Change Your Image
Tuthmoses76
Reviews
Dragonslayer (1981)
A Sadly Underrated Fantasy Film
After the death of the last great wizard in the land a young apprentice is called upon to slay a fierce fire-breathing dragon terrorizing the townspeople of Urland. The king has made an evil pact with the beast by offering virgin sacrifices twice a year in exchange for peace. These young victims are chosen by lot from the poorer families in the kingdom while the names of important ladies of society are strangely withheld, more especially the king's own daughter!
An old classic tale is brought to the silver screen with more respect than most fantasy sword movies. A very well made film with a great murky atmosphere, exquisuite scenery, great midieval set designs, and breathtaking battle sequences with the most ferocious dragon in cinema history! So why isn't this movie more popular?
One reason for sure is that this movie caters soley to fans of the genre, not to the general public; unlike Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings which was obviously made to appeal to a mass audience. The makers of Dragonslayer took the subject seriously and concentrated on the story just as much as the special effects (unlike Jackson who slashed most of the story from Tolkien's beautiful masterpiece and made audiences follow the heroes through one big, long obstacle course). Dragonslayer is a story of death and rebirth. Of the old things passing away and the start of new beginnings. A time when magic is "fading from the world; dying out.." and the children of men must look to God, religion, and each other for survival (although, I admit, the film portrays wizards and magic in a much more appealing light than Christianity and our Western heritage. This movie seems to think that being aloof and noncommitted is the road to enlightenment rather than involving oneself in the "hypocracy" of the community and orginized society).
Many have complained that it is slow, boring and drags, but people interested in the subject matter and enjoy seeing a period piece set in the dark ages won't feel that way. Those who were bored in this film were obviously just watching to see the dragon. To those people I would recommend Reign of Fire, a movie with plenty of dragons and no story! I wouldn't recommend Dragonheart or Dungeons & Dragons to anybody!
The special effects, which were better than Ray Harryhausen's in Clash of the Titans, out that same year (no disrespect to Ray or that movie), are a welcome sight after being bombarded with CGI images in movies such as Fellowship, Two Towers, and the new Star Wars flicks. Modern movie makers use CGI way too much. They aren't as realistic as they think they are and should only be used when physical effects won't work.
Dragonslayer does have its flaws. The acting is a bit corny in places and I can't agree with many of the views expressed in the story. Some I have mentioned already. I also can't help wondering if Gailin takes Valarian's virginity after the love scene (we're not shown what happens). If so, this is a poor lesson in ethics on how one should deal with their problems. It makes me wonder why every virgin in the village doesn't get herself laid to avoid becoming dragon dinner.
Nevertheless, this is one of my favorite movies of all time, if not my favorite. It's a sword and sorcery masterpiece. The story and plotline is what fantasy should be and it looks like something directly out of Time Life's 'The Enchanted World'. Any real fantasy devotee will love it. Ignore all the bad reviews if you are one of those people and go out and get a copy.
Sadly, it is not on DVD, probably because it's one of the darker Disney films that Disney doesn't want it's name connected with anymore (the early stages of Disney's decline from standard family values into to moral depravity). What ever the reason, this movie is good enough to be on DVD and fans should be allowed to enjoy it in digital, widescreen format.
Conan the Barbarian (1982)
Movie vs. Books; Odin vs. Genghis Khan
In writing this, I should start by stating that I love fantasy and sci-fi when it's done right and this is one of my favorite movies of all time. I've also been a big fan of the origanal Robert E. Howard stories for a long time now, reading many of them over and over again.
The movie and the books are different. There are also a lot of themes from the movie that are taken straight out of the books. As we examine them be warned about the SPOILERS!
First off, Conan's village and parents were never massacred before his eyes as portrayed in the film and Conan was not put into slavery at that young of an age. 'The Thing in the Crypt' (Lin Carter and L. Sprague De Camp) tells us that Conan was enslaved at the age of sixteen during a raiding campaign with a band of the Esir against the Vanir and the Hyperboreans.
His flight through the wilderness with a pack of hungry wolves after him is taken directly from 'The Thing in the Crypt', except that the skeleton in the tomb actually comes to life and Conan has to destroy it with his newly aquired sword.
Conan becomes a thief in both the movie and the book but his first heighst is a little different. In "The Tower of the Elephant" (Howard) it is the Heart of the Elephant, not the Eye of the Serpent which is the chief prize of the Tower; and it is guarded by a giant spider instead of a giant snake (although he fights giant snakes in more than a couple other adventures).
The crucifixtion scene is taken pracicaly verbatum from "A Witch Shall Be Born." Especially the part with the vulture.
Conan never dies and is brought back to life in the origanal stories and it is the pirate queen Belit whoes love is stronger than death in "The Queen of the Black Coast." She is the one who comes back from the other world to fight by the side of Conan, not Valaria.
In the books, Thoth-Amon is the prime evil Wizard that Conan must eventualy overcome, not Thulsa-Doom.
Many of the themes we see in the movie aren't from the Howard stories at all. Conan's search for the riddle of steel is completely made up for the movie. And never was he taken to the East to be trained to fight like a Samuri (a stupid idea at first which managed to turn out really well). Conan's fancy sword moves are practicaly a trademark. Only Arnold could pull that off with a broadsword!
Conan doesn't spend half of his life seeking revenge either. Most of his motives in the books aren't that personal. But this is a movie, not a serial. If you want it to be an epic, you gotta have drama and a bigger sense of purpose. However viewers who look closer at this film will find more than just a revenge story. The main theme of the movie can probably be found in the quote at the beginning credits: "That which does not kill you makes you stronger." But there are other morals as well. Conan is a person who lives by a simple philosophy. He doesn't have a disconnected fascination with the vague and mysterious like the brainwashed followers of Thulsa-Doom. He represents the realistic side of our souls with his feet planted firmly on solid earth. He gets what he wants by the sweat of his brow, and gives honor and respect toward his heritage, unlike like the Children of Doom who look for paradise by shirking responsability and rebeling against their "leaders; your parents; those who would call themselves your judges! Those who have lied and corrupted the earth!" supposedly.
Aside from the in depth look of the movie, some other things that make this movie great are the costumes, scenery and a fantastic musical score. John Milius created a fantasy world as if it were a real historical time. Totally believable. Anyone who likes fantasy will love this movie. There just aren't as many good sword & sorcery flicks out there.
The vikings verses the mongols and a battle to the death with and evil snake cult and you've got "Conan the Barbarian." Watch it. I highly reccomend it. Lots of blood and nudity though. Catch it on T.V. if you have to. Oh yea, Conan's sword is way cool!
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Surprisingly Impressed
Like most people on Planet Earth who aren't six feet under, I grew up watching The Wizard of Oz as a child. To this day I have never read the book. I enjoyed the movie, but it really had its biggest impact on me as an adult. Before, it was just a family film that I would watch with my cousins every year.
I watched it a few years ago out of curiosity more than anything, expecting to cringe at how corny it would be. But I was actually amazed at how realistic the movie feels.
First of all, I don't like musicals as a general rule but I didn't mind this movie at all. The songs were quite good actually.
The actors were completely believable for the most part. I know some people think they were a bit over the top. But I don't remember thinking that. Judy Garland, at least plays the part of Dorothy perfectly well (remember, I haven't read the book) and is easy to connect with (very important for the main character). I heard from someone that they were considering Shirley Temple for the part but she was under contract with someone else and they wouldn't let her be in it. And I heard that she was crushed so they put her in a fantasy movie of her own called The Blue Bird (I haven't seen it).
The sets were really good. Although you can tell they are just sets, they're done so well that it still feels right anyway. I can't believe that Gone With the Wind won Best Art Direction over this movie. Wizard of Oz should have at least won an oscar for that. I think it got Best Song for Over the Rainbow and that was all!
Another thing that makes this movie great is it's ability to be heart warming and scary. I was waiting for the Wicked Witch to appear thinking that I'd crack a smile at how silly she was. But to be perfectly honest, she was quite intimidating. She wasn't silly at all and she was very mean and threatening in every scene she was in. I couldn't understand it. This old woman with a green face was completely nasty and horrible without actually physically killing or torturing anyone throughout the entire film. Let's see a modern movie villain pull that off! The movie gets particularly suspensful when they get to the castle.
I also liked how Dorothy's companions all have the traits that they're searching for. The Tin Man who doesn't have a heart is a big softy who's always crying; the Scarecrow who supposedly doesn't have a brain is always coming up with the good ideas; but the problem is that the Lion really is a coward! I suppose someone will say that true courage is facing danger when you're afraid of it blah, blah, blah.....but I remember one scene where the Lion actually runs away and jumps out the window. And he also gets more songs than the others too. Oh well, a cowardly lion is more amusing than a brave one I guess.
I think this movie is really for adults more than kids. Oh, kids will like it, of course. But there are levels of depth in it that only an adult can relate to (that's what I think). I had to keep myself from getting teary eyed when Dorothy was trapped in the tower with the crystal ball and I don't remember being affected by this scene like that when I was little.
I'm sure everyone who reads this review has probably seen this movie a trillion times. But if you haven't, I highly recommend it. And this recommendation is coming from a guy who usually won't watch a movie unless it has a broadsword or a machine gun in it......or a vampire.
Spider-Man (1967)
Best Super Hero Cartoon
I watched this series when I was a kid, not in the late 60's, but in 1984, the last year it aired on regular television. Luckily, that year my parents bought our first VCR and I managed to get some of the episodes on tape. I still have some of these tapes today (mixed with Gilligan's Island and other junk).
There were three series. The first was good. But the best were the 2nd and 3rd series with a different animation team including the great Ralph Bakshi who went on to make animated movies like Lord of the Rings (1979), Fire & Ice, and American Pop.
When one sees these Spiderman cartoons today, they might comment on the crudity of the animation. For example, Spiderman's costume is unfinished, he is refilmed swinging through the air over and over again in the same pose, sometimes he stands on the edge of a building with one foot in the air and is always swinging across town far above the tops of buildings.
But these and other things don't take away from how good I think the animation is. First of all, even though all of Spidey's movements are the same shots reused a hundred times, at least they're smooth. In action cartoons today the characters are very jerky and awkward and have no real feeling of action. Though the colors are old and dull, the backgrounds are the most interesting and unique that you'll ever see in any cartoon (including full length feature films; espiecially Disney). Also, animation in super-hero cartoons today is too elastic-like. The heros manage to stretch and twist there way in and out of everything. The old Spiderman cartoons looked and felt more like the comic (maybe not like Todd McFarlane's).
But the artwork isn't the only thing that makes this series cool. The music is better than any other cartoon before or since. Besides the unforgettable theme song, each scene of each episode is accompanied by a jazzy rock n, roll tune or an orchestral piece (some of it existing classical). I watch them for the music as much as the cartoon itself. You will never here a score like it or anything else as memorable in a cartoon again.
These old Spidermans are also written in the traditional style of story telling that's hard to find these days. The drama builds to the action sequences making it more exciting, where as action cartoons today just punch their way through every scene making it very boring.
Perhaps it's sheer nostalgia. But I wish there were more cartoons like this one.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Worst Movie/ Best Parts
This is definitely the worst in the series. Harrison's performance was about as hollow as it was in Bladerunner and his sidekicks are absolutely worse! Short Round's character is totally out of place in this story and just because Willie is bigger than Marion doesn't mean she's better.
The plot line also has nothing interesting about it. Going after a Shankara Stone doesn't seem that adventurous as the Ark or the Holy Grail.
And why in thee world is this a blasted prequel!?
However, out of all the Indiana Jones movies this one has the most memorable scenes (here are the SPOILERS). The sacrificial scene where the cult leader rips the guy's heart out is just as fantastic as the boulder scene in Raiders(scarier than I remembered). The sets of the Temple are the best art design work out of any movie of the trilogy and the costumed villains look great too. The mine car scene was classic (even if a bit hokey) and the shakey bridge over the river of crocodiles was cool as well.
I don't understand all this talk of the movie being racist just because the enemies are Indian. I have a German friend who thinks the other Indiana Jones films are prejudice. After all, the war has been over a long time now. And any real historian knows that just as many good things came out of Germany as India. And besides, the Thuggee Cult of Kali was also real and a mass-murdering evil which plagued India for over two hundred years taking the lifes of countless numbers of Indian natives. Anyway, watching Harrison Ford beat up accultic Third Worlders is just as exciting as seeing him beat up white-supremisist Nazis. I like the whole Montezuma/Qartez type of adventure.
I just want the movie to come out on DVD so I can watch the good parts when I feel like it without having to trudge through the whole thing, because this is not as good as Raiders by a long shot.