 pm

P.S. …the best Evil Dead joke is in the USANetwork ‘Burn Notice’ movie from a couple years ago ‘The Fall of Sam Axe’, which has a chainsaw-wielding Bruce Campbell saying… “Groovy”…

Nick Fury on April 7, 2013 at 6:39 pm

Although there’s an admirable amount of film knowledge and artistic sensitivity contained in the comments this week, knowledge and sensitivity which makes me appreciate the high caliber of intellect attracted to this blog, I think after some reflection that I agree with Italkit saying that Sue’s comment is the best of the bunch.

Sue’s argument is that the Ten Commandments forbids us to covet our neighbor’s wife. In other words, it warns us against bad feelings. Then Sue goes on to argue that “Evil Dead” and other similar horror movies give us bad feelings and should likewise be avoided.

I think the “bad feelings” that this sort of film creates is at the heart of why we should dislike it. What sort of culture is it where people are so intellectually and emotionally dead that we need to get pumped up by watching self-mutilation and dismemberment?

My own favorite horror movie of all time—setting aside black horror comedies like Gordon’s “Re-Animator” and John Waters’s “Serial Mom”–is Julie Taymor’s “Titus.” “Titus” is an interesting film with interesting implications. It’s an adaptation of an early Shakespeare play “Titus Andronicus” which has been almost universally condemned as Shakespeare’s worst effort practically since it was first staged. What I discovered when watching it was that it was actually very entertaining. Mutilation of all types occurred; heads were lopped off; rape and other forcible perversions occurred regularly. In other words, it fit in perfectly with our own horror boom where Michael Myers, Freddie Kruger, Jason and, yes, demon possession in movies like “The Exorcist,” “Evil Dead” and John Carpenter’s “Prince of Evil” had numbed us all into stuperously acquiescing to films crammed with atrocities until they all seemed normal. It’s generally agreed that Shakespeare made a wrong turn with “Titus Andronicus,” but it’s significant that this play was a remake of a Seneca tragedy, Seneca being perhaps the most highly esteemed of all Roman playwrights. In other words, our culture has devolved in crassness and vulgarity to that of the Roman’s. Is that really where we want to go?

Burke on April 8, 2013 at 10:32 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field