Review of the Reviews

ARMY OF DARKNESS (1993)

James Berardinelli's Review - http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/army-of-darkness

Roger Ebert's Review - http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/army-of-darkness-1993

1. On February 19, 1993, Roger Ebert published a negative review of new film, Army of Darkness,  directed by Sam Raimi and starring Bruce Campbell. Primarily, Ebert's main focus is the "campiness" of the film; it was Sam Raimi's intention to satire the cliches of B-horror movies including Ash's one-liners, the jaw-line-that-can-cut-glass aesthetic, and, as Ebert calls it, "elementary" lack of plot details.

Though Ebert realizes this film is the exact opposite of serious, he remarks that it is simply a reproduction of the film's predecessor, Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn (1987). The comedic aspects are recycled and unorignal, and the only thing Ebert praises is the special effects, specifically the "undead" skeleton bodies that haunt the Middle Age Ash was sent into.

The positive of this movie seems to be the special effects, as highlighted in a review of the film by James Berardinelli. Its proud campiness and ridiculous skeletons were a hit for Berardinelli; he even mentions how the film has next to no character development, exposition, or subplots, but the lack of depth to the film did not stop the more than original ride it takes the viewer on. Berardinelli does comment on how Raimi is known for his ridiculous films, as we saw in the installments prior to this one. Berardinelli states Raimi is making no different desicion in this one. It's an aquired taste, as Berardinelli makes very clear, but makes for an outrageous rollercoaster without filter.

2. In Ebert's review, it is clear he does not appreciate this film as he did Evil Dead II, which is an opinion I agree with profoundly. The content "seems recycled" and that's because it is from the prior film. One-liners, cliche and unexplained relationships, and Campbell's jawline were all more memorable in the prequel (though "this is my boomstick" may be the most revolutionary quotes in ninetie's cinema). In contrast and in my own bias, I grew up in a home surrounded by B-movie fans, specifically horror films. The campy-feel of this movie gives the viewer a real, I-can't-believe-I-just-laughed-at-that laugh. Berardinelli comments on how animated this film is using "ridiculous lines with a deadpan seriousness" that can make anyone giggle.

3. Given Ebert's ethos in the topic of film, his review would swade the common viewer to not waste your time on this movie in theatres and wait for it to come out on VHS (to put this into perspective; it was 1993). Ebert comes off as cocky and parallels the film's humor in his sarcastic tone of this review, as if he does not take this very-much-not-serious film seriously. This may seem egotistic to readers, but knowing his authority, one would wholeheartenly believe that this is not a film for everyone, and almost everyone.

4. To fully portray this film in the light Sam Raimi would want it to be seen, I would focus the most of it's comic-book-esque lines and aesthetic. Campbell inevitably looks as if he stepped out of an issue of Archie as the cool dude smoking cigarettes in the back, and this adds to the film's intentionally campy tone. As well, I would include much about Campbell's self-proclaimed "B-movie actor" status, even though this and many other of his films have been widely released. To top the review off, it would be a shame not to mention the film's excellence in special effects; all fight scenes (and there is argubly too few too much) are exceptionally strong for audience excitement.