Krull is Krapp

[Monterey Jack]

I'd rather watch Krull that ANY of the Lord of the Rings movies again.

Sic 'im, Donald.

[Monterey Jack]

Krull, a movie so bad, even 80's fetishist Seth MacFarlane has never shoehorned it into an episode of Family Guy.

[John Johnson]

I'd rather watch Krull that ANY of the Lord of the Rings movies again.

Sic 'im, Donald.

[Eric W.]

This thread is bringing out all the cliches.

[AndyDursin]

Krull, a movie so bad, even 80's fetishist Seth MacFarlane has never shoehorned it into an episode of Family Guy.

But that doesn't mean he thinks it's bad though. I mean, there is a cult following for KRULL...and believe it or not, not everyone thinks it's as bad as you do. I mean, cheesy, good '80s fun has an audience. Obviously not you however!!

[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.

Oh hell, see it one time! You have to! Your life isn't complete until you do.

I'll give it a shot! I'm not a James Horner fan, but this is one of only a few scores of his I have that I will listen to every now and again because it is epic and a fun listen.

Edit: I just saw all those pictures posted....this thread is hilarious!

[John Johnson]

Krull, a movie so bad, even 80's fetishist Seth MacFarlane has never shoehorned it into an episode of Family Guy.

But that doesn't mean he thinks it's bad though. I mean, there is a cult following for KRULL...and believe it or not, not everyone thinks it's as bad as you do. I mean, cheesy, good '80s fun has an audience. Obviously not you however!!

One of the problems for me, was watching Ken Marshall. I thought he was quite bad, not right for the part. Quite a contrast years later seeing him play a member of the Maquis in DS9. And why they dubbed Lysette Anthony's voice is beyond me.

[Paul MacLean]

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.

I don't even think they are "better cinema". They are definitely drawn from better narrative source material than Krull, but Krull's filmmakers did a far better job with that material than LOTR's filmmakers did with Tolkein's.

The analogy I make is that the LOTR movies are like filet mignon which has been very badly prepared. It may be taken from the choicest cut, but the finished meal is charred on the outside and raw on the inside. Krull is like a cheeseburger, but one prepared by a master chef, who draws on his culinary acumen to make it more than the sum of it's parts. It will never be more than a cheeseburger, but I'd rather eat that cheeseburger than the burned filet mignon.

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?).

Well no, because real oceans are so hard to find in New Zealand.

In any case, I look back at fantasy movies from the 80s -- like Krull, Clash of the Titans, The Dark Crystal, Legend, Ladyhawk, Highlander, et al, -- and they may have had serious narrative flaws, and had stilted or simplistic storylines, but they were FUN. They wore their flaws lightly. They were also beautifully shot and designed, and usually incredibly-well scored (well, except for Ladyhawk, but even that was still fun). Even Excalibur, which had a fairly dark tone, nevertheless exhibited a shimmering visual allure and and fantastical exuberance.

Fantasy films today are so serious and grim, because they all take a cues from LOTR and it's overly portentous tone and killjoy reverence. They're devoid of fun, they're devoid of beauty (LOTR has some of the most ugly photography in cinema history).

The only modern fantasy films I like are the Harry Potter movies, but I have to say even those have become more "LOTR" in style (the "Amblin"-esque style of the Columbus films giving way to more of that dreary, washed-out look).

[Eric W.]

I mean, cheesy, good '80s fun has an audience.

We're obviously working with some pretty broad and loose definitions of words around here.

[AndyDursin]

The analogy I make is that the LOTR movies are like filet mignon which has been very badly prepared. It may be taken from the choicest cut, but the finished meal is charred on the outside and raw on the inside. Krull is like a cheeseburger, but one prepared by a master chef, who draws on his culinary acumen to make it more than the sum of it's parts. It will never be more than a cheeseburger, but I'd rather eat that cheeseburger than the burned filet mignon.

That says it all for me as well Paul. I kind of tried to attempt that explanation with my ORDINARY PEOPLE comparison, but you summed it up brilliantly!

In any case, I look back at fantasy movies from the 80s -- like Krull, Clash of the Titans, The Dark Crystal, Legend, Ladyhawk, Highlander, et al, -- and they may have had serious narrative flaws, and had stilted or simplistic storylines, but they were FUN. They wore their flaws lightly. They were also beautifully shot and designed, and usually incredibly-well scored (well, except for Ladyhawk, but even that was still fun). Even Excalibur, which had a fairly dark tone, nevertheless exhibited a shimmering visual allure and and fantastical exuberance.

And that sense of cinematic JOY, as it were, is what's missing from the LOTR films. Again, I agree totally there.

[AndyDursin]

We're obviously working with some pretty broad and loose definitions of words around here.

Haha, I just don't understand why it's so crazy to figure that people do find KRULL entertaining. KRULL was intended to be a kids fantasy flick really. You have to look at it from that angle. IT'S NOT FREAKIN' SHAKESPEARE, IT'S KRULL DAMMIT. lol.

This review is similar to my own but sums up how I felt about the film --

There's something inescapably appealing about this camp 1983 Star Wars-meets-The Lord of the Rings knockoff that encourages the viewer to overlook its many silly shortcomings and simply enjoy the fun.

James Horner's rollicking music score certainly helps, as does the epic-scale CinemaScope photography of the breathtaking Italian landscapes. The costumes and extravagant production design are also great to look at, and much of Derek Meddings's visual effects work still looks striking. Freddie Jones stands head and shoulders above the rest of the cast as the wise Ynyr, while the two romantic leads, Ken Marshall as Prince Colwyn and Lysette Anthony (with an overdubbed American voice) as Princess Lyssa, are mere formalities on which to hang the plot. The all-British supporting cast includes Todd Carty, Bernard Bresslaw, Robbie Coltrane, Liam Neeson, and the gorgeous Francesca Annis.

If you feel the need for some escapist sword-and-sorcery fantasy, then Krull delivers in full measure.

AMEN!

http://www.flixster.com/movie/krull

[Paul MacLean]

10 Reasons why Krull is a better film than Lord of the Rings

http://www.sfdiplomat.net/sf_diplomat/2 ... rings.html

Sorry to come over all "io9" but after reading John's sniffy comments about Krull's effects over at SF Signal I felt compelled to respond by pointing out that Krull is, in fact, one of the greatest epic fantasy films ever made, coming as it did out of the same period of low-budget, down and dirty Sword and Sorcery cinema that gave us Hawk the Slayer, Conan the Barbarian and The Beastmaster.

By contrast, The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a product of sanitised Hollywood risk management. Its numerous faults are papered over by the obscene amounts of money Jackson spent on effects and it was unleashed upon a market-place that was if not well disposed to the books then had at least heard of them.

Krull is not based upon any existing IP and it has a tiny effects budget. In terms of being a praiseworthy piece of film-making it wipes the floor with Jackson's hideous melodrama.

So, 10 (more or less tongue-in-cheek) reasons why Krull is a better film than Lord of the Rings :

Krull does not have any hobbits in it - Hobbits are representative of the English petite bourgeoisie. In the real world they vote Tory, complain about gypsies and spend their time wearing brass-buttoned blasers and writing angry, ill-informed letters to the Times.

Krull has a better bad guy - The Beast is an inhuman cthuloid creature who hops between worlds in his Black Fortress. Sauron is a flaming vagina who overly invested in bling.

Krull has a better good guy - Aragorn is an emokid who lives in the wilderness until he is called upon to topple a legitimate government and serve as a Noriega-style puppet for Elven and Wizard interests in the Gondor area. I imagine him aged 50 with a paunch and mirrored sunglasses shaking President Reagan's hand before signing the death warrants of Mordor-friendly revolutionaries. By contrast Prince Colwyn has a beard, wears bollock-crushingly tight trousers, is quite camp and kills people with an awesome spinny thing.

Krull has Bernard Bresslaw in it - Bresslaw was a RADA scholar and was spotted by Lawrence Olivier but is best known for appearing in a large number of Carry-on films. The Lord of the Rings has the chick from the Aerosmith videos.

Krull was originally intended to be an official Dungeons and Dragons film - Watching The Lord of the Rings feels like sitting in on someone's interminable D&D Campaign. In fact, you could probably clean out the Temple of Elemental Evil in the time it takes to watch all of the Lord of the Rings films.

Krull's plot-hammer is a lot cooler - When Tolkien writes himself into a corner he has an undead army turn up and vanquish the forces of evil. In the film Jackson has this happen in about thirty seconds begging the question as to why Aragorn or his forefathers did not just call up the army and wipe Mordor off the map without the need for questing and heroic defences of castles. Krull, by contrast, has a bunch of Clydesdales who run so quickly that their hooves catch fire and they fly. The first resolves all plot problems with such force as to render all the sacrifice and suffering needless. The second gets the characters from one spot to another and leaves them to fight the final battle.

Krull's noble sacrifice is far more interesting - At the end of the film, Rell the Cyclops must return home in order to die peacefully. Failure to make his way home ensures that he will die in terrible pain but, after leaving for home, the Cyclops turns around and holds a door open just long enough for his friends to get into the Beast's castle even though he is squashed in the process. Gandalf falls off a bridge. Then he comes back. Thereby completely negating the sacrificial element. (See also Jean Grey, Aslan and Jesus as examples of fantasy characters who undermine their own sacrifices because the author doesn't have the wontons to bump off their favourite Mary Sue).

Krull's giant Spider has a reason for being there - Frodo and Sam are lured to Shelob's lair as a transparent set up for a set piece for two characters who essentially spend the last couple of films walking. Krull's giant spider is the sole guard of a prison where a powerful seer was sent for the crime of loving the doubt-ridden Ynyr. In order to discover the whereabouts of the Black Fortress, Ynyr (now an old man) has to sneak past the giant spider and confront his past and sacrifice his life in order to get the information out.

Krull has fresh ideas - While the book of The Lord of The Rings did a fantastic job of innovation and reimagination of old fantasy tropes, the film version is content with depicting overly familiar ideas. Krull, by contrast, moves beyond Tolkienian tropes and introduces a number of new ideas such as the world-hopping castle, the Cyclops as an individually doomed people, the Fire Mares and the glaive, a cinematic weapon as iconic as the disc in Tron.

Krull's heroes are social outcasts - The political aspects of The Lord of The Rings revolve around Gandalf effectively convincing the great and the good of Middle Earth to do their jobs. He's kind of a fantasy version of Winston Churchill. Colwyn's companions are an incompetent wizard, an eerie cyclops and a band of criminals and murderers. The Lord of the Rings involves people doing their job, Krull involves people sacrificing themselves for an idea and for friendship.

The moral of this story is that Big Budgets and Zeitgeist-dominating torrents of hype do not necessarily make for a great film. As we saw in my alternative Hugos list, sometimes the films that slip in and out of cinemas are more worthy of your attention. While a lot of these reasons are facetious, I would honestly rewatch Krull in a heartbeat whereas I can think of nothing worse than spending 12 hours sitting through the interminable melodrama of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films.

[Eric W.]

Wow, I really can't believe Krull has inspired all of this.


I'll grant this without much hesitation: Krull has a lot more warmth and HEART to it than LOTR Trilogy or any number of other fairly recent Hollywood fare.

[John Johnson]

10 Reasons why Krull is a better film than Lord of the Rings

http://www.sfdiplomat.net/sf_diplomat/2 ... rings.html

[/b]

I'm sure if this was posted over at FSM, the LOTR fanboys would see it as a call to arms. LOL

[Eric W.]

I'm sure if this was posted over at FSM, the LOTR fanboys would see it as a call to arms. LOL

In a big, ugly way.