![evil dead 2013 necronomicon evil dead 2013 necronomicon](https://i.imgur.com/UICNNG1.jpg)
The Ex-Mortis of that world was actually a collection of ancient texts written by The Dark Ones, translated by Alzeez. In another universe, the Necronomicon was written by a human named Abdul Alzeez in the year 730 AD. According to one account, the book's cover comes from the flesh of a powerful demon who had more control over Deadites than The Dark Ones did. Regardless of where it was created, the Ex-Mortis contained pages made from human skin, with it's images and Sumerian text inked in human blood. In two realities, the birthplace of the book was in a temple of what would be considered modern Egypt. The origins of the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis varies from universe to universe, though most state that it was written by one of The Dark Ones long ago, back when the they ruled the Earth and the seas ran red with blood. 2.2.3 Concealment From Supernatural Entities.2 Passages, Abilities, & Characteristics.1.5 The Living Manifestation of The Book.Go into this film with an open mind, and I think you will be pleasantly surprised. When the two DVDs are sitting side-by-side, I will reach for the original more often than the remake, but I think the remake disc will get plenty of wear. For me, growing up with the original, I will always cherish that one. Sam Raimi endorses this film, and he was involved. As to the devoted followers of Sam Raimi who are happy that he "had nothing to do with this film." He was a producer on the film and kept tabs on things as they went, wanting to give the new filmmakers space to make their own film but not allowing what he thought was a piece of crap to share the Evil Dead name. Overall, I felt as though there was a bit of tension in the crowd, which is what makes a good horror film. There are some aspects of the film I could've done without (like some of the random jump scares that were inserted). It seems as though most people are comparing this latest remake to the trilogy, as opposed to the original. His personality really started to take shape in Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn and was further enhanced in Army of Darkness. Again, these same criticisms are what make the original so great. However, I'm reading most of the negativity surrounding this film is due to a lack of story, bad acting, under-developed characters, and lack of scares. Overall, they did a great job creating the atmosphere of an Evil Dead film. The setup of the addict trying to kick her habit (and not for the first time) logically keeps the kids at the cabin when the audience sees things starting to get a bit strange. The film contains some wonderful dark humor (much like the original). Once the carnage begins, the film is basically about the carnage (much like the original). The film contains some over-the-top scenes and acting (much like the original). The film contains lots of gross-out, bloody scenes (much like the original). To my generation, I can see how we'll prefer the original. To a younger generation, I can see how they'll prefer this over the original. Is this film better than the original? I think the question is unfair.