Reviews by:
@the_owlseyes
RATE THIS MOVIE
6
5
4
3
“Oh how wrong we were to think immortality meant never dying”
Gerard Way
PLOT
"An immortal Scottish swordsman must confront the last of his immortal opponent, a murderously brutal barbarian who lusts for the fabled Prize" or "A random guy becomes a god without reason".
SCRIPT
The concept is amazing and interesting but the main characters are a bit of a blur. The protagonist is a hero without a reason and his powers are random, as well as the villain. I like the themes which are death, life, immortality, love and good and evil but most of them are a bit generic. Immortality is analyzed well but it could've been done better. The love interest is a bit boring and it's just a damsel in distress who tries to be a strong woman. Ramirez is the best character and the one who gets less screentime. I think that this movie could've worked better with an higher budget.
Script: 5/10
ACTING
Christopher Lambert isn't a good actor, I think. He's flat and unexpressive. His laughteris weird and off putting. Most of the actors here overact, like him and Clancy Brown, or underact, like Roxanne Hart. The only one who keeps the boat afloat is Sean Connery, who deliver a compelling performance with his iconic manners and accent. After all is a Cannon movie, I can't expect a lot from it.
Acting: 5/10
PHOTOGRAPHY
Nothing interesting about it. The light is flat most of the time and, when it's dimmer, it's a bit hard to understand what's happening in the scene. There're good shots of Scotland but the city isn't shot in a compelling way. Colours don't have a role in the movie, even though some costumes stand out more than others. But it isn't about costumes, it's about photography and here is a bit mediocre. It's an old movie but it does its job, as long as you are not picky. Unfortunately I am.
Photography: 6/10
EDITING
It's a mixed bag because there're interesting transitions and good shots but sometimes it goes overboard and degenerates into sudden cuts and bad looking shots. It's basic editing because there isn't anything particularly interesting about that. Overall it works but if you have high standards you're going to be disappointed.
Editing: 5/10
SPECIAL EFFECTS
Not good. It's the 80's but they look cheap as hell and a bit bothering sometimes. I can say the same about the make-up, which is even cheaper. Sure, the budget is low, but the money haven't been managed well by the production. Which is kinda sad because it's a good concept.
Special Effects: 5/10
SOUNDTRACK
A blend of Queen's songs and 80's style background sounds. It isn't a strenght of this movie but it does its job. I think that sometimes the music is a bit out of context and that hurts the experience a bit. There isn't much to say about it because it isn't a memorable soundtrack, even though Queen's music, which is the stick and the carrot here, is appreciable.
Soundtrack: 6/10
COSTUMES
The scenes which are set in the past are characterized by good and coherent costumes. I want to give credit to the production for the care involved in crafting Kurgan's armour and clothes and Ramirez suit, which is slick and helps Connery in creating an iconic character. 80's clothes are nothing exceptional but they works.
Costumes: 7/10
CONCLUSION
Script: 5/10
Acting: 5/10
Photography: 6/10
Editing: 5/10
Special Effects: 5/10
Soundtrack: 6/10
Costumes: 7/10
AVERAGE: 5,57
An enjoyable but heavily flawed movie, characterized by good costumes, an original soundtrack, an half-baked script and a kinda bad acting. Just watch it because it's an iconic movie with a good concept.
Director: Russell Mulcahy
Screenplay: Gregory Widen, Peter Bellwood
Cast: Christopher Lambert, Roxanne Hart, Clancy Brown, Sean Connery
Soundtrack: Michael Kamen
Cinematography: Gerry Fisher, Tony Mitchell
Running Time: 111 minutes
Budget: $19 million
RATE THIS REVIEW
6
5
4
3
Comments