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?

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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.

[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 (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 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.

Spoiler: Commentary and Comparisons

Show

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.

Spoiler: Continuing Commentary

Show

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.