Imagine Lord of the Rings mixed with a certain space opera sci-fi trilogy that I've no wish to namecheck, plonk both into a fairytale world with existing fairytale rules and you have Krull. That’s not just an easy way for me to save words – it’s exactly what the film is.
The locations are beautiful and the sets, although obviously on a sound stage, are inventive and exciting. The hero’s deadly starfish (okay, Glaive) features prominently on the cover but is hardly used. Nevertheless, it’s still one of the most memorable aspects of the whole affair.
The thing I’ll remember most fondly, however, is how supporting actor Bernard Bresslaw and the FX team managed to imbue the blinking of a single fake eye with so much nobility and pathos.
3 pocket rocks out of 5
In a Nutshell. Mini reviews of movies old and new. No fuss. No spoilers. And often no sleep.
Showing posts with label Francesca Annis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Francesca Annis. Show all posts
Friday, 26 June 2015
Sunday, 29 March 2015
Dune: Special TV Edition (1988)
A 176 min (PAL) version of Dune!? Holy Reverend Mother’s undies! It’s… it’s… Alan Smithee? It’s 4:3 Pan + Scan and it’s in mono. Bastards!
On the plus side there are alternate edits, angles and footage that was missing from the shorter 137 min theatrical cut. There’s an extended prologue providing a lot more back-story than before via V/O and a series of painted images filmed with a rostrum camera; I have mixed feelings about that part.
The inclusion of an original film poster reproduction is appealing, but hardly enough to entice all but the most obsessive Dune fan. If you identify with that classification then seek it out because the new scenes are fascinating. The 4:3 presentation, however, means it scores badly. If only it had been in 2.35:1.
2½ eyes turned to Arrakis out of 5
On the plus side there are alternate edits, angles and footage that was missing from the shorter 137 min theatrical cut. There’s an extended prologue providing a lot more back-story than before via V/O and a series of painted images filmed with a rostrum camera; I have mixed feelings about that part.
The inclusion of an original film poster reproduction is appealing, but hardly enough to entice all but the most obsessive Dune fan. If you identify with that classification then seek it out because the new scenes are fascinating. The 4:3 presentation, however, means it scores badly. If only it had been in 2.35:1.
2½ eyes turned to Arrakis out of 5
Sunday, 19 February 2012
Dune (1984)
Scratchy sand, suits with piss in the thighs, giant phallic worms, quasi-religious nonsense and a floating fat man. I love Dune.
It’s a mess that requires you to have a deep knowledge of the book that it’s based on to understand it. You’ll need to be able to fill in the blanks to have even a hope of defending it to the haters. There's some dodgy casting and some inspired casting, and the music is hero music at its finest. One thing is certain: the sets are some of the best you’ll find in an 80’s sci-fi film.
4 litanies against fear out of 5
It’s a mess that requires you to have a deep knowledge of the book that it’s based on to understand it. You’ll need to be able to fill in the blanks to have even a hope of defending it to the haters. There's some dodgy casting and some inspired casting, and the music is hero music at its finest. One thing is certain: the sets are some of the best you’ll find in an 80’s sci-fi film.
4 litanies against fear out of 5
Monday, 13 February 2012
Revolver (2005)
The Stath enters a game that's impossible to win in the traditional sense.
I watched Revolver at release and was expecting another Mockney Gangsta flick. What I got didn't fit the formula. I thought it sucked.
Now, being older and (slightly) wiser I can appreciate the film isn't the turd I initially thought. I didn't understand it before. Now I do. It’s both blatantly obvious and equally cryptic, to the detriment of the film form. If the numbers 3, 10 and 32 mean anything to you, you'll "get" the film.
NOTE: The R1 release is the "simplified" version. The R2 is the original version.
3 hey, it's that guy from Sopranos out of 5
I watched Revolver at release and was expecting another Mockney Gangsta flick. What I got didn't fit the formula. I thought it sucked.
Now, being older and (slightly) wiser I can appreciate the film isn't the turd I initially thought. I didn't understand it before. Now I do. It’s both blatantly obvious and equally cryptic, to the detriment of the film form. If the numbers 3, 10 and 32 mean anything to you, you'll "get" the film.
NOTE: The R1 release is the "simplified" version. The R2 is the original version.
3 hey, it's that guy from Sopranos out of 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



