AndyDursin wrote:Very few reviews available for this Ridley Scott-produced pet project, which opens wide from Fox on Friday.
I can't assume that's a good sign (or the mere fact that it's being released on January 13th), though the story line is intriguing and Kevin Reynolds -- for all his faults -- usually makes an interesting, watchable film, even if it's bad (though I quite enjoyed THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO).
When I was in LA last February, I met-up with someone who works with Ridley Scott, and I asked him what was happening with Tristan and Isolde.
He told me it was a production fraught with problems, "like all Kevin Reynolds films" he added. At that point Reynolds was fightig the studio over the final cut; the studio wanted to release it at around 90 minutes. That's not a good sign either!
I've been interested in this production for a long time, being a huge fan of the King Arthur legends (Tristan & Isolde is actually a chapter in Mallory's "Le Morte D'Arthur", tho the film's publicity refrains from mentioning its Arthurian origin...as does the film itself I suspect).
Ridley Scott was going to make this film himself back in the 70s, as a follow-up to The Duelists. His take on the material was *wacky* tho, incorporating sci-fi elements. I've seen preproduction sketches made for the film before it was abandoned, which looked like something out of Heavy Metal.
Scott abandoned the film after seeing Star Wars, sobered by the reality that audiences would probably not go for the abstract "art" film he envisioned. Then of course he was asked to direct Alien...
With fantasy films now gaining repsectability, I really hope Scott turns his hand to the genre again. Clearly the Legend experience burned him -- note how he turned to "reality"-based films in its wake (Someone to Watch Over Me, Black Rain, Thelma & Louise) but Legend is not nearly as bad a film as critics labeled it (especially with Goldsmith's score restored).
I'd love to see Scott tackle a traditional medieval fantasy again.
Paul