Tagline: Come children of the universe, let Donovan take you away, far far away.
Plot: In 1349, while the Black Plague threatens Germany, the town of Hamelin
hires a wandering pied piper (Donovan) to lure rats away with his magic
pipe, but then refuses to pay for his services, causing him to lure the
town's children away.
My rating: 7/10
Will I watch it again? No.
I really need to read Grimm's fairy tales because I LOVE dark tales involving bad things happening to children largely because, for as long as I can remember, that subject is a big taboo that Hollywood doesn't dare tread (you know, killing children and such). As I watched this I started to remember bits and pieces of the story from when I read it as a kid forty or so years ago. This flick looks great and it's well-acted. For a non-actor, pop music sensation Donovan does pretty well. Naturally, this being the early 70s and written and performed by Donovan, the songs are all of their time and not sounding hundreds of years old, so hearing 70s folk tunes in a movie set in the mid-1300s is weird. Michael Hordern kills it as local doctor/wizard-type. I enjoy a good picture set in Europe way back when. The Plague is near, people are on edge and bad people continue to do bad things. I liked the last half hour the most, probably because that's when it's at its darkest. I would've preferred a much darker ending but you can't have everything. There are lots of known actors which are worth watching this for. It's a good watch.
Writers: Lorne Cameron, David Hoselton, William Nicholson
Composer: Jerry Goldsmith
Starring: Sean Connery, Richard Gere, Julia Ormond, Ben Cross, Liam Cunningham, Christopher Villiers, Valentine Pelka, Colin McCormack, Ralph Ineson, John Gielgud
Tagline: Their greatest battle would be for her love.
Plot: Lancelot falls in love with Guinevere, who is due to be married to King
Arthur. Meanwhile, a violent warlord tries to seize power from Arthur
and his Knights of the Round Table.
My rating: 7/10
Will I watch it again? Yes.
I put off watching this for more than twenty years because, despite my love for Sean Connery, I didn't like the casting of Gere as Lancelot. That just rubbed me the wrong way. I'd listened to Goldsmith's fine score a few times but I just couldn't do until now. I can't believe I'm saying this but Gere does a fine job. After a few minutes I adjusted to him, settled into the film and let it take me for a ride and one I enjoyed. I don't think you could ask for a better King Arthur than Connery. That man's the shit and he brings a lot of weight to the role. I was afraid the romance angle would get too mushy but it didn't. It felt just right but then it's also sprinkled in with enough adventure, action and intrigue that the balance feels right. It's a good costume drama adventure that takes the viewer on a fun little adventure in a time that's long been romanticized. I'm pleasantly surprised.
Starring: Sean Bean, Eddie Redmayne, John Lynch, Tim McInnerny, Kimberley Nixon, Andy Nyman, David Warner, Johnny Harris, Emun Elliott, Tygo Gernandt, Jamie Ballard, Carice van Houten
Tagline: In an age of darkness one man will face the ultimate battle against evil.
Plot: Set during the time of the first outbreak of bubonic plague in England, a
young monk is given the task of learning the truth about reports of
people being brought back to life in a small village.
My rating: 7.5/10
Will I watch it again? Yes.
Shaky cam be damned! Oh, and The Plague. I digs me some Medieval Sean Bean and, once again, he delivers the knightly goods. The film's OK until they boys get to the small village for an overnight stay. Then it gets really good and a lot of shit starts hitting the oxen-powered fan. So if you watch this and you're just not feeling it, wait until about midway into the picture and stick around for another half hour and watch how crazy good it gets. Any fans of David Warner? He's barely in this. Don't get too excited, but any David Warner is better than no David Warner. That's what my Grandma used to say after a hot shower. Like every movie Ray Charles ever watched, this movie is dark; it's dark in tone and visually. And it's got one hell of a dark and cynical ending. I'll tell ya, until they got to the village, it felt like it was going to be a middle of the road, bland-ish Medieval costumer and then it started getting better and better until it ended up a real peach. I watched it on Netflix even though I have the DVD. At some point the Blu-ray will fall into my lap and I'll give it another spin and dig into the extras.
Starring: James Purefoy, Piper Perabo, Patrick Swayze, Michael Clarke Duncan, Bill Treacher, Jean-Pierre Castaldi, Rollo Weeks, Paul Freeman, Stefan Jurgens, Stefan Winert, Phil McKee, Caroline Carver, Joan Plowright, Val Kilmer
Tagline: George left England as a Knight and soldier. He Came home a Dragonslayer... and a Legend.
Plot: The first crusade to free the Holy Land has ended. A mass of weary
knights, squires, soldiers of fortune and priests are making their way
home across a Europe that has changed forever. George, a handsome
English knight, unsettled by the horrendous bloodletting he witnessed in
Palestine, desires to hang up his sword and settle down to a quiet,
peaceful life. On returning to England, George heads north where he's
heard the land is good and the population sparse and of a kindly King
named Edgaar. He finds King Edgaar in a terrible state. His beautiful
daughter, Lunna has recently disappeared. In return for a small plot of
land, George agrees to search for Princess Lunna. With Edgaar's faithful
servant, Elmendorf, George sets out. George discovers both the princess
and the truth behind her strange disappearance. The quest now set
before them ends in a love, a lie and a legend that has lasted a
thousand years.
My rating: 5/10
Will I watch it again? No.
I can't imagine any of the actors taking on this project for the artistic merit, can you? It's silly in so many ways. I felt bad for Purefoy, really bad. He's trying to make the cornball dialogue work but it's not easy. Patrick Swayze is just awful. Michael Clarke Duncan felt out of place and, I can't believe I'm saying this, Val Kilmer, for as brief as he's in the picture, is kind of fun. The bad acting doesn't stop there...it's just getting started. Piper Perabo was sub-par, too. Part of it could have been the writing but her character was painful to handle. The music was cartoonish and silly which mimicked the on-screen antics. It's low budget for sure but this wasn't a picture that was aimed at someone like me. OK, well maybe if I were six years old. Little kids would probably dig the fairy tale stuff but it wasn't sitting right with me. The First Look DVD presents the film in anamorphic widescreen and the only extras on the disc are interviews with the principle cast (17 minutes) and trailer for this and three other films I've never heard of (THE SNURKS, anyone?). And how about that awful song during the end credits? Woof!
Starring: James Callis, Laura Harris, Jesse Moss, Patrick Sabongui, Donald Adams, Jim Thrburn, Maja Aro, Megan Vincent, Monique Ganderton, Daniel Cudmore, Lauro Chartrand
Plot: Sorcerer Arkadian has taken over Camelot with a zoo of beasts from his
magical book. King Arthur's daughter Avlynn asks Merlin to help her take
back Camelot. She also has to find the sacred sword Excalibur to assist
her as she leads a band of knights to battle Arkadian.
My rating: 5.5/10
Will I watch it again? Aw, hell, no!
OMFG! I watched this largely because it stars BATTLESTAR GALLACTICA's James "Baltar" Callis as Merlin. I mean, hey! He's British. How can he fuck this up? OMG he's so bad. I mean really bad. Whoever had the crazy idea that Merlin should speak out of his vocal range with a low, gravelly voice needs to be slapped. Hell, the person doing the slapping should be dressed as Bill Shakespeare. He's so bad it's laughable. Really. I honestly thought it was a joke at first, that maybe this was supposed to be a lighter film than I took it to be. Nope. He's like that all through the picture. So how's the rest of the film? I can't remember. I was dumbfounded by Callis' acting. The movie's OK. For a low budget straight to video flick the effects and atmosphere are pretty decent and the story is fine. You should seriously consider watching it for Callis in a role that's sure to pull some chuckles out of you. The Anchor Bay DVD (I can't believe AB wanted this in their catalog) presents this in anamorphic widescreen and it's a good looking image. The only thing you get for an extra is 10 minute behind the scenes featurette.
Writers: Franco Castellano, Giuseppe Moccia, Marcello Verucci, Pasquale Festa Campanile, Luigi Magni
Composers: Guido & Maurizio De Angelis
Starring: Bud Spencer, Franco Agostini, Enzo Cannavale, Frederic de Pasquale, Jacques Dufiho, Andrea Ferreol, Jacues Herlin, Angelo Infanti, Philippe Leroy, Oreste Lionello, Antonio Orlando, Eros Pagni, Renzo Palmer, Gino Pernice
Plot: Medieval soldier of fortune Ettore is travelling through Europe with his
partners looking for fight where they can earn some money. When they
come across a Spanish castle under siege by the French army, Ettore
first bides his time to determine which side is the winning one (and
thus more likely to pay his fee). This is as first the French, but the
treatment he receives from them is unpleasant enough to make him change
his mind and turn to the Spanish side. Somehow, Ettore must rally the
weakened Spanish troops to battle their enemy long enough for
reinforcements to arrive.
My rating: 6/10
Will I watch it again? No.
Medieval Spain...tis a silly place. Tis a silly movie. I don't mind the silly when it makes me laugh but the comedy here is broad and often too silly for me but I did laugh every once in a while. Bud Spencer makes the movie. I've mostly only seen his films from the 70s and he's always likable. The location shooting is really nice and even though the print I saw as dirty, it's a good looking movie. the G&M De Angelis score is repetitive, goofy and sometimes fun. This film was made for the younger audience. Families with young kids will like it.
Writers: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, Michael Palin
Composer: ???
Starring: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, Michael Palin, Connie Booth, Carol Cleveland, Neil Innes, Bee Duffell, John Young, Rita Davies, Avril Stewart, Sally Kinghorn
Plot: King Arthur and his knights embark on a low-budget search for the Grail, encountering many very silly obstacles.
My rating: 9/10
Will I watch it again? YES!!!
I remember first seeing this in the early 80s shortly before discovering MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS. It slayed my with laughter then and it still does after all these years. I'm not going to go into how much I love this film because I'd rather watch it than talk about it but there are far too many classic, laugh out loud moments that no one should overlook this picture. Just like their TV show, the humor runs from the utterly silly and slapstick to clever, witty and sublime. Their comedy runs the gamut, something for all ages and walks of life but then it's not a movie that everyone is going to dig. Those who do love the shit out of it and will put it in our top comedies of all time. It's brilliantly made and age hasn't hurt it one bit. There's a part of me that wants to give this a solid 10 out of 10 but the final act does slow down and drag a bit despite some funny moments. It feels like the boys, after having so much fun up until the last fifteen minutes, threw their hands up having spent the funny and trudged their way to the credits. Still, it's one of the funniest movies ever made. The Sony Blu-ray transfer is breathtakingly gorgeous!!! Before this release I'd only ever seen it on horrible VHS-esque transfers. I was in awe through to the closing credits how clear and brilliant the film looked.
Starring: Gabriel Byrne, Helen Mirren, Christian Bale, Brian Cox, Steven Waddington, Kate Beckinsale, Tony Haygarth, Freddie Jones, Tom Wilkinson, Saskia Wickham, Mark Williams, Andy Serkis
Tagline: His Quest for Vengeance... May Cost Him Everything.
Plot: This re-telling of Hamlet goes back to the original Danish source
material. The opening scenario remains the same: Hamlet's father
murdered by his brother who then weds the widowed mother. Hamlet must
discover his strength and leadership that will allow him to regain his
rightful throne. Don't expect an ending which matches the Bard's though,
this is more like a true Viking epic.
My rating: 5.5/10
I'm going to get the good out of the way quickly. The story, albeit simple, has a lot of potential cinematically. The little bit of nudity is fantastic, including Helen Mirren's beauties. Most everything else is about so-bad-it's-good. But damn, look at the cast!!! It's extraordinary how so many quality actors can be trapped in such a low-rent epic. Shit. It's not like the acting is all that bad but it's made worse by their meager surroundings. Norgaard's score is actually pretty good. There were moments that echoed Alex North's dissonant score from DRAGONSLAYER (1981) which took me by surprise considering how low budget this picture is. The foley for anything approaching a crowd scene is very weak. The lack of numbers in the cast suggest that Denmark has no more people than a few villages and small ones at that. Remember that scene in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL (1975) "...and there was much rejoicing...yeahhhh" and how weak and frail the voices were that said, "yeah"? That's how bad it is in this film only it's not played for laughs. I don't hate this film despite what I've said, it's more of a pity than anything else.
Tagline: From peasant to knight; one man can change his stars.
Plot: After his master dies, a peasant squire, fueled by his desire for food
and glory, creates a new identity for himself as a knight.
My rating: 7/10
Will I watch it again? No.
Well here was a nice surprise. I didn't think I was going to like it. I'd heard it's filled with classic pop/rock songs which I initially thought was a ridiculous idea (as I'm sure everyone else did, too.) Then you see it and the songs work. You'll laugh your ass off every time one starts but they strangely work. The cast is great especially Ledger (William/Ulrich) and his cohorts Paul Bettany (Geoffrey Chaucer) (and it's especially clever and fun how they played around with his character), Alan Tudyk (Wat), Mark Addy (Roland) and Laura Fraser (Kate). They're a lot of fun. It was good writing, too. SPOILER ALERT... And I'll say this, too, the story took some turns that are atypical for a Hollywood picture like William falling out of love with Jocelyn (Sossamon) and into love with his blacksmith, Kate. But they just had to do the one thing that I don't think has ever not been done and that's have someone discover his ruse by making up a different identity and throwing it back into his face at the end. Are there any films where someone hides their true identity, falls in love with someone under that false name/persona and it never becomes an issue? Why does is have to always come back and bite them in the ass? Just sayin'. It'd be nice if a picture bucked the trend and didn't allow it to burden the character. Another thing that surprised me is they set up Chaucer having a gambling problem but it only served to provide a few laughs for one small plot line. What didn't happen is him gambling away the gang's money near the end or something of the sort. It was a nice restraint that I really appreciated. END OF SPOILERS...YARRRRR!!!
If you've been on the fence about watching this for one reason or another, give it a chance. It's actually a fun and enjoyable movie. I'm not saying it's going to be something you'll return to but you'll at least spend over two hours (and a quickly paced 144 I might add, and it goes by very quickly - impressive!) having a great time with some really fun characters.
The Columbia Special Edition DVD comes with the theatrical 132 minute film and the 144 minute extended version (the one I saw). The extras included are a commentary with writer/director Brian Helgeland and actor Paul Bettany, 11 short (usually 2-5 minutes each) featurettes on various stages and aspect of the production, 6 deleted scenes with optional filmmakers' introductions and a 15 minute HBO making of featurette.
Writers: Thomas Malory, Rospo Pallenberg, John Boorman
Composer: Trevor Jones
Starring: Nigel Terry, Helen Mirren, Nicholas Clay, Cherie Lunghi, Paul Geoffrey, Nicol Williamson, Robert Addie, Gabriel Byrne, Keith Buckley, Katrine Boorman, Liam Neeson, Corin Redgrave, Niall O'Brien, Patrick Stewart, Clive Swift, Ciaran Hinds
Tagline: No mortal could possess it! No kingdom could command it!
Plot: Merlin the magician helps Arthur Pendragon unite the Britons around the
round table of Camelot even as forces conspire to tear it apart.
My rating: 8.5/10
Will I watch it again? Yes.
This is the definitive telling of the King Arthur legend. Well, it is in my book. There's no denying, though, that this is the most adult and mature film version of the tale. The performances are great. I love the enthusiastic take Nicol Williamson had for Merlin. And this picture has a lot of then-unknowns that have since become A-list actors. Seeing Clive Swift (the husband in the hilarious UK show, KEEPING UP APPEARANCES (1990)) in such a serious role is cool as shit. I mostly just dig the reality world with a touch of fantasy but not that child fantasy crap you would expect. Trevor Jones' score is great but the use of classical music in spots often doesn't work well and it's mostly because of the music editing. These cues weren't written for the film so it's really awful sometimes when the music quickly fades or is cut off at an unexpected moment. It's so bad at times that I'm shocked the film was released that way. I can understand a temp track like that but it's unacceptable for a finished product and one so well made as this. One thing that never escapes me is the running time of two hours and twenty one minutes. It feels like three hours but I dig this film so much that I can overlook that...that is until the next time I'm an hour and a half into it with forty one minutes to go.
Plot: This erotic horror film from cult director Jesus Franco is based on the witch-hunting exploits of Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys (Lee), a real historical figure who died in prison in 1702 at the age of 54. In 1685 England, young Alicia Gray is burnt for witchcraft. Alicia's sister Mary (Rohm) unwisely falls for Harry Selton (Hass), a rebel against King James II. After the rebels are defeated, Harry is captured by agents of Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys, who defends the crown by accusing its enemies of witchcraft. Also a captive, Mary tries to save her lover by surrendering herself to the cruel Judge, who takes perverse sexual pleasure in sadistic torture.
What starts out as a 17th century witch persecution flick ends up as a witch/war/political picture...but it's LOADED with nudity! Besides the bushell loads of beautiful babes and boobs it's got Christopher Lee playing a real mean son of a bitch judge oozing with righteous fury. He's a lot of fun and a great reason to watch this picture. I like films like this, set during this time whether they're about witches or not. The atmosphere is great. I love the colors in films like this made in the 60s and 70s. I'm surprised that Jess Franco directed it because it's not a bad film. It looks great and is pretty entertaining except that it's way too long and it meanders all over the place (I did watch the extended, uncut version - the only way to see it). What doesn't surprise me about this being directed by Franco is the gratuitous nudity. That man had an eye for gorgeous women and we're all thankful for that. The problem is that the rest of the picture drags in more than a few spots and that's enough to keep me from coming back for more but I'm glad I got to see it if for nothing else, I got to hear another great score from Bruno Nicolai.
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Ron Perlman, Christopher Lee, Stephen Campbell Moore, Stephen Graham, Ulrich Thomsen, Claire Foy, Robert Sheehan, Rebekah Kennedy
Plot: A 14th century Crusader returns to a homeland devastated by the Black
Plague. A beleaguered church, deeming sorcery the culprit of the plague,
commands the two knights to transport an accused witch to a remote
abbey, where monks will perform a ritual in hopes of ending the
pestilence. A priest, a grieving knight, a disgraced itinerant and a
headstrong youth who can only dream of becoming a knight join a mission
troubled by mythical, hostile wilderness and fierce contention over the
fate of the girl. When the embattled party arrives at the abbey, a
horrific discovery jeopardises the knight's pledge to ensure the girl
fair treatment, and pits them against an inexplicably powerful and
destructive force.
My rating: 6.5/10
Will I watch it again? Nah.
I like Nicolas Cage but he's made a lot of horrible movies over the years. A lot. Watching the trailer for this one made me laugh. Cage as a 14th Century knight? HA! I'll buy Ron Perlman as a knight before I would cage. Anyway, I finally watched it and it wasn't that bad. I was really surprised at how entertaining it was and how restrained Cage's performance was. Oh, and now that I'm thinking of it, I'm growing tired of that cliche where two friends are fighting the bad guys and they end up back to back talking to each other while killing folks. Anyway, I'm glad I saw it. It was a fun time with a house full of friends eating, drinking and carrying on. I don't ever need to see it again but it was fun. Sometimes I wonder how much of an effect lowering my expectations has on liking a movie. Would I have liked it less if I watched it alone with expectations of seeing a good movie? Beats me.
Plot: In 13th century England, Robin and his band of marauders confront
corruption in a local village and lead an uprising against the crown
that will forever alter the balance of world power.
My rating: 6/10
Will I watch it again? Noop.
I'm kind of glad I didn't catch this in the theater but at the same time, like the film or not, it's the kind of movie I would prefer to watch on the big screen. Man, what a disappointment. It's not for a lack of action, although the build up to the finale feels like a lead-in to a sequel that would be more fun, or the great costumes, locales, set design, etc. It's that I just didn't care much for any of the main characters. For a film with this calibre of talent in front of and behind the camera I'm shocked that it's so lifeless. It's as dreary as the time it's set. I don't care that Scott is putting a different spin on the legend or even fleshing out a back story. It's only a movie and I don't care all that much if they dick around with the story but the one that's being told here just sits there. Scott can be a stellar film technician. He knows how to create worlds that live and breathe, just not all the time and not with this one.
Plot: It is the year 1215 and the rebel barons of England have forced their despised King John to put his royal seal to the Magna Carta, a noble, seminal document that upheld the rights of free-men. Yet within months of pledging himself to the great charter, the King reneged on his word and assembled a mercenary army on the south coast of England with the intention of bringing the barons and the country back under his tyrannical rule. Barring his way stood the mighty Rochester castle, a place that would become the symbol of the rebel's momentous struggle for justice and freedom.
My rating: 6.5/10
Will I watch it again? Probably not.
Did this hit the theaters? I wish I had seen it on the big screen. For the most part I dug it. It's gory as hell and any fan of great melee fighting needs to see this. Limbs are lost, people hacked in half, lots of blood. It's great. I love the cast and the performances are good (Giamatti plays it to the hilt) although I though Purefoy's character should have had more to do. AND GODDAMNIT! WHY DOES THERE ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE TO BE A LOVE INTEREST??? I hate that shit. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. This is the latter. When you have a picture like this you shouldn't toss in a love scene just to pander to get women to see your movie. Gee fucking whiz! The picture's already two hours long. Cut out the 10 or more minutes of that subplot and make this a leaner, better film. Damn it, not I'm pissed off again. Shit. I'm lowering this from a 7 to a 6.5.
Tagline: The Games...The Romance...The Spirit...Camelot is a state of mind.
Plot: A travelling troupe of jousters and performers are slowly cracking under the pressure of hick cops, financial troubles and their failure to live up to their own ideals. The group's leader, King Billy, is increasingly unable to maintain his warrior's rule while the Black Knight is being tempted away to LA and stardom, as they all have to ask why they were here in the first place.
My Rating: 8/10
Would I watch it again? Is that a badass poster or what?
This movie kicked the shit out of me. I was stunned. For years and years I saw the VHS cover at the video stores but never thought much other than, "cool cover". The premise seemed silly to my teenage mind. Boy, was I an idiot. This movie is outstanding. It's like I got kicked in the balls, my balls were then taken to Oscar Goldman to be rebuilt, brought back and installed back in the sack and then, despite by my balls being bionic, they were kicked again and had to be taken BACK to the lab for adjustments. THAT'S what this movie did to me.
The atmosphere was so rich and exciting I wanted to leave as soon as it was over and join them. It looked like such a fun thing to do. I dig Renaissance Fairs but the one we get here is lame because of the location - a fairgrounds with not a tree around. The one I went to in Rhode Island was in the middle of a forest. Now that's a RenFair.
I get the feeling that Ed Harris is a serious method actor and that he probably didn't talk to anyone during the shoot. His acting is so fucking intense it's surprising he didn't kill somebody. He barks, yells and broods A LOT. Everybody else is having fun. Savini is a blast to watch, btw. I dug the motorcycles as a substitute for horses. It's just too cool. The big show at the end runs a little long and it needed to be trimmed because the run time is a staggering 145 minutes. This is a meaty movie and you feel like you've had at least 7 giant turkey legs by the end of it but it's oh so satisfying like nothing else.
Tagline: Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong.
Plot: Balian of Ibelin travels to Jerusalem during the crusades of the 12th century, and there he finds himself as the defender of the city and its people.
My Rating: 5.5/10
Would I watch it again? Oh, HELL, no!
When will Hollywood wake up and realize that Bloom can't act? Sure he was great in LOTR because he played a character that showed NO EMOTION! He was OK at best in the first POTC movie (the other two sucked hard). Here he has the job of carrying the ENTIRE FUCKING PICTURE!!! Naturally, he fails. He picks up a lucrative fat check from the studio, bangs the script girl and her friends (but just the cute ones), skips his acting classes to go play checkers with the local amputee prostitues and then walks onto the set ready to not act.
PIRATES OF THE SPOILERBEAN:
There is a scene early on where Neeson tells Bloom that he is his father and he's come to make amends for missing his child's life up to this point. He's a respected knight and can do that. Bloom is visibly struggling to...uh...ACT! It's one of many painful scenes to endure.
END OF SPOILERS...YARRRR!
It's a Ridley Scott film so you know you're in for some talented and entertaining film making. It's a beautifully shot film. No question about that but it drags and drags and the suffering through Bloom's performance doesn't help.
I wanted to like this film. I dig knights, Ridley Scott's films, some of the actors in this but it's ultimately Bloom that failed to sell the picture to me. I can't blame him. I suck more than he does as an actor and if someone shovelled a shitload of dough at my feet I'd take it, too.
Plot: A tale of a young impoverished nobleman, who with his uncle returns from a war against the order of the Teutonic Knights in Lithuania. He falls in love with a beautiful woman and pledges an oath to bring her "three trophies" from the Teutonic Knights.
My Rating: 8/10
Would I watch it again? Tak!
WOW! What a great movie! It's easily one of the best I've seen on this subject/time in history. It's rich with grimy, dirty detail. great location shooting, some exciting action sequences and a very good score (by Kazimierz Serocki. You know, the guy who scored Goraca Linia! Duh!!).
One thing I liked most is that it was made in Poland (the original name being KRZYZACY). That fact alone that it's a European film and not a Hollywood one brings a certain freshness and adds more flavor of reality to it. Even at 166 minutes (!!!) I wasn't bored for a moment. I loved it and I will definitely revisit it in the next couple of years I'm sure.
Plot Outline: Returning from the Crusades in the Holy Land, Ivanhoe learns that King Richard the Lionheart is imprisoned in Austria. Once in England, his pleas to pay the ransom fall on deaf ears as Prince John and cronies enjoy their current situation far too much. Joining forces with Robin of Locksley, Ivanhoe takes steps to raise the money all the while trying to re-establish his relationship with his father who disowned him years previously.
My Rating: 6/10
Would I watch it again? I'll try something else in this genre first
IVANHOE is a beautiful looking film with striking locations and eye-popping costumes. It's outstanding as far as the production values go. It held my attention but it didn't command it. Why didn't I like it more? I don't know...maybe I was expecting a little more action. But then again, it all seemed familiar. You could easily have substituted Robin Hood for Ivanhoe and you wouldn't think anything of it. Hell, Robin Hood is in it except he's only referred to as Locksley. I guess the original novelist, Sir Walter Scott, was trying to add to the legends with something a little different.
The biggest problem is with it's casting of Ivanhoe with American, Robert Taylor. Everyone else in the film is English. Robert Taylor speaks with his American accent. I couldn't help but be remembered of Kevin Costner's Robin Hood where he "tried" to speak with an English accent half the time and the other half with his regular voice - they both failed miserably. It's kinda like that here. Taylor's voice just doesn't cut it. There are times when it really gets in the way. I just don't think he's got a commanding voice which, for a picture/role like this, you should have. His acting seemed fine. Errol Flynn he ain't (who, at the time, was only 2 years older than Taylor). I would have rather seen an aging Flynn in that role than Taylor. Taylor did at least look the part. The facial hair suited him. Looking through his credits I don't think I've seen any of his films. He did KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE the very next year. It's on the way from netflix. We'll see...
Now George Sanders, on the other hand, KNOWS how to speak and knows how to act. This guy's a beast and makes a great adversary for Ivanhoe. I've seen him in a few pictures, even some comedies, and he just rocks in every one. This guy has a commanding presence that just dares you to watch him. I'm sure he played lots of villains in his time and it's those pictures I'm going to have to seek out.
Elizabeth Taylor was 20 when she made this. HUBBA FUCKING HUBBA!!! WOW! I CHI WAWA!! What a knockout she was back then. And I thought she was hot in CLEOPATRA (1963). Woof! By the late 60s she was starting to lose it but boy was she smokin' back then. Her acting? She did well.
We do get some knight action going on with a GREAT joust scene where Ivanhoe goes up against five knights, one after the other. The stunt work in that is great. Then later on there's a castle siege with the bad guys, and the good guys as captives, are holed up in this castle while Locksley and his gang are throwing arrows all over the place. There's more than a few shots of a shitload of arrows (some grouped together a bit too conspicuously) flying over the castle that gets a laugh or two. The siege is great fun but the film doesn't end there. There has to be a duel between Robert Taylor and George Sanders or you don't have a movie. Guess who wins? And while I'm at it, why does EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE MOVIES have King Richard return at the very last minute and bring happiness to the land? I'd like to see a movie where the pussified King John is still King at the end. Where are the origin stories of how John came into power? Where are all the middle stories where John is in control? I'd like to see those for a change.
The MGM disc looks absolutely gorgeous. Sadly, the only extras are a Tom & Jerry cartoon and 3 trailers - IVANHOE, KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE and one of my all time favorites, SCARAMOUCHE.
It's actually pretty fun and beautiful to look at but somehow I felt like there should have been more. Maybe it's because THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1938) with Errol Flynn is one of my all time favorites. But then again, maybe it's because IVANHOE isn't as good as it should have been.
Plot: After centuries of dueling to survive against others like him, an immortal Scottish swordsman faces his final opponent: a bloodthirsty barbarian who has chased him across time to 1985 New York City, where they fight for the Prize: the spiritual ability to know everything.
My Rating: 8/10
Would I watch it again? Sure
Because everyone and his kid sister have seen this I’m going to be brief. I like it. I really like the concept. Sure, the film makers potentially shot themselves in the foot by not leaving it open for a sequel but somehow making a dozen of them and various TV shows. I’m OK with the rock score by Queen although I wasn’t when I first saw this in the 80s.
What I’m not OK with is how Lambert’s character is Scottish but speaks with a crazy French accent! It’s annoying as hell when he’s so obviously supposed to be Scottish. He’s also not that great of an actor. And then there’s Connery. I LOVE me some Sean Connery but he’s the one with a Scottish accent but his character is a Spanish Egyptian!!! WTF? It wouldn’t have been that difficult to have at least come up with a reason why he speaks like he does. Hell, they could have at least done SOMETHING to explain Lambert’s character’s lack of Scottish accent. Especially since he’s surrounded by dozens of his kin that ARE speaking Scottish. For fuck’s sake. They could have easily passed it off as Lambert spending time in France or a speech impediment or slight mental retardation or ANYTHING.
I know, I know, I’m being petty. But when you consider the laughter it generates while watching the film it’s a painful point with me and detracts from the effectiveness of the film.
It reminds me of a poem…
Roses are red, Violets are blue. Beheadings are cool And so is this movie if you can get past the messed-up accent thing.
Tagline: Betrayed by power. Corrupted by love. Bound by honor.
Plot: A band of medieval mercenaries take revenge on a noble lord who decides not to pay them by kidnapping the betrothed of the Noble's son. As the plague and warfare cut a swathe of destruction throughout the land, the mercenaries hole up in a castle and await their fate.
My Rating: 8/10
Would I watch it again? Yes
I've always dug Rutger Hauer. I've seen some of his Dutch, pre-Hollywood, films from the 70s like TURKISH DELIGHT (WOW is this F'd up) and SOLDIER OF ORANGE, both by director Paul Verhoeven. And his early American films like this one, BLADE RUNNER, THE HITCHER and LADYHAWKE (which came a little later) show that this guy, despite his good looks and charm, is a very good actor. I've always found it strange how his career, after such great promise and high profile films, took a turn into B-movie obscurity. Years ago when I saw CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND I was pleasantly surprised to see him turn up in that kicking all kinds of acting ass and then a couple of years ago in BATMAN BEGINS. It's just too bad that he didn't stay in a more high profile light, cranking out tons of badass genre films.
In this one he's re-teamed with Verhoeven in a great little Medieval picture you probably haven't seen. One thing that a lot of Hollywood pictures set in this time get wrong is they aren't dirty and grimy enough. This one drops you right in the middle of it and forces you to wallow around in it a bit. From what I understand there is quite a bit of accuracy in the film maker's attempt to bring the middle ages to us. Especially the hot tub scene.
The cast does a great job with Leigh particularly turning in one of her best performances. And the film is aptly named, too. There's plenty of nudity and violence, just like it was in 1501. It's true. I've seen paintings. Mmmmm. What I Haven't seen before in film is a rape scene like the one between Hauer and Leigh. I won't go into details but it's brutal but in a gentle, horrific, erotic way. You've got to see it to understand. On the flip side we get to see A LOT of Leigh unclothed. It's not all roses, though, 'cause we also get to see Bruno Kirby naked. Yes, that's right, Bruno Kirby. For anyone who's ever wondered, here's your chance.
"Jane, you ignorant slut!"
I do have to gripe about something and that's the character of Steven (Tom Burlinson). At first I was excited to see someone with a scientific and skeptic mind, at least having someone of reason in a time filled with the uneducated and religious nut jobs. But then the film jumps the shark and Steven, in the course of a few hours, designs and builds a giant wooden wheeled device that will allow his men to storm the castle without being harmed. This thing is HUGE and is basically an armored fire truck with an extension ladder. I couldn't help but recall the scene from MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL (1975) where the knights build a Trojan Rabbit. It's about as silly. But that's not it. Later, he pulls THIS out of his ass...
That's right, a rocket! If it hadn't been for this childish bullshit I'd have given myself 100% to it. But,no, they have to ruin it with this kind of crap.
Basil Poledouris's (who did CONAN THE BARBARIAN a few years earlier) score is very good. Despite the small budget his music adds much to the film. At least it's an orchestral score. Many in the 80s had synthesizer scores; even some Sword & Sorcery flicks. Ugh. One of my favorite movies of this type, LADYHAWKE (1985), had some electronics in the score but that's another story...
"Bill Clinton: The Estrogen Years"
This film looks like a big Hollywood picture but with a European eye for pushing the envelope in its realism, brutality and sexuality. It's easy to see why Hollywood gave him his first blockbuster with his next picture, ROBOCOP, the first in a string of hits followed by TOTAL RECALL, BASIC INSTINCT, SHOWGIRLS (to a lesser extent) and STARSHIP TROOPERS. I liked his pictures up to BASIC INSTINCT. After that they just fell flat. But that's another story...
%2Baka%2BPrince%2Bof%2BJutland%2Bmovie%2Bposter.jpg)
%2Bmovie%2Bposter.jpg)
+movie+poster.jpg)
Posts
