Conference bookie::movies

    
    An amusing little flick.  I didn't see Evil Dead II, but I was with
    people who had, and they said it was about the same.
    
    Plot very thin.  Characterization as well.  It was a good way to pass
    time while it snowed.
    
    DFW

    [Fine review, Lisa! For that, I'll even put your node in my local
    database! ;-)]
    
    While I'm a little behind on the "Evil Dead" scene (just saw the first
    one a month or two ago, and have yet to see II despite its masses of
    critical acclaim (no, I'm _not_ kidding; Sisbert or Ekel (I forget
    which, but it was probably Roger) just _loved_ Evil Dead II - which,
    btw, he (whoever it was) recommended renting, rather than wasting any
    money on III, which neither of them liked))), I found a couple of
    things amusing about the announcement of "Army of Darkness". 
    
    First - I saw previews for this two or three times without getting any
    idea that this was related to the "Evil Dead" series. It wasn't until
    it was mentioned on the Sisbert show that I had any idea. (I think it
    was because the initial glimpse of it made me think it was "Bill and Ted
    in King Arthur's Court," at which point I stopped paying attention.)
    
    Second, I read that the original title was supposed to be "Evil Dead
    III: Medieval Dead," which (though I'd have preferred to leave out the
    numerals entirely) struck me as a much better title than "Army of
    Darkness," which isn't a bad title in itself but which seems to me more
    suited to a different type of picture...
    
    Maybe I'll go rent II one of these days, and see what all the fuss is
    about.
    
    -b

RE           <<< Note 49.1 by RNDHSE::WALL "Show me, don't tell me" >>>
              -< Less irritating than more ambitions productions >-
  
>    Plot very thin.  Characterization as well.  It was a good way to pass
>    time while it snowed.

As long as the snow storm wasn't very long :-)
The show I went to yesterday, started at 2:15 and I was in my car and gone by
3:40, that includes previews and adverts. The movie was mildly amusing but I
don't feel like I got my money's worth.

Regards
Barry

    
>     <<< Note 49.0 by 6400::GASSAWAY "Insert clever personal name here" >>>
>                     -< Army of Darkness (Evil Dead III) >-
    
> at least 12 fake shemps in the credits, 

    What are fake shemps?

    -=- Paul

    Beth,
    
      Most definitely check out "Evil Dead II - Dead by Dawn".  It was
    both gruesome and highly entertaining.
    
      In "Evil Dead" (which I saw after "II", and on video to boot), I just
    kept getting annoyed at the utter crummy-horror-movie idiocy of the 
    characters.
    
      The second movie has exactly the same mimimal plot as the first -
    but it's just done much better.
    
    - Dave
    
    PS. Raimi wanted to give the movie his original choice for title, but 
    the studio forced "Army of Darkness" on him because the first two
    movies didn't make any money in the US.  Raimi claims (with
    justification, IMHO) that the lack of an MPAA rating kept the first two
    out of so many theaters that they didn't have a chance.  He shot for an
    R rating on this one, but didn't get his title anyway.
    
    - Dave

From the Oct. 1992 issue of Film Threat magazine:

Dropping the moniker: .....The Evil Dead moniker has been dropped because 
"the first two films didn't make any money" says Raimi.....

Siskel and Ebert: ......."I watched them all the time until they reviewed 
Evil Dead," Raimi says.  "I got my folks and the whole neighborhood to 
watch it, and at the beginning of the review, a dog came out and jumped in
[the critics'] laps - it was their 'Dog of the Week'!  I didn't watch them
again until they reviewed Evil Dead II.  I turned it on and out came a 
skunk!" ..........(article them goes on to say that Ebert has recently
added Evil Dead 2 to his "guilty pleasures" list.)

Fake Shemps: ....."Shemp was one of the Three Stooges.  Tey were making 
three episodes at once and Shemp died halfway through the shooting.
So the studio hired stand-ins for Shemp to complete the episodes.  Problem
was, they looked nothing like Shemp and they'd cover their faces really
phonily so the camera couldn't see.  Moe or Larry would say, 'Shemp,
guard the door!', and this guy who looked nothing like him would run by
really fast.  As a kid, I called those guys 'Fake Shemps'.  They'd have
bad dialogue like, 'Where's Shemp?' 'Oh, he went upstairs.' I'll say",
jokes Raimi, "the *big* room upstairs!  So whenever we replace an actor with
someone else, that person is a Fake Shemp."

    I saw the movie yesterday and was very disappointed.
    The movie had budget written all over it.
       I guess Sam Raimi got too much money to play
    around with, like in Darkman. Where was the cam 
    work he had in Evil Dead and Dead by dawn?
    Also I found that it had too many lousy one liners
    (I may be bad, but I feel good!Yikes!!!)
     Anyway, Bruce Campbell is always Bruce Campbell.
    
    -H-
    
             Silly that they changed the end of ED II
            The whole movie was like a Monty Python movie.
    
            Oh yes, I didn't like it at all!!!
            (Maybe a little, but not much)
    

    Let me admit--I haven't seen this yet. BUT two of my best friends have
    convinced me that it's a must see in the "guilty pleasures" category.
    
    It's so bad it's high camp, I've heard...
    
    

Myself, I loved this flick... sure, Evil Dead 2 was great, which makes it
all the harder to top.

It wasn't just a copy of Evil Dead 2, which I liked - they did some different
things and also pushed the limits to the absurdly funny...

The biggest laughs I got was his jump to get his chainsaw, and the scence
of him making his glove (was I the only one laughing at that point?)

I went there expecting to laugh, wanting to laugh, and I wasn't dissapointed.

This isn't a horror flick, it's a comedy (just like Evil Dead 2).

Not as good as Evil Dead 2, but I'd still give it a B+ (evil dead 2 I give 
an A). The only thing that bothered me was how they re-wrote the ending of
Evil Dead 2. But that's just a nit-pick.

/Scott

    Just saw this film last night , and I thought that it was a very
    plesent movie the type that you leave your brain at home .
    I thought that production wise this was better then I or II but all
    three are quite good .
    
    ****.5/*****
    
                    ED........

    Speaking of rewriting the end of the movie, didn't they do the same
    thing with I on part II. its been awhile since I seen the ED, but
    that is something that stuck in my mind.
    
    Tony

    Actually I was kind of bored with part II, never saw part I, but
    I thought AofD was most excellent! To much camp can be stupid, but this
    was so stupid that is WAS funny! I want to see it again, I only saw it
    on the last day it was playing. Pretty chucklicious!
    
    

    I saw this movie in the cinemas and was impressed and so when i
    appeared on video tape I rented it.The ending was different from one
    version to the other.......
    
    
    
    
    the version I saw in the cinema ended with Ash getting back and having
    one final battle with a deadite in the supermarket while the tape
    version had Ash sleeping too long and waking up in the future to a
    devastated world!
       Has anyone one else saw both versions?

    The rental I picked up when it was first released had your cinema
    ending.
                                                              RONM
    

    
    Bleah!
    
    Another stink-bomb.  Maybe I just resent the way they turned Evil Dead
    (you thought AofD was on shoestring budged - ED's budget was counted
    in tens of thousands of dollars) into a campy comedy horror, but...
    
    Ash was annoying.  Bad Arnie-type lines that didn't work.  Medieval
    England in the Southern California desert?  
    
    Snore.
    
    - Sean

    Re: last
    
    I agree totally.  I was very disappointed with Evil Dead 3.  Looks
    like Sam Raimi has gone from new-age, independent writer/director
    to typical Hollywood schlock maker.  
    
    The first Evil Dead is my all time favorite guilty pleasure movie.
    Despite its shoestring budget, it is genuinely dark and scary, and
    NO stupid comedy.  I think Raimi has insulted his fans and kicked 
    them in the head by turning a truly original horror story into nothing
    but a farce for Bruce Campbell's weak attempt at Three Stooges type
    slapstick.  
    
    Here's hoping Phantasm 3 will live up to its predecessors.  Still don't
    know when that will be out, though.