If I had all the money in the world, I'd still make movies. But I'd want them to pay me in donuts.

As an actor, I look for the part itself. I look for the story and the role. If there's no money, but it's a good part in a good role, I'll still consider it. Basically, the worse the role is, the worse the story is, and the more they'll have to pay me. It's a simple correlation.

I think none of the humor in the first Evil Dead was intentional. We weren't that sophisticated. We got more sophisticated with Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness where you can start to manipulate the audience a little more, having more control over the medium instead of just trying to figure out how to do it. I suppose that's pretty normal with any craft. Every carpenter is better 20 years later.

Too many actors are trying to be cool: they're trying to do it with their hair, trying to do it with the color, trying to do it with clothes, or some bullshit attitude you're either cool or you're not, that is my theory. If you have to try, it is too late.

Every single bit of entertainment is escapism. It's because you are saying, "Let's see what this other person's life is like." And also it's beyond escapism, its entertainment and art as such can elevate the species. The entertainer supposedly is the muse. They're the ones who tell you what is wrong with society in a humorous way. They're the ones who do an expose about this or a documentary about that about the injustice of this. So it can be a very powerful medium.

For a long time I was embarrassed to say I was a 'B' movie actor, ... But now that I see what Hollywood's putting out, I realized 'B' actually means 'better.'

I prefer a much looser style. Any time a writer thinks he has all the answers to how someone should talk or react or end a scene, it's a spontaneity - killer. I don't get making sure you get every word right in some stupid speech just because a writer sat there and did it.