Now, it's no secret that Malum is a remake of writer/director Anthony DiBlasi's own film, Last Shift, from 2014.
The only other time I can recall something like this being done is with Evil Dead 1 & 2.
But, let's be real...this is no Evil Dead (not even close).
In that case, they took a film that was limited by budget constraints, and experience...and improved it...to create the greatest franchise in the history of horror.
But the potential was there.
And it's just not, here.
It's pretty clear that DiBlasi's plan was to recreate the success of the Evil Dead model.
By improving the special effects, and upping the gore.
However, unlike Evil Dead 2, this film is arguably worse than the original.
As it seems to have become more convoluted and confusing in the process.
The main problem with this film, is that there is no clear distinction between what is "real", and what is psychological.
It seems he has tried to improve upon the original by expanding the backstory, via the inclusion of an introduction, relating to what happened to the father of the main character.
And substituting the bioclean guy with her mother.
In a desperate attempt to add nuance to the film.
However, this only acts to blur the lines between the "real" and psychological even more.
Rendering it even more of a confusing mess than it was before.
It's actually much more clear that the station is haunted in the original installation, than in this film.
So, even though they upped their special effects game (and the amount of gore, in general).
The original film seems to have a more cohesive plot structure and storyline.
Most of the re-imagining has come through the monsters.
However, they just come off as cheap Cenobite ripoffs that feel out of place in the universe of this film.
So all the attempted "improvements" have only acted to make the film worse than it was before.
Despite it's bigger budget.
Which goes to show that making things more complex, doesn't necessarily make them better.
Sometimes keeping things simple can be just as, if not more so, effective.
So the fact that this film was made as it is...is confusing, at best.
3 out of 10.
The only other time I can recall something like this being done is with Evil Dead 1 & 2.
But, let's be real...this is no Evil Dead (not even close).
In that case, they took a film that was limited by budget constraints, and experience...and improved it...to create the greatest franchise in the history of horror.
But the potential was there.
And it's just not, here.
It's pretty clear that DiBlasi's plan was to recreate the success of the Evil Dead model.
By improving the special effects, and upping the gore.
However, unlike Evil Dead 2, this film is arguably worse than the original.
As it seems to have become more convoluted and confusing in the process.
The main problem with this film, is that there is no clear distinction between what is "real", and what is psychological.
It seems he has tried to improve upon the original by expanding the backstory, via the inclusion of an introduction, relating to what happened to the father of the main character.
And substituting the bioclean guy with her mother.
In a desperate attempt to add nuance to the film.
However, this only acts to blur the lines between the "real" and psychological even more.
Rendering it even more of a confusing mess than it was before.
It's actually much more clear that the station is haunted in the original installation, than in this film.
So, even though they upped their special effects game (and the amount of gore, in general).
The original film seems to have a more cohesive plot structure and storyline.
Most of the re-imagining has come through the monsters.
However, they just come off as cheap Cenobite ripoffs that feel out of place in the universe of this film.
So all the attempted "improvements" have only acted to make the film worse than it was before.
Despite it's bigger budget.
Which goes to show that making things more complex, doesn't necessarily make them better.
Sometimes keeping things simple can be just as, if not more so, effective.
So the fact that this film was made as it is...is confusing, at best.
3 out of 10.