Sunday Times Rich List 2013: Who Made The List

SIR PAUL McCARTNEY IS WEALTHIEST MUSIC MILLIONAIRE, WITH £680 MILLION FORTUNE IN 25th ANNIVERSARY SUNDAY TIMES RICH LIST 

ADELE TOPS LIST OF YOUNG MUSIC MILLIONAIRES WITH A £30 MILLION FORTUNE 

McCARTNEY TOPPED 1993 MUSIC RICH LIST, WORTH £400 MILLION, AND HAD £80 MILLION IN 1989 

adele pregnant. tom cruise and kate holmes divorcing. The 25th anniversary Sunday Times Rich List, to be published on April 21, 2013, will reveal that Sir Paul McCartney is the country’s richest performer, topping the list of the 50 wealthiest music millionaires in Britain and Ireland. He has a £680m fortune, which is shared with his wife Nancy Shevell.

McCartney, 70, has topped all the charts for the country’s wealthiest musicians since The Sunday Times Rich List began in 1989, when the former Beatle was worth £80m. By 1993, the McCartney fortune had grown to £400m.

Aside from starring roles at the Queen’s diamond jubilee and closing the opening ceremony for the London Olympics, McCartney’s On the Run tour grossed $57m from 18 dates in 2012. The tour has helped add £15m to his fortune, which, at £680m, includes £150m for wife Nancy Shevell’s stake in her father’s New England Motor Freight trucking operation.

Profits from his hugely successful stage shows, such as Phantom of the Opera, Evita and Cats, have helped to boost composer and theatre owner Lord Lloyd-Webber’s fortune by £30m to keep him in second place in the Music Rich List, worth £620m. Lloyd-Webber also held second place in the 1993 Rich List of the top UK music millionaires with a £200m fortune, ahead of Elton John, who is now worth double his 1993 wealth of £120m.

The Sunday Times only started to measure wealth in Ireland as part of its annual Rich List in 1997.

THE SUNDAY TIMES RICH LIST 2013

THE 50 WEALTHIEST MUSIC MILLIONAIRES IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND

This list excludes music company owners and producers

Music rank2013 Name 2013 wealth 2012 wealth
1 Sir Paul McCartney and Nancy Shevell £680m £665m
2 Lord Lloyd-Webber £620m £590m
3 U2 £520m £514m
4 Sir Elton John £240m £220m
5= David and Victoria Beckham £200m £190m
5= Sir Mick Jagger £200m £190m
7 Michael Flatley £191m £192m
8 Keith Richards £185m £175m
9= Olivia and Dhani Harrison £180m £180m
9= Sting £180m £180m
11 Ringo Starr £160m £160m
12 Roger Waters £150m £120m
13 Sir Tim Rice £149m £144m
14 Sir Tom Jones £145m £140m
15 Eric Clapton £140m £130m
16 Rod Stewart £130m £120m
17 Phil Collins £115m £115m
18= George Michael £105m £100m
18= Robbie Williams £105m £100m
20= David Bowie £100m £100m
20= Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne £100m £95m
22 Brian May £95m £90m
23= Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow £90m £72m
23= Roger Taylor £90m £85m
23= Charlie Watts £90m £85m
26 Enya £87m £86m
27 David Gilmour £85m £85m
28= Jimmy Page £80m £75m
28= Robert Plant £80m £80m
30= John Deacon £74m £70m
30= Noel and Liam Gallagher £74m £65m
32 Pete Townshend £70m £40m
33= Engelbert Humperdinck £65m £65m
33= Mark Knopfler £65m £65m
35= Gary Barlow £60m £50m
35= Barry Gibb £60m New
37 Nick Mason £55m £55m
38 Sir Cliff Richard £52m £52m
39= Guy Berryman £50m £40m
39= Jonny Buckland £50m £40m
39= Will Champion £50m £40m
39= Brian Johnson £50m £50m
39= John Paul Jones £50m £45m
39= Kylie Minogue £50m £45m
39= Van Morrison £50m £50m
46= Jay Kay £45m £40m
46= Bernie Taupin £45m £45m
48= Mick Hucknall £40m £40m
48= Sade £40m £40m
50 Sarah Brightman £36m New

                                                                                                                

In the 1993 Sunday Times Rich List, Paul McCartney was also Britain’s richest performer with a £400m fortune. There were 15 music millionaires, see below, in the 1993 Rich List which measured the wealth of the 400 richest people in Britain, with David Bowie ranked 15th in the music list worth £20m.

The only two musicians to appear in the first Sunday Times Rich List of 200 names published in 1989 were Paul McCartney, who was worth £80m, and Elton John, with a £40m fortune.

 

THE SUNDAY TIMES RICH LIST 1993

TOP UK 15 MUSIC MILLIONAIRES

Excluding music company owners and producers

Music rank1993 Name 1993 wealth
1 Paul McCartney £400m
2 Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber £200m
3 Elton John £120m
4 Mick Jagger £90m
5 George Michael £80m
6 Keith Richards £70m
7 Mark Knopfler £60m
8 Cliff Richard £45m
9 Bernard Taupin £35m
10 Dave Stewart £30m
11= George Harrison £25m
11= Rod Stewart £25m
13 Bill Wyman £24m
14 Phil Collins £22m
15 David Bowie £20m

 

Adele tops the 2013 Young Music Rich List, of entertainers aged 30 and under, see below, with a £30m fortune. With the continued worldwide success of her album 21, this is a 50% increase on the £20m fortune the Oscar-winning singer-songwriter topped the Young Music Rich List with in 2012.

New entries to the Young Music  Millionaires Rich List, each worth £5m, include singer-songwriters Emeli Sandé, aged 26, Ed Sheeran, 22, and all five members of One Direction, Niall Horan, 19, Zayn Malik, 20, Liam Payne, 19, Harry Styles,19, and Louis Tomlinson, 21.

One Direction have become Britain’s richest boy band, with combined wealth of £25m. This puts them just £1m ahead of the combined wealth of the four members of JLS, Jonathan (JB) Gill, 26, Marvin Humes, 28, Aston Merrygold, 25, and Ortisé Williams, 26, who now share a total fortune of £24m, being each worth £6m.

 

THE SUNDAY TIMES RICH LIST 2013

YOUNG MUSIC MILLIONAIRES IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND

AGED 30 AND UNDER

Music rank2013 Name 2013 wealth 2012 wealth
1 Adele £30m £20m
2 Cheryl Cole £14m £12m
3= Leona Lewis £12m £12m
3= Katie Melua £12m £12m
5 Florence Welch £9m £7m
6= Charlotte Church £8m £8m
6= Jessie J £8m £5m
8= Lily Allen £6m £6m
8= Nadine Coyle £6m £5m
8= Duffy £6m £6m
8= Jonathan (JB) Gill £6m £5m
8= Marvin Humes £6m £5m
8= Aston Merrygold £6m £5m
8= James Morrison £6m £6m
8= Nicola Roberts £6m £5m
8= Oritsé Williams £6m £5m
17= Niall Horan £5m New
17= Zayn Malik £5m New
17= Liam Payne £5m New
17= Emeli Sandé £5m New
17= Ed Sheeran £5m New
17= Harry Styles £5m New
17= Louis Tomlinson £5m New

 

The 25th annual Sunday Times Rich List – the definitive guide to wealth in Britain and Ireland – is published on April 21 in a special 104-page supplement, which profiles the 1,000 richest people and families in the UK and the wealthiest 250 in Ireland. The list is based on identifiable wealth, including land, property, other assets such as art and racehorses, or significant shares in publicly quoted companies. It excludes bank accounts, to which the paper has no access. This year, a £75m fortune is required to make it into the top 1,000 in the Rich List.

The Sunday Times Rich List 2013 is compiled by Philip Beresford, the leading authority on British wealth, and edited by Ian Coxon.

The Sunday Times Rich List

Economics of crowd-sourcing under spotlight

A team headed by an economist at the University of Portsmouth has won £750,000 to establish why people give up their time to help scientists better understand some of the biggest mysteries, from searching for the cure for cancer to trying to understand the galaxies that fill our Universe.

Dr Joe Cox, of the Portsmouth Business School, will lead a team from Oxford, Manchester and Leeds Universities and colleagues from Portsmouth’s world-leading Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, to find out more about the people who volunteer to help online science projects.

The grant for the three-year project was awarded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) as part of the Research Councils UK digital economy theme.

Dr Cox said: “Hundreds of thousands of people all over the world are giving their time to help find a cure for cancer, or to better understand the nature of the Universe, or patterns of global warming, but we don’t yet have a detailed understanding of the processes that drive these initiatives, which are more complex than they may first appear.

“The growth of the digital economy has dramatically affected the ways people interact with each other and engage in different activities, but little is known about the changing nature of volunteering and crowd-sourcing in this context.

“This grant will allow us to formulate new economic models to explain the choices, motivations and behaviours of digital volunteers.”

The project will also investigate ways in which volunteering can be optimised and sustained through strategic interactions and interventions on the part of the managers of these resources.

Dr Cox will be working with Dr Karen Masters of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation at Portsmouth to study the Zooniverse (www.zooniverse.org), a highly successful and diverse cluster of online citizen science and crowd-sourcing projects inspired by the success of Galaxy Zoo and now includes more than 20 projects including  Cell Slider  and Seafloor Explorer. Volunteers on these initiatives give up their time to interpret and classify data of scientific interest, ranging from images of distant galaxies to weather patterns and cancer cells.

Dr Masters is project scientist for Galaxy Zoo.

She said: “We hope this grant win will help us to understand how to improve the volunteer experience on Zooniverse projects so that people can feel confident they are contributing to real science when they spend time on our sites, and also gain the maximum enjoyment from the experience.”

Dr Cox said: “Technology has made it possible for the average person on the street to make a real contribution towards our understanding of the universe, the modelling of climate change and the development of a cure for cancer.

“Our research will show how these initiatives can encourage more people to volunteer, as well as enhancing the depth of their engagement, which will help to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge and create significant social value.”

The findings will be of “considerable interest” to web communities and the broader voluntary sector, he said, and is likely to also have significant implications for commercial projects that make use of crowd-sourcing, such as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

The research partners include Dr Chris Lintott, Oxford University, Dr Anita Greenhill, University of Manchester, and Dr Gary Graham, University of Leeds.

Yu-Be Moisturizing Skin Cream | Beauty Review

31IEYvjSZiL._SY300_This multitasking cream is big in Japan and has been around for 50 years. Yu-Be is one of the most trusted skincare brands in Japan. The cream is a bit like the Japanese Eight Hour Cream, it can be used on lips, face, hands, calluses, cuticles, dry skin, nappy rash and cracked heels. It is especially good on very dry skin. The crazy weather has been really drying my skin out and this amazing cream sorts it out.

This concentrated glycerin-based formula is enriched with vitamin E, B2, and camphor to soothe even the driest and irritated of skin types. A little goes a long way which makes it economical as well as brilliant. It also reduces scarring and fine lines.

It is a thick, yellow cream but it absorbs well and quickly. It smells medicinal to begin with but it does not linger. I love this Yu-Be moisturising cream. It gets the Frost magazine stamp of approval. It really works.

 

JAPAN’S FAVOURITE SKINCARE SECRET IS OUT THE BAG
Vitamin-enriched skincare cream, Yu-Be, launches in UK following demand from cult fan base in the UK Soft Skin Secret
The number one selling skincare product in Japan has hit the UK.
Yu-Be has long been a must-have for generations of Japanese families thanks to its multitasking properties: from soothing severe dry skin and razor burn to reducing scarring and fine lines.
The iconic orange and white pot has also lined make-up bags of beauty experts across the world
for over 50 years, as its ultra-smoothing properties and non-greasy formula make for an all-natural makeup primer, with no artificial colours or fragrances.
Yu-Be for all
The secret behind this ultra-moisturising cream lies in its uniquely high glycerin
content which treats a multitude of skin issues head-to-toe: from split cuticles,
windburn and frostbite in the winter, to sunburn and chapped lips in the summer.
Yu-Be is a staple for most Japanese families as it has been proven to relieve nappy
rash, eczema and dermatitis as well as reducing stretch marks and scarring. Dancers
and explorers also rely on the cream to restore cracked heels and calluses.

.

The Yu-Be Story
Yu-Be was invented in 1957 by a young pharmacist, Yoshikiyo Nowatari, determined
to cure his patient of chronic dry skin. He combined glycerin – known for its
moisture-retaining properties – with camphor, a natural product found in ancient
Asian remedies to relieve irritation and smooth skin, as well as Vitamins B2, C and E.
Yu-Be is one of the iconic brands that has helped Japan rise to become one of the
leading regions for skincare innovation in the 21st Century.Available from Boots:

Yu-Be Moisturizing Skin Cream Original Japanese Formula is available from Boots.

Tartuffe | Theatre Review

Tartuffe and ElmireSinner or saint, the character of Tartuffe certainly divides opinion.

 

To Orgon, the master of the manor, he is the epitome of piousness, yet to his family, he is nothing more than a vagabond taking advantage of people’s good nature.

 

With his reputation tainted and restored at every turn in the opening scene, the audience is eager to pass their own judgement on Tartuffe but his stalled introduction to the stage acts as a clever device to build the mystery.

 

Orgon’s mind is possessed by Tartuffe and he intends his daughter Mariane to marry him (though she’s already promised to wed Valère), and he even signs over the deeds of his estate to the former beggar.

 

The cheeky glint in Tartuffe’s eyes when he makes his grand entrance further enforces his view of ‘a secret sin is no sin at all’ as he commits the ultimate betrayal by confessing his love to Orgon’s wife Elmire.

 

When the family try to expose his scheming nature, the play comes over a little ‘carry on’ as they hide behind curtains and under tables to catch him out.

 

But once his deceit is unveiled to Orgon, it’s too late as the family’s ordered out of the estate which now belongs to Tartuffe.

 

At each stage, Dorine the maid oversteps the boundaries of her role but gains the trust of the audience as she gives each member of the family honest advice with a touch of flirtatious charm. Played by Katherine Rodden, she was the unexpected the star of the show.

 

Jeremy Gagan convincingly plays Tartuffe and his command of expression in scenes of deceit against those highlighting his virtue are performed with charisma.

 

A modern adaptation by Paradigm Theatre Company of the 17th Century theatrical comedy by Molière, Tartuffe was presented in the intimate surroundings of the Canal Café Theatre in Little Venice.

 Dorine and Mariane

The audience seating area is cleverly used as an extension of the stage, with the characters often mingling among the crowd and eavesdropping on the conversations taking place just overhead.

 

With a comedic value in the form of Dorine, the betrayal of a committed friend and with a heart-warming twist at the end, Tartuffe (artistically directed by Sarah Pitard and directed by Cat Robey) ticks all the boxes. And by no means a criticism, the cast should possess a little more confidence to balance their abilities.

 

Tartuffe runs till Sat 27 Apr 2013, with tickets for the 7pm show Tue-Sat costing £12 and for the 3pm Sat performance, it’s £10. To book tickets, visit www.canalcafetheatre.com and for more information, visit www.paradigmtheatrecompany.co.uk.

Photo credit: Jon Bradshaw


How To Find The Perfect Jeans. Mimi Noor Tells You How

james_twiggy_blackclean_01Frost Magazine has called on Mimi Noor, the owner of Miminoor.com, to help you find the perfect pair of jeans. Mimi offers a personal outfit builder advice section on her website. With a focus on how to buy the perfect jeans and turn the chore of finding the right pair into a pleasurable experience.
Mimi Noor stocks a variety of designer brands including J Brand, Victoria Beckham, James Jeans, Wild Fox, Zoe Karssen and Des Petit Hauts.
What should a woman look for when buying jeans?  
One of the first recommendations I would make is to really narrow down what
occasions you want your denim for as it’s going to determine what to
look for in a new pair of jeans. There are so many fantastic denim brands
that are able to offer styles to suit every shape so women no longer have to
worry about a certain jean style for their body; it’s all about lifestyle.
Work out if you want an everyday pair or one for evenings/smart casual wear. What footwear are you likely to wear with it?  I’ve had so many customers who have admitted to buying several pairs of flares or bootcuts because they tried them on with killer heels, which looked great in the shop. However, if your lifestyle means that you can’t wear killer heels all day every day then you’re not going to get the right amount of wear and should reserve these styles for evenings out or special occasions.
What is the main problem women have when buying jeans?
Buying jeans on your own can be a scary experience because most stores don’t
offer the sort of assistance you need when finding that perfect pair of
jeans. Many brands run sizing differently so you never know what size
you are, It is not always obvious how the styles differ and often no one is
available or knowledgeable in denim to help you pull out the right size,
colour or shape once you’re in the changing room.
How do they fix this?
I would always recommend shopping with a friend or relative you trust if
you’re buying denim from the high street or in department stores. Take your
friend with you to help bring you alternative options or sizes once you’re
in the changing room and ask their honest opinion on whether the cut suits
you. Alternatively, shop with a specialist like us. We provide a
consultative service where we establish what you want your jeans for,
determine your general size, provide alternative options based on your
feedback and then do any further alterations you may require (such as hemming to
the correct length).
goldsign_misfit_ronny_01
I find it really hard to find a great pair of jeans, they always seem too big at the waist. What is your main tip for women to buy the perfect jeans?
The 3 main considerations to make when buying your perfect jeans are
1) What purpose do I want these jeans for
2) What footwear am I most likely to wear with them
3) What rise is most comfortable for me
So many pear shaped women struggle to find a pair of jeans that fit well on the legs and fit neatly into the curve of the back or waist as you’ve mentioned. This is where rise comes into play!
Depending on your figure your preferred rise will vary. So often we find that women who have that perfect pear shape will need a jean with a higher rise and greater fabric stretch so that the jean fits perfectly on the legs and nips into the back of your waist.
For ladies who are really long bodied the high rise is going to sit
like a mid rise so it’s really important to factor the rise that’s most
comfortable for you.
What are the best jeans for the following body shapes: Tall, short, petite
and curvy?
 
The denim market right now is full of amazing brands that are able to offer
a plethora of styles for every body shape out there so the traditional
combinations such as a pear shape with a bootcut don’t necessarily apply anymore. As a general rule I would suggest:
Tall: A mid to low rise jean in a straight or skinny style. My pick would be the Goldsign misfit, which is long in length with a 14″ leg opening that means it’s sleek but not ankle tight.
Short: Super skinny styles look great on smaller girls as they flatter a more petite
frame. My favourite would be the James Jean Twiggy style.
Curvy: Curvy girls look best in two shapes. Firstly, a high waisted skinny looks
fantastic on a pear shape when teamed with boots or heels. Equally a
babyboot looks great on this frame. Pick the J Brand Maria or 818
respectively.
What are your favourite jeans?
Picking a favourite is so hard but so far this season I have been living in
my Mih Bonn in minidot. It’s a cropped skinny with a high waist, which is
perfect on my frame and the fabric is super soft. I love how the polka dots are on trend but subtle enough for everyday wear.

What To Look For In A Hotel

default-header_0013dcf0acHotels can be a home away from home or simply just a place to stay the night. While people have different preferences there are a few things you should look for in a hotel. Here is our list.

Location

Arguably one of the most important things about the hotel you choose is the location. It is worth paying more for a hotel that is close to what you want to see or where you will be working.

Other things to look out for is a hotel which has good transport links. If you rent a car this may not matter, but if you don’t you will be stuck in the middle of nowhere.

If you go somewhere like New York you will want a good view of the city. If you can afford it, paying more for this would broaden the experience. The Hotel Tirler in Italy has beautiful views. Definitely worth a visit.

What’s included

You will have to check what is included in the price of the room. Some will have toiletries and some will even include breakfast in the price. Few things in life are more annoying than turning up to a hotel, exhausted only to find out that the hotel does not have any shower gel and you cannot even clean the day off.

Reputation

Reputation is a thing that precedes all else. If a hotel is slammed online I would stay clear. Of course it is hard to please everyone and even the best hotels have a few people who have complaints. So research and then make an informed judgement.

Reviews and the star system.

The internet is a wonderful thing. Before you could get a gauge about a hotel on how many stars it had. This is still quite reliable, but read reviews online too. I have stayed in four star hotels and wondered how the hell they managed to get their rating.

Bed

What is more important than the bed? Not much. You are in a hotel to sleep right? And if not…ahem, you probably still want a good bed.

Extras

Some hotels have gyms, restaurants, libraries, tea rooms, bars, spas, saunas. The list goes on. If you are a gym bunny you probably want one in the hotel you are staying in. You may also want to check whether any of this is inclusive. The Ampersand Hotel in London has a lot of extras, including a gym, a business centre and a beautiful, quaint tea room.

What do you look for in a hotel? What hotels do you recommend? Let us know and we will include them.

 

Thatcherism: The Ideology that Broke Britain.

margaretthatcher

The passing of Margaret Thatcher, who died on Monday aged 87, isn’t a time for rejoicing – even for those of us on the left, writes Tim Austin.  It’s a time for reflection and action.

While there can be an understandable feeling of jubilation in the communities that suffered horrendous poverty, persecution and unemployment as the result of the policies enacted by Maggie, I feel that celebrating her passing would do far more harm than good.

Quite beyond the crass tastelessness of finding joy the death of a frail old lady with Alzheimer’s (and I honestly believe that we should show compassion, even to our enemies), there is a danger of handing a moral “high ground” to those people who still see her as a saint.  It’d be a Thatcherite tabloid field day:  open season on the “loony left” and the “wet liberal mob”.

As someone who honestly detests the failed ideology of those currently holding the reins, it is not a backlash that I’d welcome – especially if we’re to get this country back on its feet.

So what should our response be?  Should we remain silent, contrite and “well behaved”?

Not quite.

For the right wing media are already playing a game that I find equally distasteful: the attempted deification of the “Iron Lady” and a shameless astro-turfing the social damage she did.  And I don’t think that this should stand.

David Cameron has already come out swinging, harping on about how Thatcher “Saved Britain”, a cry that has been welcomed as some kind of biblical truth by writers at the Daily Mail.

Now, while the country was certainly in a fairly poor state in 1979 and many of her policies (the privatisation of heavy industry and the winding down of the coal pits) were, with hindsight, inevitable, it was her callous disregard of the social consequences that will always stick in my mind.

A little careful planning, an injection of cash into areas set to be decimated, and a longer-term approach to the winding down of those industries, giving time for communities to adjust and survive, would’ve made all the difference.  But her ideology – the ruthless, black and white, survival of the fittest ideal – wouldn’t allow it.  The resultant devastation and social upheaval is still being felt today:  the underclass of benefits dependency, the ghettoised communities, one of Europe’s worst levels of social mobility and a general feeling of desperation in areas that were once hard-working and proud.

The people who live with Thatcher’s ruthless and callous legacy wouldn’t agree that she “Saved Britain” – she certainly didn’t save it for them.

And let’s not forget the further ideology that she introduced: Thatcherism – the creed of greed.

With the wholesale deregulation of the financial sector and the selling off of social housing stock, she created a credit bubble that taught the nation that it was their inalienable right to have whatever they wanted, without consequence.  And rather than recognising that this was unsustainable, as we’ve now painfully discovered, she spurred it on, lauding the rich and promoting an ideal that money, in of itself, was the new measure of wealth.  No longer would wealth be measured by happiness or community or self respect or the care you show to your fellow man – it’d be measured in greed.

After all “There’s no such thing as society”, right?

And even now, after being hit by 3 harsh recessions when boom crashed down into the inevitable bust, it is still this ideal that politicians continue to follow – growth comes from consumption, growth will make you happy, it is your duty to make yourself richer and anyone who tells you otherwise is probably a commie.  I see these sentiments daily in political sound-bites and the right wing media opinion-pieces.  Thatcherism is still very much alive and kicking.

And has it worked?  No.  We’ve now got some of the worst working wages in the developed world, as the more selfish among us follow through on the Thatcherite ideal – profit first, people second, make me rich and that’s all that matters.  We’ve seen the financial services gamble with pension funds and crush entire currencies, throwing tens of millions of honest working people into poverty. And worse, we’ve seen the victimisation of the poor in society as “scroungers” and “cheats”, because clearly they’re just not trying hard enough, are they?

We’ve become a far more cynical, more selfish, more divided and less compassionate nation than we were before the Thatcherite social experiment began.  If our society is “broken”, as the Tories delight in reminding us, it’s because Thatcherism broke it – and more Thatcherism sure ain’t going to fix it!

So maybe now isn’t the time to celebrate in Thatcher’s death but we cannot let her mistakes pass history by.

If you agree with me, make your voices heard.  Take this time to argue the case for a progressive alternative.  Remind everyone who holds Margaret Thatcher up as an icon, that her policies, rhetoric and ideology, while making them and their rich friends vast fortunes, have, ultimately, left this nation a much, much poorer place to live.

Just show a little class while you’re at it, eh?

Evil Dead {Film Review}

It is a tough task on taking a cult favourite series and basically updating it to a modern setting. Though that usually causes scepticism from fans, saying they have missed the point on what made the original films good in the first place or they just completely fail as a whole. Michael Bay’s production company Platinum Dunes have come under criticism, as their remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, The Hitcher, Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street are really beat-to-beat remakes of the original movies (which makes us ask the question; why bother remaking it if it is going to be exactly the same as the original?). So it was inevitable that the news of an Evil Dead remake would make the fans cry “BETRAYAL!!!”. How could anyone think of trying to top Sam Raimi’s (director ‘The Evil Dead’ Trilogy and ‘Spider-Man’ Trilogy) cult independent horror classic which starred Bruce Campbell as one of horror’s most beloved icons? Especially the teaser poster has the guts (pun non-intended) to have giant words reading “THE MOST TERRIFYING FILM YOU WILL EVER EXPERIENCE”. Well I am actually happy to report that it is pretty good (undeniably flawed but pretty good considering it is a remake).

 

The movie is set (where else?) at a cabin in the woods, where David (Shiloh Fernandez) and his friends are helping his sister Mia’s (Jane Levy) drug addiction. Because they have previously attempted to help detox Mia and failed, they decide to keep her in the cabin until she really has been cured of her addiction. Meanwhile, they find a secret cellar in the cabin and Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) finds a book (the Necronomicon). Despite repeated warnings written within its pages, he recites the words and thus releases evil spirits. If you have seen either any of the previous movies, you know where this leads to. As Evil Dead fashion, everything starts to go downhill. Demons start possessing our heroes and one-by-one are dispatched in the most gruesome way possible!

evil_dead_ver2_xlg

Rather than being a straight remake of The Evil Dead, it is both a reboot and a loose continuation of the series (as fans may notice ‘The Classic’, Sam Raimi’s trademark car). This is mainly to appeal new fans of the series but also bring back fans of the original films. This is an extremely difficult task to succeed, as you have the risk on alienating your new fans but also fail to deliver with the fans. Director Fede Alvarez (this being his feature debut) understood what made the original movie great but decided to bring something different so there wasn’t a case of deja-vu. The film genuinely felt the filmmakers were achieving on bringing something fresh but also delivering what we love about the series. Though the film plays it straight and thus some may find it not as enjoyable to watch such as Evil Dead II (which me and many others consider it to be the best of the series). The film’s tag-line may bring too much hype and can be misleading. The film is really more to shock than to scare and does feature a few jump scares that is often common for filmmakers to think it’ll scare audiences when it is lazy horror filmmaking.

 

The characters in this film are from decent to being completely unmemorable. Though it is a bit of a sigh of relief that they didn’t rely on having stock characters that horror films nowadays seem to feel obligated to include into the movie (i.e. the slut, the jock, the nerd etc.) Jane Levy as Mia really handles herself well, being able to deliver a sense of dread and fear as to what is about to come (especially what she is going through). Shiloh as David is decent but feels pretty bland as a protagonist and slowly becomes less interesting as the movie progresses. The rest of the cast are just characters waiting to be possessed and then get cut up into the meat grinder (they honestly don’t make much of an impact to the story). Though the series was never known to have such developed characters or having an in-depth story.

 

The film, however, will get much attention from the use of practical blood and gore effects and it really is a HUGE relief as horror films tend to rely too much on CGI. This movie spills blood by the gallons, limbs are cut off as if it would be preparing a cannibalistic feast! The camera does not shy away from the details, as you really feel the pain that is inflicted upon each character and will use anything they can use such as shards of glass, a box cutter, electric knife and of course, the movie’s trademark, a chainsaw. Though one particular infamous scene from The Evil Dead makes its appearance in the film, but it isn’t prolonged as it was in the original (a scene where Sam Raimi has said that he went a bit too far). This movie is really not for the squeamish or faint of heart, it is primarily for fans of the series and to gore hounds alike. I won’t argue that audiences may find this film too grotesque and can be viewed as being part of the torture porn that movies like Saw and Hostel made such a huge trend.

 

Overall: This is a worthy addition to a much beloved cult classic series, which is saying something as most horror films and horror remakes fail to deliver its promises. Some may have to be warned of the movie’s graphic violence, and deciding to have the movie playing it serious rather than having a sense of fun may be its downside. It is definitely not up there with The Evil Dead or Evil Dead II but it really does hold on its own and that is something worth giving praise to.

 

3 out of 5