Sword-and-Sorcery Films of the 1980's

[Catullus64]

Just a thread to discuss a little corner of film history that interests me, and will, I suspect, interest many others here.

The early 1980s saw a significant boom of fantasy films in general, and sword-and-sorcery films in specific. I've heard people attribute a lot of this to the success of John Milius' 1982 Conan the Barbarian film sparking a wave of imitators. There were certainly imitators, but a little investigation shows that lots of these films, including some of the most blatantly Conan-derivative, entered production and shooting before Conan's release. The rise of D&D in the late 70s probably had a much bigger impact, as did popular appetite for genre fare spurred on by Star Wars, which many will agree is essentially a fantasy film in sci-fi dressings.

I'm not going to look at these chronologically, because you could simply go to Wikipedia for that; rather, I'm going to explore some common elements and characteristics that span this little sub-genre.

I'm going to start with my assessment of 1984's Conan the Destroyer, sequel to the 1982 film. The reason I choose this one first is because it's much more representative of the type than its predecessor. It's pretty much the template for both the strengths and weaknesses of such films, and what I'm about to say about it could easily apply to this sub-genre as a whole:

The Good:

Tremendous visual imagination and creativity, even or especially when realized on a limited budget.
Villains and side characters played with a lot of relish and charm by great supporting actors (the standouts in this case being Mako, reprising his role from the first film as the benign wizard Akiro, Grace Jones as the warrior-woman Zula, and Sarah Douglas as the chief villainess.)
A kickass score.
Fast-paced story with lots of individual episodes and an emphasis on action.
A pervading sincerity and seriousness about the material; compare with the pervading irony and winking subversion in fantasy films of the 1990s and early 2000s, LoTR excepted.


The Bad:

A pervading sincerity and seriousness about the material. Yes, this can also be a bad thing, especially when the material is monumentally absurd.
Bland/underacted lead characters, both male and female. (Sorry, Arnie).
Haphazard pacing and plot construction. Just about every one of these movies has at least one sequence that drags on way too long, and at least one really important sequence that feels jarring and abrupt.
Cheesy dialogue.
Recurring elements of horniness (not always a bad thing) and misogyny (that's pretty much always bad).


Again, the reason I start with talking about Conan the Destroyer is that I think it can serve as a pretty good litmus test of people's taste for this genre. If you watch this movie and hate it, you probably won't like even the best of the movies I'll talk about in this thread, and the worst ones will appall you. If you watch this movie and find yourself enjoying its charms and forgiving its numerous flaws, then you may enjoy some of these other films, and the bad ones will probably still be entertaining.

Other films of the period I'd love to talk about, if people find this subject engaging, include flawed-but-decent films like Fire & Ice, The Beastmaster, Willow, and Krull, the entertainingly bad, like Sorceress, Deathstalker, Ator the Fighting Eagle, and Beastmaster II: Through the Portal of Time, and the just-plain-awful, like Hawk the Slayer, Deathstalker II, or The Sword and the Sorcerer. Your mileage may vary in terms of how many of those you put into which category.

I've watched... a lot of these. I may need help.

[KorvinStarmast]

They were fun. Sheena, Queen of the Jungle: does that fit as well?

I would also include Excalibur as one of those films. The magic was present, as was plenty of swords.

[wilphe]

LOTR is the campaign you want to run

Conan the Barbarian is the campaign you think you are running

Conan the Destroyer is the campaign you are actually running

[Melayl]

Ah, cheesy and semi-cheesy 80's fantasy adventure! That was my era, and I loved them.

Beastmaster and Krull had some flaws, sure, but they were awesomely cool to the young boy I was. They still are, actually.
Ator was pretty cheesy, but still entertainingly so. Some of the others I didn't get to watch until I was older due to some of the more adult content, but even the terribly cheesy bad films were still (to me) so bad they were good.

[Ramza00]

can someone do this for the 1930s to 1960s as well? I am doing a selfish ask I was just thinking about a 1930s movie I need to see and was going to put it on in 15 minutes and then I saw this thread.

So spooky! 🙂

[Ranxerox]

I remember liking Flesh+Blood with Rutger Hauer quite a bit. It wasn't a very ambitious film, but it did a good job delivering on what it set out to do.

[Eldan]

LOTR is the campaign you want to run

Conan the Barbarian is the campaign you think you are running

Conan the Destroyer is the campaign you are actually running

Someone should do a DM of the Rings style comic about Conan.

[DavidSh]

can someone do this for the 1930s to 1960s as well? I am doing a selfish ask I was just thinking about a 1930s movie I need to see and was going to put it on in 15 minutes and then I saw this thread.

So spooky! 🙂
What movie were you thinking of? The only ones from the 1930s to the 1960s that I can think of that might qualify as "sword-and-sorcery" are a couple of Ray Harryhausen films -- The 7th Voyage of Sindbad and Jason and the Argonauts, maybe the 1940 The Thief of Bagdad, or the spate of 1960s Italian Maciste films.

[Saintheart]

I get to contribute Dragonslayer - one of Disney's most terrifying films "for kids" - and Ferris Bueller's Level 1 Rogue AdventureLadyhawke!

[EggKookoo]

Conan the Barbarian is the campaign you think you are running

Conan the Destroyer is the campaign you are actually running

CtD is the game inspired by CtB.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Catullus64
…and the just-plain-awful….

How could you possibly leave out Yor?

Caveman finds rocketship and flies off at the end, to the resounding chorus of “Go, Yor!”

So truly bad I have successfully managed to not think about it since the 80s.

[Melayl]

Add in the Flash Gordon from the 80's, too. Spectacular costumes, poor special effects, overacting, and that marvelous Queen soundtrack!

[Ramza00]

What movie were you thinking of? The only ones from the 1930s to the 1960s that I can think of that might qualify as "sword-and-sorcery" are a couple of Ray Harryhausen films -- The 7th Voyage of Sindbad and Jason and the Argonauts, maybe the 1940 The Thief of Bagdad, or the spate of 1960s Italian Maciste films.

I feel the need to watch She (1935) aka She Who Must Be Obeyed, which takes place in the Allan Quatermain / H. Rider Haggard universe. H. Rider Haggard who started the pulpy adventure fiction romances of the lost world sub genre, aka the template for Indiana Jones (which is based off Allan Quatermann and 1930 serials much like Star Wars is based off Flash Gordon and 1930 serials)

Also … She Who Must Be Obeyed is the inspiration for the X-Men villian SELENE, aka an immortal mutant witch. Also the 1935 movie is done by the legendary King Kong guy Merian C. Cooper (producer)

[wilphe]

CtD is the game inspired by CtB.

Anyone else think Ember the Iconic 3E monk draws from Zula?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Catullus64
…the reason I start with talking about Conan the Destroyer is that I think it can serve as a pretty good litmus test of people's taste for this genre.

Loved it when I was a kid, but I tried to watch it just a few weeks ago and could barely make it halfway through.

The reptile-wizard-creature in the hall of mirrors has to be one of the absolute cheesiest bits of nonsense I’ve ever seen on any screen. It was goofy enough when I first watched it, but now I can’t even.


Originally Posted by Catullus64
Other films of the period I'd love to talk about….

We’re sorely missing Red Sonja, aka Conan 2½, another masterpiece of gawdawful-bad cheese.


Originally Posted by Saintheart
…Ladyhawke….

Loved, loved, loved Ladyhawke when it first came out. Michelle Pfeiffer was perfect, the color palettes were beautiful, and at the time the music was cutting-edge.

Sadly, in later years I’ve come to believe the movie has two fatal flaws, namely Matthew Broderick and Rutger Hauer. If it could be remade with not one, but three competent actors in the main roles, it would be the rare remake that surpasses the original.

(Also with a proper orchestral score, rather than trendy electro-synth-whatever.)


Originally Posted by Ranxerox
I remember liking Flesh+Blood with Rutger Hauer quite a bit. It wasn't a very ambitious film, but it did a good job delivering on what it set out to do.

Never saw this until just a couple years ago, and for a low-budget flick it’s not too bad. I ended up designing an entire storm-the-castle encounter based around it.


Originally Posted by Melayl
Beastmaster and Krull had some flaws, sure, but they were awesomely cool to the young boy I was.

I thought Krull was the coolest thing ever when I first saw it. Tried watching it a few years ago and couldn’t manage the first five minutes.

Happened to catch the last few scenes a couple weeks ago, and my only thought was, “Hooray, his crowning moment is when he casts Burning Hands.”


Originally Posted by Melayl
Add in the Flash Gordon from the 80's, too. Spectacular costumes, poor special effects, overacting, and that marvelous Queen soundtrack!

For some reason that movie really scared me. Although I did like the flying-hawk guys.


Originally Posted by Catullus64
I've watched... a lot of these. I may need help.

We’re all here for you. :smalltongue:

[Dire_Flumph]

I thought Krull was the coolest thing ever when I first saw it. Tried watching it a few years ago and couldn’t manage the first five minutes.

Seen Krull in theaters twice. 1st time as a kid in a double feature with Yor: The Hunter from the Future. Thought it was awesome.

Second time was the Rifftrax Live version a few years ago. Thought that was about right.

Still have a bit of a soft spot for the film though, it's just so earnest. Two other props I'll give it, the 80's score by James Horner is awesome, and I admire the chutzpah of releasing your cheesy science-fantasy epic one month after Return of the Jedi hit theaters.

Also, how have we had a thread on 80's sword and sorcery films and no one has given Highlander some love yet?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Dire Flumph
Also, how have we had a thread on 80's sword and sorcery films and no one has given Highlander some love yet?

Also enjoyed that when I first saw it, though oddly I haven't watched it since. The sequels were so far beyond terrible that it put me off the movie franchise.

I did love the 90s series, or at least the episodes filmed in Paris. It was a starkly dichotomous show, but the Paris side was probably the best of all the IP.

[EggKookoo]

Again, the reason I start with talking about Conan the Destroyer is that I think it can serve as a pretty good litmus test of people's taste for this genre.

Barbarian is a surprisingly smart film. Smart meaning it knows enough to imply and suggest things, rather than spell them out or have a character overexplain what's going on. It has a very high show-don't-tell quality, borne of limiting Arnold's dialogue, but it really conveys the credibility of the fictional setting. Destroyer doesn't trust itself (or the audience) as much. It feels like it was made by someone who didn't quite get the first one, and that insecurity comes through in the script. I still like it, and arguably it's a higher quality film (in terms of production value and overall polish), but the first one is more unique (and to my mind sincere).


Also enjoyed that when I first saw it, though oddly I haven't watched it since. The sequels were so far beyond terrible that it put me off the movie franchise.

There were no sequels. That was just a bad dream.

[Precure]

I would add Labyrinth and the Dark Crystal to the list.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Catullus64
The rise of D&D in the late 70s probably had a much bigger impact….

Back then D&D was still extremely niche, and not exactly a social positive for most of those playing it, so I’m not sure if studios would have aimed major releases at that market.

A partial knock-on effect from Star Wars might have been part of it, but also that Lord of the Rings was becoming more popular and widely known during that time.


Originally Posted by Catullus64
There were certainly imitators, but a little investigation shows that lots of these films, including some of the most blatantly Conan-derivative, entered production and shooting before Conan's release.

Word probably got around while Conan was still in development, and likely others either wanted to crank out an imitation or thought the time had come for their own concepts. And perhaps akin to Lucas and the old serials, those who grew up on Robert Howard may have wanted to make movies in that vein.


Originally Posted by Precure
I would add Labyrinth and the Dark Crystal to the list.

These are both genuinely great fantasy movies from the 80s, but I wouldn’t call either of them sword-and-sorcery. There were swords in the Dark Crystal, but in neither movie were the protagonists using them, and certainly no musclebound brutes or scantily clad women. And each movie had a world-class talent involved, e.g. David Bowie and Jim Henson (and arguably Brian Froud as well). Not sure if that quality of talent was so much as walking past the back lot on productions like Beastmaster or Sheena.

.

[EggKookoo]

Secret of NIMH is also not what most people think of when they think of sword & sorcery. Despite it having some magic and the climax being built around a combination swordfight and display of sorcery.

This thread is a good opportunity for me to tap into the collective. I'm in my early 50s. I have a persistent memory from my childhood, back in 7th grade or so. I guess around 83. All I can remember is telling a friend about an ad or trailer or clip from a movie, and the only part I can recall is a battle scene or fight, where an archer shoots at a female (elfish?) character, who catches the arrow, nocks it in her own bow, and shoots him with it. I think she was one of the good guys, but that's just an impression.

I can't remember the movie, if it was live action or animated, or anything. At this point I think I might have fabricated the memory. Does it ring a bell for anyone?

[Catullus64]

Just rewatched Krull (1983) for the purpose of talking about it on this thread, and found myself being a lot kinder to it on the rewatch.

It is very clearly trying to capture a lot of Star Wars energy, what with its space fortress, princess-rescuing, wise old hermits and charming rogues. But where Star Wars is a fantasy story in a sci-fi setting, Krull is more like a fantasy setting getting invaded by sci-fi villains, which is pretty novel.

Lots of the same strengths and weaknesses as Conan the Destroyer: great score, excellent visual imagination, plenty of action, fun supporting cast. On the other side of the coin, bland (if very attractive) leads, pacing problems out the wazzoo, and a somewhat threadbare script. For me, the movie mostly skates by on the charm of its imagery and soundscape, as well as some solid swashbuckling fun.

Regarding the script, I think I understand that they were going for fairy-tale mystique over detailed worldbuilding, but in the end it just makes the movie's more original ideas seem undercooked, and lots of problems seem to get resolved by arbitrary contrivance. The aforementioned pacing issues also really detract from the viewing experience. Some scenes or characters are under-explained and brushed over with bewildering speed, and yet we have space in the movie's runtime for many, many long shots of Colwyn climbing a mountain.

The real highlights of the film are some of its most original sequences: the ride on the fire-mares across the night sky, the prison of the Widow of the Web which contains the film's most effective emotional acting, and especially the scenes in the Black Fortress. The whole place is full of hostile, organic architecture that seems to be actively fighting the heroes, and most of the climax within the Fortress is intense as hell. It's only slightly undermined by a rather weak resolution, which I shall not spoil here.

[runeghost]

I'll throw in The Archer: Fugitive from the Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archer:_Fugitive_from_the_Empire) (1981), also known by various other titles. It was a TV movie/failed premier. I was lucky enough to catch it when it aired and then spent years wondering if I'd imagined it, before finally tracking it down in the 90s.

There's also the 1983 Wizards & Warriors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizards_and_Warriors_%28TV_series%29) TV series, which also exemplified the genre (on a sometimes obvious TV budget), both good and bad. I watched the hell out of it as a kid, and I've picked it up on DVD and it holds up better than I'd expected.

[wilphe]

It feels like it was made by someone who didn't quite get the first one,

Conan is reading philosophy in the first one, but by the second doesn't know how to count above 3

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Catullus64
Just rewatched Krull (1983) for the purpose of talking about it on this thread, and found myself being a lot kinder to it on the rewatch.

And thus it came to pass, that inspired by your post I too started watching this last night, although I only made it through the first thirty minutes or so.

Hoo boy, what a mess.


Starting with the opening titles, I’m not nearly as fond of the music. It’s almost instantly recognizable as James Horner, apart from the weird vocals at the very beginning—but it’s recognizable because he’s recycling a lot of riffs and themes from his Star Trek work, so throughout the first thirty minutes I kept having flashbacks to Star Trek II. Apart from that, the score is all over the place, without any real musical identity of its own.

The opening sequence itself is a direct ripoff of Star Wars, with the lumbering evil spacecraft bearing down on the homeworld of our heroes. Unfortunately there’s a real mismatch between the visuals and the musical tone. The Black Tower (or whatever it is) should be accompanied by a rising, ominous theme to emphasize the immensity of the threat; but instead we have a rather generic and unsteady heroic theme, which is far too upbeat to correspond to the images we’re seeing. The result is a clash of sight and sound, which makes for a highly uneven introduction to the story and the world.

Speaking of which—the homeworld of our heroes has two G-class suns, not at all a ripoff of a certain movie from 1977.

Also not ripoffs are the feisty princess and the young, courageous hero. There’s an intriguing angle here—the princess chooses her king, not the standard approach—but the reasons for this are never explored, and there is virtually no world-building beyond “here’s a castle” and “there are two kingdoms, kind of?”

What also cries out for more explanation is how this apparently medieval-level world, with no technology beyond swords and magic spinny-things, is somehow aware of many other worlds in the galaxy, and apparently has legends about the galaxy itself. The opening dialogue is so muddled and so badly acted that it’s hard to make sense of the situation, except that the feisty princess is schooling her father on diplomacy and alliances—and she apparently changes his entire ruling policy with one or two short sentences.

As Catullus64 noted, the young hero is so bland he’s barely worth discussing, and he’s just arrogant enough that it’s difficult to have the same empathy for him that audiences developed for the naive and earnest Luke Skywalker.

As for the young hero’s mentor, this is the most blatant ripoff yet. From his costume to his mannerisms to his story role, he’s a carbon copy of Ben Kenobi, and only the actor’s talent keeps the character from becoming a caricature. Either that, or he’s a good enough mimic of Sir Alec that the latter’s gravitas has somehow rubbed off.

Catullus64 also mentioned the long, long scenes of Corwyn climbing the mountain to reach the legendary spinny-thing. These scenes do drag a bit, but I can see the reason for including them. The spinny-thing has to be a challenge to obtain, and without a guardian to fight or a puzzle to work out, a steep climb seems to be the only thing they could think of to make it even slightly difficult for the hero.

But even that doesn’t seem to be much of an obstacle. Whoever wrote and filmed those scenes clearly has no idea of just how much time and effort it takes to climb grades that steep. It should have taken Corwyn days to reach the height of the tallest mountain—not to mention, you know, food and water—unless Krull has the feeblest little mountains in the galaxy.

Once Corwyn is inside the lava cave, we have a major unexplained aspect of the character: if this really is actual lava, rather than somebody’s broken lava lamp, how can Corwyn simply slip his hand into it and pull it out unharmed? We’ve seen earlier that the princess and Corwyn are both handling flame in the marriage ceremony, but presumably that’s magical ceremonial flame. Lava is something entirely different—unless the people of Krull all have some inhuman fire resistance? If this is a planet of Targaryens, we really need to have some understanding of how and why they have this ability—even if it’s just something cheesy like “there were massive forest fires in the ancient past and our ancestors had to evolve fire resistance to survive.”

The encounter with the band of thieves was a bit silly and contrived; it felt too much like it was trying to copy Robin Hood gathering his men, except it was compressed and rather unconvincing. On the other hand, it was a hoot to see a young Robbie Coltrane, not to mention Liam Neeson.

On a positive note, some of the sets were actually not bad for what they were, and the “underground passage” that the princess tried to escape through was genuinely beautiful in its design. If they actually built that set (rather than striking it lucky with an actual location) then my hat’s off to the set designer; it’s just unfortunate that most of the acting, dialogue, editing, pacing and sound effects aren’t up to that same standard.

When I left off last night, they had just walked though the green light into the stone wall to see an “old friend” of the Old One. I’ll try to soldier on from there, and see if there’s any hint of improvement as we go along.

[EggKookoo]

Conan is reading philosophy in the first one, but by the second doesn't know how to count above 3

IIRC that line was played for laughs, in-story and out.

[wilphe]

It is a good line

From any other Barbarian

Of course it just occurred to me that he might be playing dumb so people will underestimate him, but Destroyer isn't a movie I will give the writers that much credit for


Destroyer strikes me as similar to Force 10 from Navarone, in that they feel different tonally to the original without being camp but you can also see Arnold fight Wilt Chamberlin or Apollo Creed get in a knife fight with Jaws

[Catullus64]

Barbarian is a surprisingly smart film. Smart meaning it knows enough to imply and suggest things, rather than spell them out or have a character overexplain what's going on. It has a very high show-don't-tell quality, borne of limiting Arnold's dialogue, but it really conveys the credibility of the fictional setting. Destroyer doesn't trust itself (or the audience) as much. It feels like it was made by someone who didn't quite get the first one, and that insecurity comes through in the script. I still like it, and arguably it's a higher quality film (in terms of production value and overall polish), but the first one is more unique (and to my mind sincere).


Conan the Barbarian is a fine enough film, and definitely a more subtle one, but I actually feel that Destroyer comes closer to capturing the feel of Robert E. Howard's original stories, especially insofar as it has more of a sense of humor, and is less ponderous in its philosophy. Howard's stories aren't lacking in philosophical themes, but they're red-blooded action tales first and foremost, and Conan is as often as not more of a visitor to the stories, while supporting characters and villains make a lot of the decisions that drive the plot. The first film tried to make itself a lot more about Conan's interior struggles and motivation, especially the death of his father at the hands of the main villain, which to me always felt like an odd, if understandable choice for adapting this material to film.

[EggKookoo]

It is a good line

From any other Barbarian

Of course it just occurred to me that he might be playing dumb so people will underestimate him, but Destroyer isn't a movie I will give the writers that much credit for

Yeah, subtlety wasn't Destroyer's forte. But I remember it feeling more along the lines of Conan teasing the princess, rather than him not being able to handle numbers.


Conan the Barbarian is a fine enough film, and definitely a more subtle one, but I actually feel that Destroyer comes closer to capturing the feel of Robert E. Howard's original stories, especially insofar as it has more of a sense of humor, and is less ponderous in its philosophy.

I admit to never having read the original Howard books, so Barbarian was my intro to the character. I liked the organic feel of it, and the personal journey angle.

Destroyer is a fun movie, but it's so on the nose that it comes across as superficial to me. Which might mean I might not like the books, i dunno.

[Palanan]

Plowed my way through the rest of Krull. After an almost decent midsection, the cheese factor steadily ramped up higher and higher, to climax in a bubbling slurry of gouda by the end.


Some sequences in the middle act (as much as it has any acts) are almost decent, but many others seem to be there only as vaguely questy filler. The emerald-seer is almost an interesting character, but like most of the others we know virtually nothing about him, so there’s no prospect for real attachment from the audience. His replacement by the changeling is a plot complication, but his loss as a person barely registers.

The same goes for the straggler who’s lost to the mud pit in the same swamp. We don’t even know his name, much less anything else, so his death falls as flat as the seer’s. Strangely enough, all the bandits have names in the credits, but I don’t think more than one or two were ever used in dialogue. Compare this with the classic members of Robin Hood’s band—Friar Tuck, Little John, Will Scarlett, etc. —all with unique personalities to go with their names. With the exception of Liam Neeson and one or two others, they’re simply generic quasi-fighters with really tacky costumes.

The Old One’s brief reunion with his former lover might have been meant to give tragic depth to his character, but their actual exchange was stilted and clunky. I’m also not sure why the narrative chose to dwell on the fact that the Widow killed their only son, except maybe to let the audience feel better about her being killed by the spider at the end of the scene. As for the spider itself, the creature design was actually quite good, especially the transparent abdomen and visible organs, but this was obscured by the poor-quality stop-motion work.

The one sequence which really stands out is the all-night ride on the fire-mares. Rounding them up and saddling them was a strangely lackluster affair—it seemed far too easy for such creatures of legend—but the ride itself was probably the highlight of the entire movie for me. It took as much time as it needed to convey a thousand-league journey—and in a rare instance of subtlety, the fire-mares were given no explanation, because here they don’t need one.

Sadly all the running around inside the Black Tower was just goofy—especially the bandit leader’s dive-and-roll, after which he stands up motionless in the middle of the corridor before finally stumbling off. Thankfully the Slayers’ marksmanship is on part with your average stormtrooper’s, especially at close quarters on their home turf. Throughout the movie the fight choreography was slow and awkward, and the goofy shenanigans only got worse as they ran through the creepy corridors of the Death Star bad guy’s castle.

As for the Beast itself—the extreme lack of imagination for its design, and the boundless cheesiness of its execution, completely deflated whatever momentum the entire movie had been building towards. The effects were gawdawful, and clearly the Beast did not do its homework, if it was trying to conquer Planet Fire Nation when it apparently had a fatal vulnerability to fire.

The final breakup of the Black Tower was oddly prolonged; the novelty of its breaking apart upward and falling back into space was diluted by the sequence going on and on and on. The last few moments in the flowery field were anticlimactic, to say the least. The final prophecy about their son ruling the galaxy was clearly a setup for a sequel that never happened, but it again raises the question of how these rather hapless medieval types know anything about galaxies in the first place—much less how they’ll get out there to rule one in the next generation.

The princess ended up being a major disappointment. Despite a little feistiness at the start, and a hint of political power and savvy, for the rest of the movie she’s a helpless captive flouncing around in her wedding dress. Meanwhile Leia was instrumental in bringing the Death Star plans to the Rebels, served as a senior leadership figure on Hoth, and took part in a key tactical operation that helped bring down the Empire. It’s a pity that despite copying a great deal from Star Wars, they didn’t give us an equally dynamic princess to match.

Another disappointment was the music. Yes, it’s James Horner—but he was really phoning it in, and most of it sounded like recycled Trek motifs, or practice for his later and much stronger work on Aliens. The primary heroic theme was too often used in situations when something more nuanced and sinister was called for, and overall the score was simply too haphazard to have a real identity of its own. Compare this with Dark Crystal, which had a lovely and emotional score which was entirely unique; with Labyrinth, which was delightful; and with the music for Conan the Barbarian, which was genuinely epic and perfectly matched to the mood of each scene.

I remember how much I loved this movie when it first came out, but sadly it doesn’t hold up to a rewatch. This is a movie that cries out for a remake—one that explores the notion of first contact through conquest, disparities of technology and outlook, and human spirit against inhuman hunger. In this time of endless retreads, flabby spinoffs and dying franchises, a high-quality remake of Krull could reinvigorate fantasy in cinema—or at least be an exception to the rule.

[Ramza00]

I admit to never having read the original Howard books, so Barbarian was my intro to the character. I liked the organic feel of it, and the personal journey angle.

Gosh not here or there, but just how you said those two sentences made me have a reverie memory remembering how Howard died so young and how his life is very much entwined with his books. Pretty much instead of rock stars martyrs with music think a person who died young who was broke writing short stories, and he never had a childhood for his family moved 10 times before he was 12.

[KorvinStarmast]

I remember liking Flesh+Blood with Rutger Hauer quite a bit. It wasn't a very ambitious film, but it did a good job delivering on what it set out to do. No magic, but a movie worth the time when I rented it (VCR).

I get to contribute Dragonslayer - one of Disney's most terrifying films "for kids" - and Ferris Bueller's Level 1 Rogue AdventureLadyhawke! Both enjoyable, the former was IMO a better one.

I feel the need to watch She (1935) aka She Who Must Be Obeyed, which takes place in the Allan Quatermain / H. Rider Haggard universe. H. Rider Haggard who started the pulpy adventure fiction romances of the lost world sub genre, aka the template for Indiana Jones (which is based off Allan Quatermann and 1930 serials much like Star Wars is based off Flash Gordon and 1930 serials)

Also … She Who Must Be Obeyed is the inspiration for the X-Men villian SELENE, aka an immortal mutant witch. Also the 1935 movie is done by the legendary King Kong guy Merian C. Cooper (producer) OK, I need to see She.

I admit to never having read the original Howard books I read them all. The movie when I first saw it was a bit jarring, since at the time in the US people running off to join cults was a big social issue overly covered in the news. Juxtaposing that RL issue into the movie worked, yes, but it changed the tone of the film from the books. But good job on the team who put the movie together. They way they put the cult together, and the good job James Earl Jones did in portraying a villain (Thulsa Doom; whom I don't seem to recall from any of the books) fit together quite well. It worked.
The scenes from the movie right after his escape from slavery - when ends up in an old ruin with spooky monsters - does come from one of the early Conan stories.

[Eldan]

Thulsa Doom was an enemy of Kull of Atlantis, which is an entirely different, though distantly related book series by Howard.

[Yora]

Someone should do a DM of the Rings style comic about Conan.

Yes, please.

Though semi-related, have you seen Conan: The Musical? :smallbiggrin:

[Ramza00]

OK, I need to see She.


Make sure to listen to the Cerebro Podcast (an X-Men podcast) on the psychic-vampire witch Selene

https://podtail.com/en/podcast/cerebro/episode-055-selene-gallio-feat-alex-abad-santos/

for in the 1980s, Chris Claremont used his vcr and watched She*, and then did a New Mutants character arc in 1983 for 3 issues. Well Claremont had so much fun with the character he brought her back for other arcs, and now she has like 120 issues of comics over the last 40 years. And since Selene (which borrows so much from She) is so much fun, the Cerebro podcast host Connor, and Vox Culture Critic Alex Abad-Santos literally spent 5 hours talking about how over the top and theater camp Selene is. [ and Selene is pretty much lifted from She but made a mutant as her origin, a 17,000 witch from Conan times. ]

*this line is Cojecture, we know from Claremont’s own words he often gets inspiration from movies and books he has written. That is part of the fun of 70s and 80s X-Men, to take a thing and put it in new situations.

[Thrudd]

Destroyer is PG, for me that's pretty much 'nuff said; those restrictions means it's going to be lacking as a Conan story. It pales in comparison to Barbarian, but is still among the better fantasy films of the era. It's a decent swords & sorcery adventure. That thief character who replaces Subotai is just the worst, so annoying, and he's there for the entire movie. He drags it down, but not enough to make it truly a bad movie. The score is still by Poledouris, so of course it's good, but it doesn't approach what he accomplished on Barbarian, which is one of the finest film scores ever, imo.

I've enjoyed watching some pretty bad 80's swords & sorcery. "Ator" was a favorite, me and my buddy found it on video back in the 90's, and it was one of the most fun nights I can remember, getting wacky and MST3K'ing the crap out of it.

Anyone mention "Hawk the Slayer" yet? That one is approaching the "so bad it's good" range. Same with "Barbarian Queen", with the added bonus of a ton of gratuitous nudity.

[warty goblin]

My tour of Roger Corman barbarian schlock hasn't gotten to Barbarian Queen yet (or its completely unrelated sequel Barbarian Queen 2) but in terms of so bad it's good I find Deathstalker 2 really hard to top. Everything is awful, and the result is something utterly wonderful, I'm not sure I've ever laughed harder at a movie.

[Mordar]

Conan the Barbarian is a fine enough film, and definitely a more subtle one, but I actually feel that Destroyer comes closer to capturing the feel of Robert E. Howard's original stories, especially insofar as it has more of a sense of humor, and is less ponderous in its philosophy. Howard's stories aren't lacking in philosophical themes, but they're red-blooded action tales first and foremost, and Conan is as often as not more of a visitor to the stories, while supporting characters and villains make a lot of the decisions that drive the plot. The first film tried to make itself a lot more about Conan's interior struggles and motivation, especially the death of his father at the hands of the main villain, which to me always felt like an odd, if understandable choice for adapting this material to film.

I respectfully disagree. There are absolutely elements of Howard's Conan in CtD, but I think there is more dissonance than in CtB. CtB does feel a little more fatalistic at times, but that matches the tone in some (not all!) of REH's Conan stories.



I read them all. The movie when I first saw it was a bit jarring, since at the time in the US people running off to join cults was a big social issue overly covered in the news. Juxtaposing that RL issue into the movie worked, yes, but it changed the tone of the film from the books. But good job on the team who put the movie together. They way they put the cult together, and the good job James Earl Jones did in portraying a villain (Thulsa Doom; whom I don't seem to recall from any of the books) fit together quite well. It worked.
The scenes from the movie right after his escape from slavery - when ends up in an old ruin with spooky monsters - does come from one of the early Conan stories.

Curious about the role of the Satanic Panic in what you're saying. I didn't recall any pushback against the movie from that, particularly as early as 82.

Doom is a Kull character.


Destroyer is PG, for me that's pretty much 'nuff said; those restrictions means it's going to be lacking as a Conan story. It pales in comparison to Barbarian, but is still among the better fantasy films of the era. It's a decent swords & sorcery adventure. That thief character who replaces Subotai is just the worst, so annoying, and he's there for the entire movie. He drags it down, but not enough to make it truly a bad movie. The score is still by Poledouris, so of course it's good, but it doesn't approach what he accomplished on Barbarian, which is one of the finest film scores ever, imo.

Malak is the thing about CtD that I hate the most (by far)...followed by how Malak reduces The Wizard (yeah, Akiro) to a lesser state...then some exceptionally bad acting. But frankly the PG element isn't an issue (it certainly wouldn't be now), because you can maintain the visceral nature of the character without the gore, withotut the non-plot-centric nudity/sexual content. Just consider, for instance, Tower of the Elephant. Very little human-on-human violence, most of it in the dark. Set the scene with some skin, sure, but nothing requires the R rating.

- M

[Scarlet Knight]

...Loved, loved, loved Ladyhawke when it first came out. Michelle Pfeiffer was perfect, the color palettes were beautiful, and at the time the music was cutting-edge.

Sadly, in later years I’ve come to believe the movie has two fatal flaws, namely Matthew Broderick and Rutger Hauer. If it could be remade with not one, but three competent actors in the main roles, it would be the rare remake that surpasses the original.

(Also with a proper orchestral score, rather than trendy electro-synth-whatever.)



I agree with you on the score, but I thought the casting was great. I thought both Hauer and Broderick were excellent in their roles, especially in the transformation pit scene. Plus, I love Leo McKern in anything.

[Ramza00]

wonders if Destroyer would have gotten PG-13 if it was released a month or year later? (it was released the year they were trying this new rating out, a week prior to it becoming official)

[KorvinStarmast]

Make sure to listen to the Cerebro Podcast That's not gonna happen. I find the X-men tedious. But thanks for the offer anyway.

[Saintheart]

Not that I've seen it, but I remembered (from the posters in my video store - more about that in a bit) there was also The Beastmaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beastmaster) with Marc Singer, from 1982. My only experience with Singer is watching him as Mike Donovan in the original (and tremendously superior to any rubbish remake) of V. Anyone seen it, was it another B-grader like many of them were?

Onto my wider point: does anybody else love the style of the posters they often did for these films? They just don't seem to do that kind of gorgeous oil painting anymore, and sometimes it really feels like the paintings were better than the movie. I'd see the posters up in my local dive of a video rental place. I'll just copypaste links seeing as the forum continues to splutter:

Ator the Invincible: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/d8/33/f3d83342d88ede09753bae46c91e9cfd.jpg
The Beastmaster: https://media-cache.cinematerial.com/p/500x/3ddjnlad/the-beastmaster-movie-poster.jpg?v=1456190781
Fire and Ice: https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.n6DLsPkBfUM60jIcCiOAJwAAAA?w=440&h=660&rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain
Ladyhawke: https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP._JIIBVSyA-1OXWP6owmC5wHaKj?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain
Dragonslayer: https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.LFYaTKI6KRp5TJMBUyc76wHaLR?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain
Krull: https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-yzgoj/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/134689/3943362/apibqvcdr__58427.1625623835.jpg?c=2


And I don't care what anyone says about Krull, the Glaive was the coolest ****ing weapon ever put to film, superior to lightsabers by a wide margin. Fight me.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Saintheart
…there was also The Beastmaster with Marc Singer, from 1982.

…Anyone seen it, was it another B-grader like many of them were?

I saw it, several times, a year or two after it came out. Only in its wildest dreams could it struggle to lift its gaze to the tantalizing heights of B-grade status.

I enjoyed it when I was a kid, but it was a complete mess. The one image that stands out the most was…

…the bipedal bat-men who enfolded victims in their wings and digested them down to the bone.

It was a lot goofier than it sounds.

The fight choreography was ridiculous, and if there was a plot I can’t remember the first thing about it. Quite literally forgettable.


Originally Posted by Saintheart
Onto my wider point: does anybody else love the style of the posters they often did for these films?

That Dragonslayer poster is in a class by itself. Most of the others are fairly schlocky, but with Dragonslayer there’s an elegance to its simplicity. Loved the movie when I first saw it.

The Krull poster is just awful, but then I re-watched the movie a few days ago and I still can’t get over how bad the creature design was for the Beast. The poster version is somehow even worse.

[Catullus64]

Not that I've seen it, but I remembered (from the posters in my video store - more about that in a bit) there was also The Beastmaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beastmaster) with Marc Singer, from 1982. My only experience with Singer is watching him as Mike Donovan in the original (and tremendously superior to any rubbish remake) of V. Anyone seen it, was it another B-grader like many of them were?


Beastmaster is goofy, but it's got some stuff to like about it, particularly all the bits that actually involve the animals. The weird man-eating bird-creatures are cool.

Your real, premium-grade cheese is Beastmaster II: Through the Portal of Time. (Technically a 90s film, but I feel that it's grandfathered in by virtue of being a sequel). They decided to take this fairly self-serious fantasy film, and have the sequel involve the hero and villain stumbling through a portal to then-present-day Los Angeles. It has just about every hack fish-out-of-water gag you can imagine, and the bad guy's main plan revolves around stealing an experimental thermonuclear device. Frankly, I can't think of a better way to contrast 80s and 90s pop culture than by watching these two films.

[Irongron]

I was rather enjoying the original post until it described Hawk the Slayer as awful. Really one of very few films in the genre that didn't go in for the whole rippling muscles and chain mail bikinis shtick. It has also had some first rate actors (Morgan Sheppard).

Admittedly it has some awful scenes and dialog but it remains a firm favourite of mine.

My absolute favourite fantasy output of the 80s was the show 'Robin of Sherwood' which while made for television used astronomical production values and compares favourably to many movies of the era. Movie wise? Well Ladyhawke was great and I think could well be classes as an 'accidental B movie'

Finally, to undermine my above opinions I would like to add that Deathstalker II is the ~best~ Deathstalker movie.

[Saintheart]

My absolute favourite fantasy output of the 80s was the show 'Robin of Sherwood' which while made for television used astronomical production values and compares favourably to many movies of the era.

You dreadful gentleman, there I was sitting peacefully and now I've got Clannad's theme tune for that series stuck in my head on repeat, like it was for years after I saw the series on TV.

[Mordar]

Not that I've seen it, but I remembered (from the posters in my video store - more about that in a bit) there was also The Beastmaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beastmaster) with Marc Singer, from 1982. My only experience with Singer is watching him as Mike Donovan in the original (and tremendously superior to any rubbish remake) of V. Anyone seen it, was it another B-grader like many of them were?

Beastmaster got a lot of love from my game group and was a regular watch, both on cable and from the VHS rental store. It was a nice 1-2 with Deathstalker, despite significant tonal differences.

The Cloakers rocked. Don't bother me with your "How can anything digest something equal in size and potentially exceeding in mass so quickly?" irrelevant questions!

- M

[KorvinStarmast]

Curious about the role of the Satanic Panic in what you're saying. I didn't recall any pushback against the movie from that, particularly as early as 82. Don't recall any, since the big deal about the movie was Ahnuld, who had won Mr Olympia about 5 times as a body builder. His previous movie (Pumping Iron) was about body building.

Doom is a Kull character. I guess the movie borrowed him. :smallbiggrin:

Beastmaster got a lot of love from my game group and was a regular watch, both on cable and from the VHS rental store. It was a nice 1-2 with Deathstalker, despite significant tonal differences. Yes, both were fun.

[Mordar]

Don't recall any, since the big deal about the movie was Ahnuld, who had won Mr Olympia about 5 times as a body builder. His previous movie (Pumping Iron) was about body building.

Yeah, it just clicked in...the "cults" commentary was related to Doom's cult, not a D&D thing (which was a conversation thread elsewhere linked to Mazes and Monsters).

- M

[Palanan]

Just watched Dragonslayer for the first time in many years, and I absolutely loved it. Great little movie with a well-crafted atmosphere, and a bit more depth than I realized when I first saw it as a kid.

But I don't know that I'd call it a sword-and-sorcery movie. It came out the year before the first Conan, so it takes no inspiration from that genre; instead it has its own distinctive tone and style. There are a few swords and an abundance of sorcery, but the hero is about as far from the rippling-muscled swordsman as possible, and there are plenty of other idiosyncrasies as well.


The story is fairly basic, but there’s more than one hero involved, and the dragon is finally defeated by the combined efforts of four different people, working together but not always as a team. Galen is the nominal hero, but Valerian saves his life twice over and gives him a vital key to survival—and it’s through her determination that Galen’s story is set into motion at all. This is the exact opposite of the slightly later Krull, in which the female lead is primarily decorative and plays no more than a nominal role in her own rescue.

Dragonslayer has a bit of commentary about elites and politicians, which was probably unusual for a fantasy movie of the time—in particular its portrayal of the king not as a wise and noble ruler, but as a cunning operator and propagandist. Unlike other movies from this time (e.g. Krull) there’s a firm sense of the unglamorous realities of early-medieval life—and again unlike Krull, magic is not so easily mastered.

Also unusual is that the princess nobly sacrifices herself and isn’t conveniently rescued just in time. The movie doesn’t shy away from the consequences, and offhand I can’t think of another fantasy movie where the princess doesn’t make it out in one way or another. Meanwhile the primary warrior-antagonist, the captain of the guard, is a rough arrogant jerk, but he’s not evil; he’s motivated by a strong sense of duty and patriotism, and although he has to be defeated it’s clear the movie takes no pleasure in it.

The dragon itself looks a bit cheesy to the modern eye, but the stop-motion effects were excellent for the time and some of the flight scenes hold up very well. The movie is highly effective at building tension with fleeting glimpses early on, and in the theater the full reveal must have been impressive.

The acting of the two young leads isn’t the best, but they’re surrounded by older and better actors who carry the movie, in particular Galen’s master and the king. Supporting actors are far better than in comparable movies (again thinking of Krull), and in this case including a much younger Ian McDiarmid.

The one serious complaint I have with the movie is the music, which is utterly awful. I don’t know what they were going for, but it’s a strangely screechy cacophony, without a recognizable theme and often poorly matched with individual scenes. It ranges from grating to forgettable, and I'm not sure how such a solid movie in most other respects was saddled with such an emotionless shambles of a score. If the existing movie could be remixed with a new score, ideally by Howard Shore, it would be close to perfection.


I saw this when it first came out, but I hadn’t remembered just how good it was, in its own earnest way. Stands up very well to a viewing today, and highly recommended.

[Auranghzeb]

Oh, nice conversation!

Barbarian is not only the first, but the most accomplished. The score is not only fantastic and evocative but so well used and integrated into every single scene. Milius writing and directing are simply superb. As many of you mention, the movie respects the audience and understands what it can do and what it can't in terms of visual effects, so it ages better than other movies after. And then I love the sub-text and endless discussions of whether Milius was hating on the hippies and Gerry Lopez' inclusion along with Conan moves with the sword was a reference to the Surfer movement and some obscure cultural war in the 1970's between SoCal surfers and hippies.

In any case, it also helps that Arnold's physique in Barbarian is more nuanced, he leaned down for the role and looks more bestial with the sword. In Destroyer and Sonja he is too big, it's impossible to take him seriously when swinging a sword with that limited range of motion. Grace Jones is the best of Destroyer, and Sonja could improve if it was 30 minute shorter.

However, Willow is the one I can re-watch many times. It is flawed, but has great pace and Madmartigan is the Fighter we all want to play when playing DND.

And I really like Fire & Ice it is very accomplished and incredibly well animated. But yeah, that one takes the horniness and misogyny a bit too far.


One I loved as a kid and has aged horribly is The Barbarians Geeez!

[Saintheart]

Do the Mad Max films count as Sword and Sorcery? :smalltongue:

[Mordar]

Just watched Dragonslayer for the first time in many years, and I absolutely loved it. Great little movie with a well-crafted atmosphere, and a bit more depth than I realized when I first saw it as a kid.

But I don't know that I'd call it a sword-and-sorcery movie. It came out the year before the first Conan, so it takes no inspiration from that genre; instead it has its own distinctive tone and style. There are a few swords and an abundance of sorcery, but the hero is about as far from the rippling-muscled swordsman as possible, and there are plenty of other idiosyncrasies as well.

Interesting - I don't believe that I would have included "rippling-muscled swordsmen" as an S&S requirement, in no small part to the feel I have that the books that established S&S for me didn't have the physical freak specimen as a common, much less default, choice. Conan called for something different, and it is true that most (particularly the schlock) of the post CtB films did seem to lean toward the loincloth set...but I think I would still hold that to be a subset of S&S, maybe adding a third S for skin?


Do the Mad Max films count as Sword and Sorcery? :smalltongue:

Absolutely not. They lack both sides of the ampersand. However, like CtB they did establish their own sub-genre of film. Surely there were post-apocalyptic dystopian future kinds of movies before Max Rockatansky got mad, but MM and Road Warrior were pretty special.

- M

[warty goblin]

Nah, S&S has always had a lot of skin in its visual representations. This goes all the way back to the cover art for Conan stories in Weird Tales in the thirties. If they kinda look like lesbian bandage... that's because the editor had a fetish and if your story was a good excuse for some Editorially Prefered Smut, you had a good chance of getting the cover story and hence more money.

But there's also just a lot of nudity and sexual content in the original stories. Shirts are very much optional attire, and while you can argue that possibly in-universe exposed breaststroke aren't coded as sexual, they definitely were to a 1930s American audience. C.L. Moore's stories are both not at all explicit, but extremely sensual to a degree I'd describe as "horny on main." There's a detailed description of how Jirel's thighs are exposed and naked between her mail shirt and her greaves, basically the nightie doesn't quite cover the stockings and garter belt look, but with armor.

Now it is true that the full loincloth/fur bikini look isn't super common in the actual text of a lot of S&S, but it is very common in the cover art dating back to basically forever. Indeed I'd say the sensibly dressed protagonist appearing nearly naked on the cover is a very common trope of the genre. Rather like how if you judge them by the cover, most urban fantasy novels are entirely populated by fashion models who tragically can only afford like one ragged shirt and a lacy bra each, while the poor men are left so bankrupt by spending all their money on gym memberships and protein shakes that they own zero shirts, and can only stay warm by flexing their washboard abs constantly.

It's almost like sex sells, particularly in the formulaic and lowbrow. The immediate conquest of the S&S film by buff dudes and Playboy models is, I think, essentially inevitable and quite in keeping with the genre's existing aesthetic. And thank heavens, trash is much more fun when it really does the trash thing.

[Mordar]

Nah, S&S has always had a lot of skin in its visual representations. This goes all the way back to the cover art for Conan stories in Weird Tales in the thirties. If they kinda look like lesbian bandage... that's because the editor had a fetish and if your story was a good excuse for some Editorially Prefered Smut, you had a good chance of getting the cover story and hence more money.

But there's also just a lot of nudity and sexual content in the original stories. Shirts are very much optional attire, and while you can argue that possibly in-universe exposed breaststroke aren't coded as sexual, they definitely were to a 1930s American audience. C.L. Moore's stories are both not at all explicit, but extremely sensual to a degree I'd describe as "horny on main." There's a detailed description of how Jirel's thighs are exposed and naked between her mail shirt and her greaves, basically the nightie doesn't quite cover the stockings and garter belt look, but with armor.

Now it is true that the full loincloth/fur bikini look isn't super common in the actual text of a lot of S&S, but it is very common in the cover art dating back to basically forever. Indeed I'd say the sensibly dressed protagonist appearing nearly naked on the cover is a very common trope of the genre. Rather like how if you judge them by the cover, most urban fantasy novels are entirely populated by fashion models who tragically can only afford like one ragged shirt and a lacy bra each, while the poor men are left so bankrupt by spending all their money on gym memberships and protein shakes that they own zero shirts, and can only stay warm by flexing their washboard abs constantly.

It's almost like sex sells, particularly in the formulaic and lowbrow. The immediate conquest of the S&S film by buff dudes and Playboy models is, I think, essentially inevitable and quite in keeping with the genre's existing aesthetic. And thank heavens, trash is much more fun when it really does the trash thing.

Concur with most (my readings of Howard through all of the wonderful Random House compendia didn't evidence nearly the level of wanton sex/naked moments as many might suggest), I had meant my response in regard to the size of the protagonist more than anything else. Of course, A.S. was a freakish size that couldn't have reasonably been replicated before him...so my comment was more male body size dependent. I recognize that I was misreading "rippling-muscled" as a statement on bulk mass rather than defined musculature, and was thinking that we had a lot of S&S heroes of the Gor/Krull sized and far fewer that would approach Mountain or Arnold.

tl,dr: I mean the change in mass, not the change in nakedness, related to Arnold being the largest and most muscularly defined actor to take on major studio movie roles. I failed miserably in that expression.

- M

[Catullus64]

A word or two, then, on the subject of Fire & Ice, one of the few animated entries into the Sword-and-Sorcery genre.

Directed by Ralph Bakshi, maker of such films as Wizards, Fritz the Cat, Heavy Traffic and The Lord of the Rings (1977), and drawing heavily on the talents of Frank Frazetta, whose artwork helped massively re-popularize the genre, it's a film bursting with gorgeous visuals and atmosphere. What lets it down, of course, is when it has to actually function as a story. (The same, frankly, can be said of most of Bakshi's filmography: lots of imagination and passion that falls apart when it has to actually cohere into anything more than a series of vignettes).

The plot, loosely summarized, concerns a fantasy (possibly post-apocalyptic?) world under threat from the evil sorcerer Nekron (subtle) and his ever-advancing wall of ice. Nekron's minions capture Teegra, princess of a volcanic kingdom that stands in his way, at about the same time that the warrior Larn is escaping after the destruction of his tribe by Nekron's glaciers. Larn and Teegra meet while escaping their respective perils. A series of mostly disconnected perils and escapes ensues, culminating in a deadly battle with the sorcerer in his keep. All classic stuff, but with a lot of that unfortunate Bakshi incoherence muddling it up.

The chief problem is that our hero and heroine both have the personality of overcooked porridge, and are exceedingly passive in the entire events of the plot. The villains are campy fun, but not in very much of the movie, and a supporting character, Darkwolf, seems at times to be the real hero of the picture. Teegra, though initially set up to be some kind of independent-minded scholar, quickly assumes the damsel-in-distress mold.

The film has the fascination with nude or mostly-nude bodies, violence, and primordial savagery that you'd expect from a Frazetta painting. I tend to enjoy that stuff too, but I fully acknowledge and respect that the excessive cheesecake and occasional dodgy racial/homoerotic coding could be a turn-off for a lot of people. Even I find it tiresome in this form; I like Frazetta, but I wouldn't want to stare at his paintings for the entire length of a feature film, which is what this often feels like.

If you watch it, it's best to think of it as primarily a fantasy mood piece rather than an actual narrative. In fact, I think the film would have actually been much better without any dialogue.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Catullus64
If you watch it, it's best to think of it as primarily a fantasy mood piece rather than an actual narrative. In fact, I think the film would have actually been much better without any dialogue.

This is a perfect summation of the sections that I watched. And it really would be interesting as an experiment in pre-verbal narrative. The sections I watched had hardly any dialogue anyway, just lots of grunting and cries of distress. Removing whatever dialogue is there might well be an improvement.


Originally Posted by Catullus64
All classic stuff, but with a lot of that unfortunate Bakshi incoherence muddling it up.

I tried watching Wizards and gave up about 3/4 into it. I could barely make out a narrative, and the visual style included some really weird colored-shadow effects (can’t recall the term) which clashed with the animation. The whole thing was jarring and discordant. It ended up being a struggle to watch, and absolutely zero fun.

[Trafalgar]

Amazon Prime is streaming "The Barbarians" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092615/?ref_=tt_mv_close) for free right now. Its' gimmick is that it stars TWO weightlifters turned actors playing barbarian warriors who were taken into slavery as children and are now on a revenge quest.

It's like Conan the Destroyer but with half the acting and twice the cheese.

[Melayl]

Just finished watching The Sword and the Sorcerer. I had to stop partway through due to cheese overload. The fight scenes were terribly bad, but the acting was average for the 80's.
The story had a lot of potential, it just needed at least an hour more to tell the story, much better fight choreography, and better special effects.

[The Hellbug]

Amazon Prime is streaming "The Barbarians" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092615/?ref_=tt_mv_close) for free right now. Its' gimmick is that it stars TWO weightlifters turned actors playing barbarian warriors who were taken into slavery as children and are now on a revenge quest.

It's like Conan the Destroyer but with half the acting and twice the cheese.

I recently watched this one on a lark and was very pleasantly surprised. The plot's silly, the leads are goofy (I've seen this pair in a number of movies and they couldn't act their way out of a paper bag), and the thief lady sidekick appears to have been only given 'do valley girl' as direction, but it's done earnestly, and I found that very charming. In addition, the costumes and sets are good, and I thought it kept the pace well. My biggest complaint was that our genre-staple evil sexy sorceress didn't get enough screen time because she was real fun when she was around. My final verdict was that the movie was silly but, if that's something you enjoy/can handle, it was very fun. It got good marks from everyone in the room when we had it on.

My weird one that a friend and I dug up on Amazon a while ago was Wizards of the Demon Sword. It's pretty standard fare, but there's one particular scene that stood out where the big evil sorcerer looks like he's getting ready to punish one of his apprentices for using forbidden magics and it's like 'uh oh, she's about to die', but then he ends up just scolding her because they're dangerous and she could have been killed, the Hank Scorpio of of sorcerers.

[Trafalgar]

I recently watched this one on a lark and was very pleasantly surprised. The plot's silly, the leads are goofy (I've seen this pair in a number of movies and they couldn't act their way out of a paper bag), and the thief lady sidekick appears to have been only given 'do valley girl' as direction, but it's done earnestly, and I found that very charming. In addition, the costumes and sets are good, and I thought it kept the pace well. My biggest complaint was that our genre-staple evil sexy sorceress didn't get enough screen time because she was real fun when she was around. My final verdict was that the movie was silly but, if that's something you enjoy/can handle, it was very fun. It got good marks from everyone in the room when we had it on.


It's cheesy. And I mean the generic cheese that is a less expensive knock off of "Kraft Singles". But as long as you don't mind that, it's not a bad way to spend the afternoon.

The one thing I will say for it is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. If it tried to be as serious as "Conan the Barbarian", it would be horrible.

[oudeis]

Just watched Dragonslayer for the first time in many years, and I absolutely loved it. Great little movie with a well-crafted atmosphere, and a bit more depth than I realized when I first saw it as a kid.

But I don't know that I'd call it a sword-and-sorcery movie. It came out the year before the first Conan, so it takes no inspiration from that genre; instead it has its own distinctive tone and style. There are a few swords and an abundance of sorcery, but the hero is about as far from the rippling-muscled swordsman as possible, and there are plenty of other idiosyncrasies as well.


The story is fairly basic, but there’s more than one hero involved, and the dragon is finally defeated by the combined efforts of four different people, working together but not always as a team. Galen is the nominal hero, but Valerian saves his life twice over and gives him a vital key to survival—and it’s through her determination that Galen’s story is set into motion at all. This is the exact opposite of the slightly later Krull, in which the female lead is primarily decorative and plays no more than a nominal role in her own rescue.

Dragonslayer has a bit of commentary about elites and politicians, which was probably unusual for a fantasy movie of the time—in particular its portrayal of the king not as a wise and noble ruler, but as a cunning operator and propagandist. Unlike other movies from this time (e.g. Krull) there’s a firm sense of the unglamorous realities of early-medieval life—and again unlike Krull, magic is not so easily mastered.

Also unusual is that the princess nobly sacrifices herself and isn’t conveniently rescued just in time. The movie doesn’t shy away from the consequences, and offhand I can’t think of another fantasy movie where the princess doesn’t make it out in one way or another. Meanwhile the primary warrior-antagonist, the captain of the guard, is a rough arrogant jerk, but he’s not evil; he’s motivated by a strong sense of duty and patriotism, and although he has to be defeated it’s clear the movie takes no pleasure in it.

The dragon itself looks a bit cheesy to the modern eye, but the stop-motion effects were excellent for the time and some of the flight scenes hold up very well. The movie is highly effective at building tension with fleeting glimpses early on, and in the theater the full reveal must have been impressive.

The acting of the two young leads isn’t the best, but they’re surrounded by older and better actors who carry the movie, in particular Galen’s master and the king. Supporting actors are far better than in comparable movies (again thinking of Krull), and in this case including a much younger Ian McDiarmid.

The one serious complaint I have with the movie is the music, which is utterly awful. I don’t know what they were going for, but it’s a strangely screechy cacophony, without a recognizable theme and often poorly matched with individual scenes. It ranges from grating to forgettable, and I'm not sure how such a solid movie in most other respects was saddled with such an emotionless shambles of a score. If the existing movie could be remixed with a new score, ideally by Howard Shore, it would be close to perfection.


I saw this when it first came out, but I hadn’t remembered just how good it was, in its own earnest way. Stands up very well to a viewing today, and highly recommended.



Good comments, but I have to take issue with a few points:

While the princess in Krull didn't grab a sword and actively attack The Beast (as I'm sure would happen if there is ever a remake) she was far from passive. She was determined, self-possesed, and never stopped trying to escape. She was also was more than a match for The Beast in their verbal sparring matches.

As for Dragonslayer, I disagree with your take on the special effects. Aside from a model shot in the cave, and perhaps a moment from a composite shot just prior, I think they still hold up (minor nitpick: the practical effects were actually go-motion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonslayer_(1981_film)#Dragon)). And the first full reveal was indeed impressive: in what was perhaps the second-greatest year for summer movies in history, it stood out as one of the more memorable moments.

Also, I don't think you could be more wrong about the score. It was harsh, eerie, almost atonal at times, but it helped set the tone for what was actually a fairly dark story, as you pointed out. The blaring horn motif for the dragon in particular was especially effective at conveying the menace of the monster, and the qiueter scenes were handled with the right mix of humor, sentiment, and dread as required. The lone failure in the soundtrack was the ending, which actually managed to pierce the mood of ecstatic fantasy glee I felt at the time. I was and am willing to forgive it, considering the rest of the music, but it really wasn't good.

As for Howard Shore? His work is much too symphonic/melodic for a film like this. I can't name a compser I would prefer of the top of my head, but I think he would be a bad match.

[Catullus64]

Just finished watching The Sword and the Sorcerer. I had to stop partway through due to cheese overload. The fight scenes were terribly bad, but the acting was average for the 80's.
The story had a lot of potential, it just needed at least an hour more to tell the story, much better fight choreography, and better special effects.

That movie does win a prize for quite possibly the stupidest fantasy weapon every devised. It must be seen to be believed. The rest of it is unfortunately pretty tedious.

[Mordar]

That movie does win a prize for quite possibly the stupidest fantasy weapon every devised. It must be seen to be believed. The rest of it is unfortunately pretty tedious.

If by stupidest you mean the utterly idiotic thing that only a 12-year-old would say was the COOLEST SWORD EVER!

-M

[The Hellbug]

One of my biggest disappointments during that one was how infrequently that idiotic weapon wasn't being used.