Krull is Krapp

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9714
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Krull is Krapp

#1 Post by Monterey Jack »

Finally watched this movie for the first time tonight and Jesus, is it bad. :lol: How James Horner wrote such an exciting score for this pile of sci-fi/fantasy/swashbuckler cliches I'll never know.

John Johnson
Posts: 6087
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm

Re: Krull is Krapp

#2 Post by John Johnson »

Monterey Jack wrote:Finally watched this movie for the first time tonight and Jesus, is it bad. :lol: How James Horner wrote such an exciting score for this pile of sci-fi/fantasy/swashbuckler cliches I'll never know.
I believe one of the original titles was The Dragons of Krull. But after after the poor peformanace of Dragonslayer, that title was dropped. Yes, i agree, the film is quite shoddy. Nice to see some familiar British faces in the film, with early performances from Liam Neeeson and Robbie Coltrane.
London. Greatest City in the world.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34190
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Krull is Krapp

#3 Post by AndyDursin »

I like the film plenty actually. It's a rip-roaring old fashioned fantasy and it's not any sort of classic, but for what it wanted to do, I found (and still find) it quite entertaining.

The story is all cliches -- though so is STAR WARS (and most any other film of its kind) if you want to go there. The performances range from bad to stilted to competent, but you have to remember it was a first class studio production for its time -- it's not a total piece of crap like a Corman movie so in terms of its physical appearance there are a lot of neat things going on. From Peter EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Suschitzky's elegant scope cinematography to Horner's score, the movie has the look of quality and for me there's plenty to like. I've always admired the romantic sweep the film has -- mostly thanks to Horner's score (no thanks to Ken Marshall and Lysette Anthony whose voice was dubbed, lol).

It certainly isn't a great picture, but for me it functions as a very entertaining Saturday Matinee film...I mean, it's certainly no worse than most of Ray Harryhausen's fantasies (and is better than several of them IMO). So is it juvenile and silly and in line with most of its genre? Yeah, but that's the kind of film it was intended to be. If you don't like that sort of thing in the first place, you'll hate it.

For me, I'll take it any day over the likes of TRANSFORMERS. In fact, outside of some of its F/X (some of which have, obviously, dated), I think it's aged well compared to most of the actual crap we see being made today.

John Johnson
Posts: 6087
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm

Re: Krull is Krapp

#4 Post by John Johnson »

AndyDursin wrote: For me, I'll take it any day over the likes of TRANSFORMERS. In fact, outside of some of its F/X (some of which have, obviously, dated), I think it's aged well compared to most of the actual crap we see being made today.
FX work by Derek Meddings. He was very much old school.
London. Greatest City in the world.

Eric W.
Posts: 7570
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: Krull is Krapp

#5 Post by Eric W. »

It's got some charm and you could see the potential but yes, it's crap. It's just "good crap" vs. "bad crap" I guess. :lol:

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: Krull is Krapp

#6 Post by Paul MacLean »

I'd rather watch Krull that ANY of the Lord of the Rings movies again. At least Krull has a sense of humor. The LOTR films are so heavy and serious, and devoid of any sense of fun.

Krull's storyline is thin, and it is a flawed film with a lot of embarrassing moments (mixing spaceships and rayguns with Medieval swordplay was a mistake!), but at least it is entertaining. I also like how Colwyn goes from a brash, arrogant youth (who comes unglued after the fist battle) but pulls himself together to become worthy of his crown by the film's end. Krull also boasts some superb performances from great Shakespearian actors like Freddie Jones and Alun Armstrong, and (as John pointed out) a couple of young unknowns named Robbie Coltrane and Liam Neeson.

John also points to Derek Meddings' effects work, which I agree is excellent even by today's standards (and the miniatures in Krull look more convincing than any of the XBox-style effects that permeate LOTR), and of course James Horner's score is one of THE great sword and sorcery scores of all time.
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Eric W.
Posts: 7570
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: Krull is Krapp

#7 Post by Eric W. »

Paul MacLean wrote:I'd rather watch Krull that ANY of the Lord of the Rings movies again. At least Krull has a sense of humor. The LOTR films are so heavy and serious, and devoid of any sense of fun.
I'm not one of these LOTR film worshippers but I'll have to disagree with you on that.


Krull's storyline is thin, and it is a flawed film with a lot of embarrassing moments (mixing spaceships and rayguns with Medieval swordplay was a mistake!), but at least it is entertaining.
The LOTR films aren't entertaining to you?

I also like how Colwyn goes from a brash, arrogant youth (who comes unglued after the fist battle) but pulls himself together to become worthy of his crown by the film's end. Krull also boasts some superb performances, mainly from great Shakespearian actors like Freddie Jones and Alun Armstrong, as well as a couple of young unknowns named Robbie Coltrane and Liam Neeson.
Ok, I can go with that at least.



John rightly points out Derek Meddings' effects work, which is excellent even by today's standards (and the miniatures in Krull look more convincing than any of the XBox-style effects that permeate LOTR), and of course James Horner's score is one of THE great sword and sorcery scores of all time.
You'll get no argument from me about the overuse of CGI in most of today's films and clearly Horner's score wipes the floor with all kinds of film music from the last 15-20 years if I get down to it.

But after that I have to part ways with you and Andy on this thing. ;)


I think some of you all really are seeing more into this movie then what's actually there but more power to you in any event. :)

Might even be some nostalgic rosey colored glasses going on here, too. I invite you folks to fire Krull up again sometime in the near future and let's revisit this after that. ;)


Is it all bad? No. Is it MST3K fodder? To me, yes. Is there a lot worse crap that Hollywood has put out since Krull? Yes.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: Krull is Krapp

#8 Post by Paul MacLean »

:mrgreen:
Eric W. wrote:The LOTR films aren't entertaining to you?
Not at all. I find them tedious, and at times an ordeal to sit through. Part of my problem comes from being familiar with the mythological traditions that inform Tolkien's work, and what gets under my skin is that the films are clearly the work of a filmmaker whose understanding of mythology and epic sagas seems to mostly stem from playing D&D.

I loved the books, but Peter Jackson got the tone of the story all wrong. He treated it like a horror movie -- it's all about monsters and creepy things in the shadows. The books have many episodes which are very much like fairy tales (like Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, who are missing from the films, and the elves, who are luminous and jovial in the books -- not the grim, dispassionate Romulans we see in the movies).

The films have an excessively dark, dense, unpleasant atmosphere. Jackson even made some of the protagonists into monsters (i.e. Bilbo and Galadriel's brief transformations). I don't overall like the visual style of the films (the sets, costumes, locations, etc.) and dislike Howard Shore's scores.

Those films also have some unintentionally funny scenes -- Gandalf spinning around like a top, Denethor's Immolation and that scene where the palantir gets stuck in Aragorn's hands and he's trying to shake it off! :mrgreen:

But finally, I just never felt any excitement or involvement at all watching these movies. I just didn't care about the characters (and, as I said, I loved the books).

Might even be some nostalgic rosey colored glasses going on here, too. I invite you folks to fire Krull up again sometime in the near future and let's revisit this after that. ;)
I have the DVD and watched it a year or so ago. It still thought it was fun. But every time I try to watch LORT again, I turn it off, it's just so tedious and dreary.

John Johnson
Posts: 6087
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm

Re: Krull is Krapp

#9 Post by John Johnson »

Paul MacLean wrote:I'd rather watch Krull that ANY of the Lord of the Rings movies again. At least Krull has a sense of humor. The LOTR films are so heavy and serious, and devoid of any sense of fun.

Krull's storyline is thin, and it is a flawed film with a lot of embarrassing moments (mixing spaceships and rayguns with Medieval swordplay was a mistake!), but at least it is entertaining. I also like how Colwyn goes from a brash, arrogant youth (who comes unglued after the fist battle) but pulls himself together to become worthy of his crown by the film's end. Krull also boasts some superb performances from great Shakespearian actors like Freddie Jones and Alun Armstrong, and (as John pointed out) a couple of young unknowns named Robbie Coltrane and Liam Neeson.

John also points to Derek Meddings' effects work, which I agree is excellent even by today's standards (and the miniatures in Krull look more convincing than any of the XBox-style effects that permeate LOTR), and of course James Horner's score is one of THE great sword and sorcery scores of all time.
Paul,
I was quite surprised by Bernard Bresslaw. After years of playing playing second fiddle to Sid James in the Carry On films, it was refreshing to see him play something else. Mind you, most people forget he was also Varga, the lead villain in the 1968 Doctor Who story The Ice Warriors. At 6' 7 he towered over all the extras in that story.
London. Greatest City in the world.

Eric W.
Posts: 7570
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: Krull is Krapp

#10 Post by Eric W. »

Paul MacLean wrote::mrgreen:
Eric W. wrote:The LOTR films aren't entertaining to you?
Not at all. I find them tedious, and at times an ordeal to sit through. Part of my problem comes from being familiar with the mythological traditions that inform Tolkien's work, and what gets under my skin is that the films are clearly the work of a filmmaker whose understanding of mythology and epic sagas seems to mostly stem from playing D&D.

I loved the books, but Peter Jackson got the tone of the story all wrong. He treated it like a horror movie -- it's all about monsters and creepy things in the shadows. The books have many episodes which are very much like fairy tales (like Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, who are missing from the films, and the elves, who are luminous and jovial in the books -- not the grim, dispassionate Romulans we see in the movies).

The films have an excessively dark, dense, unpleasant atmosphere. Jackson even made some of the protagonists into monsters (i.e. Bilbo and Galadriel's brief transformations). I don't overall like the visual style of the films (the sets, costumes, locations, etc.) and dislike Howard Shore's scores.

Those films also have some unintentionally funny scenes -- Gandalf spinning around like a top, Denethor's Immolation and that scene where the palantir gets stuck in Aragorn's hands and he's trying to shake it off! :mrgreen:

But finally, I just never felt any excitement or involvement at all watching these movies. I just didn't care about the characters (and, as I said, I loved the books).

Might even be some nostalgic rosey colored glasses going on here, too. I invite you folks to fire Krull up again sometime in the near future and let's revisit this after that. ;)
I have the DVD and watched it a year or so ago. It still thought it was fun. But every time I try to watch LORT again, I turn it off, it's just so tedious and dreary.
I'll let you in on a little secret: I watched the EE DVDs exactly one time and I'll probably buy the EEs on BD some day but they're not a high priority for me at all. ;)

The books are all time masterpieces. Jackson's overly dark and horror movie tone was completely wrong. Not a lot of rewatch value for me and even less value on the music which I'm sorry I bothered buying.

But that's for another thread. ;)

mkaroly
Posts: 6214
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Krull is Krapp

#11 Post by mkaroly »

I have never seen KRULL because I heard it was crap...lol...this thread kind of confirms that for me, but maybe one day I'll rent it and try to watch it.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34190
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Krull is Krapp

#12 Post by AndyDursin »

Well Michael, IMO it's not crap, but it's all personal taste. :)

I have to say I'm definitely not watching KRULL through rose colored glasses. I never even saw the film in 1983 and I think the first time I really sat through it was when the laserdisc came out when I was in college. I stayed away from it for years because it had a rep of being awful, not to mention a box-office flop.

But, as I wrote in my DVD review in 2001 (can't believe it was that long ago), the movie is what it is -- "rip-roaring, check-your-brain-and-enjoy-the-pretty-pictures kind of escapist fare". I don't think I'm reading "more into it" than that, am I? ;)
Is it corny? Yep. Is it romantic? Affirmative. Does it have a great score? Sure does. Is it well cast or performed? Not really, but that's what separates it from classic fantasies. Is it derivative? Absolutely!

And you know what, I could care less. I can watch the film for the score alone. It has value, to me, for that reason. Doesn't make it a great movie, but I'm not pretending it is -- it's a kids movie that was old-fashioned even when it came out in 1983, that has some terrific elements in it that I love. No more or no less.

The LORD OF THE RINGS movies may be "better cinema" but I never want to see those films again. I can see myself watching KRULL again because there are aspects of it I love -- mostly, Horner's music -- more than anything in the LOTR films.

As far as the LOTR movies goes, we've had this discussion. I respect them, I found them each individually entertaining when I first saw them, but I also find them tedious. And repetitive, almost to the nth degree. Walk over a cliff, find a monster, have Elijah Wood pine about "Sam" and Sean Astin gaze into his eyes and say "Mr. Frodo," walk over a mountain, find a monster -- rinse, repeat. For over NINE HOURS. Then there are all these detours that add nothing but running time, like Liv Tyler's role being pumped up (with no real payoff) simply because there weren't any other women in the story.

I do find Shore's music overrated. If you do a clinical dissection of it like Doug Adams just did, sure -- academically it has all these different motifs and I am sure from a musical or compositional standpoint it is interesting to look at. Yet, from a listening standpoint, an emotional reaction one picks up from hearing the music, I don't find Shore's music compelling or lyrical and I never have. I think I own hundreds, if not a thousand or more soundtracks, and I have a grand total of 0 scores by Howard Shore. What can I say, I don't care for his music. And that's just my opinion -- hell, I'm happy for the people who get enjoyment out of his music, but I haven't.

I do think the films are bloated (a problem with Jackson's films, especially the endless KING KONG), the last movie laughably never finding an ending and dragging on for 30 minutes before it did; I think some of the effects are brilliant, but I find elements of them unintentionally funny as Paul does, like the guy who runs off the edge of the castle (on fire!) in the third film (and they couldn't even find a real OCEAN to shoot at the end?).

But it all goes down to what you want to watch. I'd rather watch STARCRASH than THE ENGLISH PATIENT, I'd gladly watch JAWS 3-D again over ORDINARY PEOPLE. People want to see what they want, and it's not always "the best movie" -- but that's what makes the world go 'round. There are plenty of so called "bad movies" that have more value to me than, say, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, lol. :D

Eric W.
Posts: 7570
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: Krull is Krapp

#13 Post by Eric W. »

mkaroly wrote:I have never seen KRULL because I heard it was crap...lol...this thread kind of confirms that for me, but maybe one day I'll rent it and try to watch it.
Oh hell, see it one time! You have to! Your life isn't complete until you do. :lol:


I haven't seen the thing in several years. Shoot, reading this thread almost fools me into wanting to watch it again. ;)

Here's what I'll do: If they ever bring it out on BD it'll probably be cheap. I'll buy it especially if it comes with some cool making of features.

Just as a salute to you guys. :)

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34190
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Krull is Krapp

#14 Post by AndyDursin »

Here's what I'll do: If they ever bring it out on BD it'll probably be cheap. I'll buy it especially if it comes with some cool making of features.
The DVD was loaded with extras -- from my 2001 review:

"An audio commentary with director Peter Yates, editor Ray Lovejoy, and stars Marshall and Anthony (who is quite vocal about her vocals being dubbed by American Lindsay Crouse!), sheds light on all aspects of the film's production, but perhaps just as enlightening is another audio track, which features the reading of an entire Cinefantastique article on the making of the film! At just under an hour, this is a terrific, surprise bonus on-hand here. Even more surprising, though, is the inclusion of the Marvel Comics adaptation of the movie -- a 38-minute, filmed video of the comic book, featuring music and dialogue! Throw in the original featurette (narrated by none other than Tom Bosley himself), theatrical trailer (underscored with John Barry compositions), four photo galleries, and full production notes, and you have one of the best supplements of the year so far."

Eric W.
Posts: 7570
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: Krull is Krapp

#15 Post by Eric W. »

AndyDursin wrote:
Here's what I'll do: If they ever bring it out on BD it'll probably be cheap. I'll buy it especially if it comes with some cool making of features.
The DVD was loaded with extras -- from my 2001 review:

"An audio commentary with director Peter Yates, editor Ray Lovejoy, and stars Marshall and Anthony (who is quite vocal about her vocals being dubbed by American Lindsay Crouse!), sheds light on all aspects of the film's production, but perhaps just as enlightening is another audio track, which features the reading of an entire Cinefantastique article on the making of the film! At just under an hour, this is a terrific, surprise bonus on-hand here. Even more surprising, though, is the inclusion of the Marvel Comics adaptation of the movie -- a 38-minute, filmed video of the comic book, featuring music and dialogue! Throw in the original featurette (narrated by none other than Tom Bosley himself), theatrical trailer (underscored with John Barry compositions), four photo galleries, and full production notes, and you have one of the best supplements of the year so far."
^^ That's worthwhile. :)

Nexrt time I make a clean up run at Amazon maybe I'll go for it or wait for Blu. :)

Post Reply