Army of Darkness

It’s just pure pleasure for 81 minutes, and that’s it. Read full review

All sword and sorcery movies are parodies, but Sam Raimi's "Army of Darkness" is the best intentional parody that hardware-heavy genre has ever seen, piling conventions from other genres on top of it until the screen seems a multilayered deli delight...Entertaining and ingeniously resourceful, it's a virtuosic comic-strip movie. [19 Feb 1993, p.30]

Campbell is a whirlwind of action -- punching, kicking, pratfalling -- as well as a hilarious parody of a comic book hero. [12 March 1993, p.20]

Raimi offers all the fantasy, camp and hardcore horror you devoured in the comics. You can feel the pen-and-ink drawings coming to life. Dipping wittily into myth, the macabre and the modern, it's an effervescent adventure that's as amusing as it is genuinely gripping. [19 Feb 1993, Weekend, p.n38]

Few American directors would dare to show as much over-the-top glee in their chosen craft as Sam Raimi does in Army of Darkness. [19 Feb 1993, Style, p.c7]

Ash's dialogue keeps the movie just goofy enough that even audiences that don't go in for schlock-horror phantasmagorias will be tickled. [19 Feb 1993, Calender, p.F-8]

Raimi has not lost his knack for stylish action, and a couple of the pieces -- particularly the concluding scene in the discount department store where Ash works in the present -- are audience-rousers. [19 Feb 1993]

No matter what your opinion is of the movie, you're unlikely to be bored. Read full review

Much of the movie's charm, in fact, is derived from its sense of its own instant disposability. Raimi has created the cinematic equivalent of fast food-efficient, unassuming and seriously regressive. It may not be much good for you in the end, but consuming it is loads of fun. [19 Feb 1993, Friday, p.C]

Along with outrageous infusions of dimwit humor, Army of Darkness is a tribute to the unbridled spirit - without the unbridled expense - of pure cinematic invention. [19 Feb 1993, p.10]

With its tongue planted so firmly in its cheek it threatens to poke through at any moment, Army of Darkness marches onto the screen, a whirlwind of madcap humor, gee-whiz special effects and nonstop action. This is the kind of movie a hyperactive 13-year-old with a $12-million budget would make...It's overdone, yes, but also irresistible. [22 Feb 1993, p.E4]

Easily the most unique film in the trilogy, and in many ways the most fun. Read full review

Its violence is right out of a "Road Runner" cartoon and, despite the R-rating, relatively benign; its special effects and camera movements are often quite imaginative; and, at less than 90 minutes, it's mercifully short. [19 Feb 1993]

Raimi and his camera never slow down, which is good because many of the gags don’t stand up to scrutiny. Read full review

Taken as low comedy, Army of Darkness is fairly successful. The violence, although there is plenty of it, seems even more cartoonish and less gory than in the earlier movies. I have a feeling boys of about 11 or 12, with their normal penchant for bad puns and gross-out tactics, would be the most likely audience for this silliness, which often has the feel of an old "Tales From the Crypt" comic book. [19 Feb 1993, p.3G]

Blending almost nonstop violence with humorous parody, Sam Raimi's latest excursion into horror-kitsch seems more like an irreverent "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." Read full review

Enjoyably campy hokum. Read full review

As a film in its own right, this quirky Ray Harryhausen tribute (a skeleton army!) rocks. As an Evil Dead film, though, it’s ultimately not funny, scary or gory enough. Read full review

By the time Army of Darkness turns into a retread of "Jason and the Argonauts," featuring an army of fighting skeletons, the film has fallen into a ditch between parody and spectacle. Read full review

Surprisingly, though, Army of Darkness is slowest during its extended special effects sequences and best when human low-lifes are groveling in the squalor of the 13th century. [19 Feb 1993, p.8]

Taken on its own terms, "Army of Darkness" displays some ambition and wit, though not nearly enough to lend it broad appeal. Read full review

Raimi is a master at pacing this kind of material, however, and never allows it to become redundant. Read full review

Fans of ultraviolent sword-and-sorcery nonsense will have a good time; others will head for the exit. [19 Feb 1993, Arts, p.10]

Army of Darkness has good moments and shows traces of wit right up to the end, though these moments wind up coming fewer and farther between. [19 Feb 1993, Daily Datebook, p.D1]

The movie isn't as funny or entertaining as "Evil Dead II," however, maybe because the comic approach seems recycled. Read full review

A poor man's "Excalibur," but the fact of the matter is that the film displays far too little of the incisor-sharp wit and out-of-control mayhem readily available in the other two films. It just doesn't work. Read full review

Even diehard fans may long for something to hold the tacky flourishes together—a plot, or maybe even a guide that's more lucid than the Necronomicon. Read full review

Nonsense is no bad thing, but here it's poorly executed and from Raimi we've come to expect something better. Read full review

The movie runs just 80 minutes, but it's enough time for doldrums to set in when nifty special effects and funny verbal exchanges are out grabbing a smoke. [19 Feb 1993, Life, p.5D]

But here's the problem: Bruce Campbell's character is a complete stiff, and so is everyone else he meets who isn't a special effect. The result is that we couldn't care less who wins any battle in the movie no matter how inventively photographed. What about a love interest? Embeth Davidtz, as the lady who's waiting, doesn't have a sexy scene in the movie. [19 Feb 1993, p.C]

Stunningly stupid! Amazingly bad! Incredibly awful! Just downright terrible! [17 Feb 1993]

A tedious mock-medieval adventure yarn that's easily the worst film so far this year...Without a single clever line of dialogue (by contrast, Arnold Schwarzenegger's one-liners rank with Oscar Wilde's) or a story of even marginal coherence, the movie relies entirely on visual overkill to bludgeon the viewer into a state of comatose submission. [19 Feb 1993, p.L23]