Mary Poppins Returns
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No consensus yet.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (47)
| Top Critics (5)
| Fresh (34)
| Rotten (13)
| DVD (10)
This is old-fashioned fun until the climactic battle, which almost comes across like routine bone piling after all the flights of fancy.
The climactic battle between the living and the dead that closes the picture is well done yet disappointingly lacking in thrills...
Only a primitive screwhead would find zero entertainment value in the third Evil Dead movie.
More than anything, Army of Darkness is a tribute to the Ray Harryhausen adventure epics (Clash of the Titans, Sinbad, and the like) that Sam Raimi grew up loving.
Sam Raimi's Army of Darkness delivers a great conclusion to what is one of the most unique trilogies in cinema history, providing a ton of laughs and plenty of exciting action in the process.
A loopy work of imagination that never fails to be entertaining.
Works in being a spooky and entertaining darkly comedic horror movie...
Army of Darkness' story is so perfunctory and lame that there's nothing to tether its bits and pieces of loopy madness.
Raimi turns his back on the horror genre that brought him fame in the first place and delivers instead a cartoonish sword-and-sorcery fantasy, albeit one with some pretty cool monsters and special effects.
Containing less of the blood soaked insanity of the previous two instalments, Army of Darkness comes off as more of an adventure film with a horror element attached to it.
I'll probably take heat for saying so, but this flick kind of sucks.
Raimi and his camera never slow down, which is good because many of the gags don't stand up to scrutiny.
It is sillier compared to the previous Evil Dead movies and clearly made for a younger audience, but even if it loses steam after a while, it benefits from those moments of hysteria and absurdity that made the second movie so funny, with Bruce Campbell screaming out of control.
First off, this review is based on the unrated director's cut. I had seen the theatrical cut years ago and to say I loathed the finished product is an understatement. With the added value of hindsight and a new, unfiltered version of the film, I can safely reassess the film and declare it to be the same drek as before. Of course, the 'Evil Dead' trilogy has metamorphosed and retconned from a gruesome splatter flick to a fish-out-of-water farce in this entry. I've never been a huge fan of anachronistic humor and scenes of Bruce Campbell bewitching the humbled medieval citizens with tales of his "boomstick" shotgun don't persuade me in favor of it any further. Quite honestly, Bruce Campbell's self-deprecating overacting is too overblown and one-dimensional for belief (he is abused by a variety of malevolent spirits and demon hordes). For the majority of the film, Ash is a chauvinistic jerk (Sheila slaps him and a moment later, he arrogantly asks her to "give me some sugar"). In most of Raimi's films, the aesthetics can be stirring, but the shaky-cam she-bitch confrontations are gusty eyesores. Comedy is subjective but the acrobatic Three Stooges slapstick with the Lilliputian Ash clones is tremendously unfunny and it should've been excised entirely. At one point, the Necronomicon book assaults Ash and it is the umpteenth variation on the Passion of Ash. This is a meretricious parody of what the 'Evil Dead' series has become and even the foul 2013 remake is superior.
I remember very clearly when I saw this film on the shelves at my local videoshop all those years ago. The films poster/art cover looked a bit scruffy, there was only one lone copy and I recall thinking to myself what tacky, cheesy B-movie guff it looked like. It kinda looked like a grotty seedy rip off of 'Willow'.
Following straight on from 'Evil Dead II' we now find 'Ash' in medieval times, an age of knights and Kings...for some reason. Yep Ash crash lands in 1300 AD which I'm guessing is in our past? not an alternative dimension or anything I presume?. Not overly sure about that one as it clearly isn't the rolling hills of merry olde England, although the King or Lord is called Arthur but that's not the King Arthur, so perhaps an alternate Arthur or maybe just a less heard about Arthur. The time period isn't accurate either or even close but maybe I'm just delving a little too deep here.
Of course the main reason why the land looks as it does is probably down to the fact Raimi and co couldn't afford to actually go to England and film there...if its suppose to be medieval England that is. This leads me to my first tiny issue I have with this film, the era/setting and visual effects used. I do like the setting ideas and the dark middle ages type approach but it also does tend to invite the cheapness to shine through on occasion. The reason for this I think is because some of the film is in daylight and it just doesn't look as it should, its not dark obviously, not eerie or creepy...its errr daylight. It highlights the joins in the special effects as it were.
The other issue I had with the film was the fact it looked too cheap in places for me. We all know the film/franchise is suppose to be a low budget schlocky affair but over the course of the three films the budget got better and so should the effects to a degree. You look at 'Evil Dead II' and its cheesy as fuck, but the effects still have a great look about them in that classic 80's tradition, looks both good and bad at the same time. This film at times does look really really cheap, maybe a bit too cheap. The skeleton hordes at the end are just extras in basic costumes with plastic skeleton bits stuck on them, really didn't like that. A sequence where Ash is fighting skeleton warriors, the skeletons are clearly just being thrown at him one by one by crew members...actually it is a deliberately hilarious little moment.
Some of the effects are a sheer joy to watch, use of classic stop motion animation on some of the skeletons and a bit on Ash look terrific. Its just a shame all the skeletons couldn't be stop motion, a big stop motion battle at the end. Like the previous film effects are covered by every trick in the book, some glorious makeup jobs, masks and prosthetics alongside some ultra hammy bluescreen work on the mini Ash creations. Loved Evil Ash's design and makeup job, really top notch work there, when Ash splits in two is a brilliant sequence as we see the crazed delirious Ash running wildly through the misty moonlit night, loved the sets for most night scenes and the odd deadites we saw had that classic Raimi look about them, nice.
In this film Ash has also completely converted into a fully fledged iconic fantasy hero with his chainsaw hand and shotgun. The character has the look of a comic book character and is totally different to previous incarnations in the last two films. This is bolstered by the snappy dialog, quickfire quips, plenty of hero posing with the shotgun, a bit more muscle on show and the classic damsel in distress to save. I do like this aspect very much but at the same time I felt it got a little bit out of hand at times much like the overall comedy aspect.
'Gimme some sugar, baby'
There are moments where I really wince because its just too goofy, when Ash is getting some Three Stooges treatment from the skeletal hands coming up from their graves is one such example. Another is when Ash has two heads and we get more Three Stooges tomfoolery, was that really needed?. Also there are odd bits of dialog from the bad guys which have been edited in and are just too silly for me, that and some really hokey skeleton prop moments...yikes!.
Another discussion builder is the two ending sequences, which do you prefer?. Myself I'm not sure, I liked the apocalyptic ending but I don't really get how that is suppose to have happened. Its a bit of a Tim Burton 'Planet of the Apes' ending that one, makes no real sense. So I guess I must go with the cornball ending where Ash becomes or continues on as a one liner spewing, shotgun wielding demon/deadite slayer. I think that ending does fit more inline with the character and plot. All those cool one liners do feel very much like a precursor to 'Bubba Ho-Tep' if you ask me.
'Hail to the king, baby'
I tend to think of this film as a twisted Harryhausen flick, a dark surreal vision of his work, just a different spin. It is an oddity indeed, its not really horror, not scary at all, its outright fantasy really, much like 'Krull' 'The Beastmaster' or 'The Princess Bride'. The film is such a drastic move away from the original concepts of the first two films its quite unusual. I do like the film very much, its a great little dark bizarre fairytale of sorts but I just don't think it fits in with the Evil Dead franchise really, its so different from the first two. Great to get away from the cabin location of course, the grim medieval setting is fine and the dark humour is fine...I just feel a bit more gore, a little less slapstick and maybe a touch more jumpy in the horror department and it would have been perfect.
Picking up where Evil Dead 2 left off, Ash finds himself trapped in the Middle Ages, still fighting it out with the undead. This film is a slapstick comedy gem. The only 'horror' element to it is the undead, that's it. The rest is all silly, goofy, physical comedy fun.
It's not really my cup of tea, as I would have preferred a little more darkness and seriousness, but the humor is done decently well. I'm mostly a supporter of this film because it's a sequel to two great films, and was one of the last bits of mainstream film I can think of to feature great use of stop motion. Sure, it's not as gory as the others, and it ain't scary, but I think that could have taken it in a far worse direction than this.
Give it a shot. It's not what I was hoping for, but it still manages to be a decent time anyway, so that really says something.
View All Quotes