Army of Darkness review

 Number 666 on the top 1000 films of all time is the dark-fantasy comedy film: Army of Darkness.

Army of Darkness is the third film in Sam Raimi's Evil Dead franchise. Picking up from the sequel's ending, Army of Darkness follows Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell) as he is sent back in time to the middle ages and unknowingly unleashes a demonic army into the nearby city. He becomes an unlikely and reluctant saviour.

Army of Darkness is supposed to be a comedy. It's supposed to be silly. You're not supposed to take it seriously. I had a feeling it was supposed to be one of those so-bad-it's-good films. Yet Army of Darkness, much like its sequel was just so bad it's bad. I had no idea why it featured on this list. I don't know why it's regarded as a comedy. There was nothing comedic about it. Not to mention, it was also repetitive - recycling the storyline of the second film, just with a different storyline. Everything was the same, even the protagonist and acting.

Bruce Campbell was ridiculously over-the-top and the script was littered with cheesy one-liner after cheesy one-liner. Again, I know this was entirely intentional but that didn't make it anymore enjoyable. My face wasn't hurting from laughing, so much as my eyes were aching from rolling back into my head so many times. It was just as ludicrous as the original story. Ash wasn't anymore likeable. He was plain annoying and I didn't particularly buy into or care about his reluctant hero storyline.

From a production standpoint, it also looked awful. The CGI was just awful. And don't give me any of this 'it was only the nineties blah-blah-blah' when Army of Darkness' contemporaries like Star Wars and Star Trek both had much better CGI. 

I know that Army Of Darkness was intended to be one of those so bad-it's-good films, but was the intention for it to be so-bad-it's-bad? Honestly, it reeked of an eighties B-movie. Maybe good as far as B-movies go. But we're talking about the top 1000 films of all time? Why are we letting B-movies anywhere near this list?

Dead Man's Shoes review

 Number 518 on the top 1000 films of all time is Shane Meadow's 2004 revenge thriller: Dead Man's Shoes.

Richard (Paddy Considine) is a former paratrooper who returns to his hometown of Matlock, Derbyshire with one thing on his mind: revenge. In his absence, a group of petty crooks led by the psychotic Sonny (Gary Stretch) have been tormenting Richard's younger autistic brother Anthony (Toby Kebells.) Richard is a man out for revenge and you best stay out of his way.

Shane Meadows made this film on a tiny budget of 700k, but he made the best of his low-budget with this entertaining, but not amazing film. It was certainly a good watch, but definitely no worthy of a higher place on the top 1000 film list. Much of the violence happens off-screen, most of the camerawork is hand-held and Meadows filmed on location, all providing a good level of realism. In some ways, this film felt like a pre-cursor to Meadows' breakout directorial effort of This is England.

Paddy Considine is the only big name (although Toby Kebbells has gone onto big things) in Dead Man's Shoes and he did well enough with a relatively shallow character. He won an Empire Award for the role. There isn't much behind Richard's character other than vengeance. Who knows why he is wearing the gasmask when he is committing his crimes especially since the bad guys already know his identity? 

The crooks he aims to kill are similarly two-dimensional with Gary Stretch giving a somewhat campy portrayal of the big bad Sonny. Perhaps that's because Gary Stretch comes from a boxing rather than an acting background. Although maybe I'm just in the minority with this opinion as he was nominated for a British Independent Film Award. I think Toby Kebbells - in his film debut - was one of the better actors, which was reflected in his nomination for Best Newcomer at the British Independent Film Awards.

Paddy Considine also co-wrote the script with Shane Meadows and screen-writer Paul Fraser. I call it a script, it was more a general outline with much of the drama and dialogue being improvised by the actors. Perhaps that's why some of the dialogue was so damn cheesy. I'm thinking about the end where Richard started talking about beasts and monsters.

Speaking of the ending, for once I managed to actually guess the twist. I'm not sure if that's a reflection of my own lack of intelligence or the predictable nature of the film. 

*spoilers*

Maybe this isn't a spoiler if you're smarter than me, but it is revealed that Anthony was driven to suicide by the gang's bullying. The earlier scenes where we see Richard speaking with his brother? He is talking to his brother's ghost. I don't have much problem with the twist itself, but the execution was strange. Anthony was tormented by a group of six bullies until it's revealed that there is a secret seventh one who stood by as an unwilling participant. This man Richard aims to kill last. I found this strange. Sonny was the ringleader. We see how sadistic he was, not just to Anthony, but to everybody. Why wouldn't Richard save him for last?

The undeveloped characters, cheesy writing and strange ending aside, I ultimately did enjoy Dead Man's Shoes. It just shows you don't need a Hollywood budget to make an entertaining film.

Patton review

Number 287 on the top 1000 films of all time is Franklin J Schaffer's epic biopic 'Patton.'

Patton follows the life of famed American army general George Patton (George S. Scott) as he leads the US to victory during the Second World War.

Patton is three hours long. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Films need a very good reason to be three hours long. I'm not sure that Patton had that reason. If you are going to have a three-hour film, then it needs to follow a likeable character. By all accounts, Patton was a bit of a dick. I can only imagine this is how he was in real life - a big-mouthed hot-head who hated cowardice.

This might be an accurate portrayal of the character, but it didn't make me like him anymore. Patton's hotheadedness gets him into trouble more than once, most notably, when he physically assaults a PTSD-suffering soldier in full view of the rest of the hospital ward. Again, Schaffer might be staying true to reality, but it didn't make Patton anymore likeable. And considering the film was about him, this was a problem.

This isn't to discredit George C. Scott's work. He did win the Best Acting Oscar after all even if ultimately refused it. Despite playing an unlikeable character, he did his best to make him a fully-rounded three-dimensional character.

Like many of my film reviews, I think this review ultimately boils down to personal preference. Not being American, Patton's prestigious position in American military history means little to me. As such this film meant little to me.