Roger's Rating :
Should be :
Roger gave this movie a Thumbs Down in his At The Movies review. Roger liked the state of the art special effects but can't recommend the movie because he said "it's not that funny, because most of the funny stuff in this movie was already seen in his movie from 1987 Evil Dead II which this one is allegedly kind of a sequel to."
In his written review Roger gave the movie 2 stars. He says "The movie isn't as funny or entertaining as Evil Dead II, however, maybe because the comic approach seems recycled. Then again, the movie seems aimed at an audience of 14-year olds, who would have been 8 when Evil Dead II came out, so maybe this will all seem breathtakingly original."
I think this movie can stand on its own and should be judged on its own. It's funny, entertaining and seems to have gotten even better with age (and I'm not 14 years old). It's very rare when you get good comic writing paired with good special effects. On IMDB it has a 7.6 rating and has a 75% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
4 comments:
I kinda agree with him on this one. I'm a big fan of the first two Evil Deads and most Sam Raimi in general, but this one definitely falls flat. I don't find the comedic writing that sharp or witty, I don't find the film as quotable as all the t-shirts make it out to be, and the slapstick didn't work as well as it did in Evil Dead II. I think it worked better in Dead II because the goofieness of the slapstick contrasted so much with the darkness of the horror elements, but Army of Darkness is more of a fantasy adventure, which tend to be more child friendly, so the goofiness doesn't have an opposite extreme to contrast with. It's just goofy. Another reason Dead II worked better was Raimi's craftsmanship as a horror director made Dead II work as a horror film on top of a comedy. You felt the presence of the Necromancer and the sense of danger. In Army of Darkness, there is no grand sense of adventure on top of the comedy. It was just Ash being an a-hole to everybody worshiping him, and while Campbell brings what the role calls for, there isn't much for him to do. Ash doesn't need to be a nuanced character, but I feel Campbell has to over-deliver some of the lines because they're not that funny on their own. Some of the special effects and Raimi angles are pretty fun, but I definitely think this one of his weaker films that I've seen. I like it better than Spiderman 1 & 3 and the Quick & the Dead, but I even like Oz: The Great & Powerful, and that was pretty much the same plot as Army of Darkness.
I kinda agree with him on this one. I'm a big fan of the first two Evil Deads and most Sam Raimi in general, but this one definitely falls flat. I don't find the comedic writing that sharp or witty, I don't find the film as quotable as all the t-shirts make it out to be, and the slapstick didn't work as well as it did in Evil Dead II. I think it worked better in Dead II because the goofieness of the slapstick contrasted so much with the darkness of the horror elements, but Army of Darkness is more of a fantasy adventure, which tend to be more child friendly, so the goofiness doesn't have an opposite extreme to contrast with. It's just goofy. Another reason Dead II worked better was Raimi's craftsmanship as a horror director made Dead II work as a horror film on top of a comedy. You felt the presence of the Necromancer and the sense of danger. In Army of Darkness, there is no grand sense of adventure on top of the comedy. It was just Ash being an a-hole to everybody worshiping him, and while Campbell brings what the role calls for, there isn't much for him to do. Ash doesn't need to be a nuanced character, but I feel Campbell has to over-deliver some of the lines because they're not that funny on their own. Some of the special effects and Raimi angles are pretty fun, but I definitely think this one of his weaker films that I've seen. I like it better than Spiderman 1 & 3 and the Quick & the Dead, but I even like Oz: The Great & Powerful, and that was pretty much an Army of Darkness
This movie came out in 1992, not 1983.
This movie always entertains me and I've watched probably a dozen times. If it is on cable, I am still more likely to watch it than not, but is definitely mindless entertainment. Just because you are entertained by something doesn't mean that is a great piece of work. I understand his point of view. I'd give it two and half stars but I wouldn't be surprised or argue if someone gave it one star. I mean... it is a pretty lowbrow movie.
Post a Comment