MovieChat Forums > Krull (1983) Discussion > Krull is fine. It's the fantasy genre th...

Krull is fine. It's the fantasy genre that is ridiculous.

posted 8 years ago by gss2
14 replies | jump to latest

This film gets a lot of things right about fantasy films. The acting is very good. The special effects are respectable for the time (Star Wars was game-changing state of the art). The creatures are interesting. The villain is formidable, and he has some very interesting abilities. The set and costume design are mostly good. There are some genuinely scary scenes in this film.

People generalły complain about the flying horses, the love subplot, the flying weapon and so-on. You can change the flying horses to giant dragons with wings, change the love subplot to a royal prophecy, and change the glaive into a magic sword. Change the Alien King into a demonic spirit. Once you do so, then you essentially have Lord of the Rings which is the prototype of all modern fantasy novels and films. The beast really isn't anymore ridiculous than Sauron and the Witch King in either theory or appearance. The flying horses aren't anymore ridiculous than flying dragons or even 20m elephants. I would add that the alien army of Krull is somewhat less ridiculous than the ghost army of Return of the King. Aliens almost certainly exist somewhere. Ghosts almost certainly do not.

Sorry, but the acting in the LOTR trilogy was no better than that in Krull. Several actors in the latter film would go on to do much better things.

Worse, I believe that the artwork of Peter Jackson's movies borrows liberally from this movie. Orthanc, Baradur, Minas Morgul, and many other sites generalły resemble the interior of the black fortress. The appearance of Sauron and the Nazgul armor generalły resembles that of the beast's soldiers. Being a b-movie maker, Jackson almost had to have seen this film when he was young. I don't doubt that he was strongly influenced by the artistry of Krull. Considering this, one could hardly hold it against Krull for borrowing from Tolkein's books.

Just about anything that you could say about this movie, you could also say about Lord of the Rings in some way. You could also say it about Dragonslayer, Reign of Fire, all versions of Conan the Barbarian, the Hobbit and LOTR, MCU's Thor films, Masters of the Universe, The 300 series, etc. You might even make similar complaints about John Boorman's Arthurian epic Excalibur, which I and many paid critics see as a classic. None of those films are any more plausible than Krull.

There never were any fire-breathing dragons. There never was magic. Prophecies are just words no more potent than what you read here. Goblins and Trolls never existed. To say that one is any less ridiculous than the other is inherently illogical. You either like fantasy material or you don't. It is all inherently ridiculous. They all suck to some extent. You just embrace that ridiculousness and run with it. Krull is fine. The people who don't like it don't like the genre.

[–] Fluke_Skywalker 8 years ago

First of all, thank you for the thoughtful and intelligent post.

I think what ultimately separates something like Krull from LOTR is that the former is a pastiche of the latter (and others). LOTR was based on a lifetime of tireless research by Tolkien, whereas Krull was most likely inspired by the success of Star Wars, Dungeons and Dragons and the resurgent popularity of LOTR during the 70s. It's completely cribbed.

That said, had LOTR been adapted during the early 80s, it likely would've looked and felt very much like Krull. The production values are very good, the cinematography, score and costumes all first rate. And though its lead is stiff as a corpse, the rest of the cast is made up of very solid actors who help to lift the material.

----
A journey into the realm of the obscure: http://saturdayshowcase.blogspot.com/

[–] gss2 8 years ago

Thanks for the reply.

I agree that LOTR might have had a Krull-like feel to it if it had been made at the same time. Just the same, I got tired of hearing this movie being bashed for ridiculous and illogical reasons.

I personally rate it a 6/10. It's not perfect by any means, but it is a competent fantasy film for its day. It's fairly imaginative and many scenes are scary. The horror elements add a lot to the story, and they are often overlooked by people who focus on the SciFi and fantasy elements. Once again, the acting is generally good overall, the set designs are nice, and the villain is well conceived and menacing. Many films can't even manage all those things.

Yes, it borrows from LOTR and elsewhere, but Tolkein also borrowed from many older literary and mythological sources. I grew up on the older Arthurian tales but never read Tolkein until adulthood. You can't tell a person like me that Gandolf isn't Merlin or that Aragorn's sword isn't Excalibur. Sure, the characters' other traits may have been borrowed from sources elsewhere, but they nonetheless remain borrowed. Therefore I don't stand in awe of LOTR like some others do. It's a fun book series, but not life changing.

I thought that Krull was fun too, and that's why I defended it.

[–] Fluke_Skywalker 8 years ago

Oh yeah, I've visited this board enough over the years that I've read my fair share of anti-Krull replies--which is certainly fine, as opinions are opinions--but sometimes I do find those reasons a bit head scratching.

For me Krull operates on two levels. On one level it's nostalgia. It's a childhood favorite that works as comfort food and a touchstone to memories of being a kid. But revisiting it as an adult I came to actually enjoy and appreciate it on merit.

I think you and I are closer on this than we are apart.

----
A journey into the realm of the obscure: http://saturdayshowcase.blogspot.com/

[–] gss2 8 years ago

I agree. I think people take fantasy films too seriously, and thus they miss the point.

[–] Fluke_Skywalker 8 years ago

Well, fan is short for fanatic .

----
A journey into the realm of the obscure: http://saturdayshowcase.blogspot.com/

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

Bravo and huzzah! Fantasy, my favorite genre, is NOT ABOUT REALITY. Fantasy is about the world AS IT SHOULD BE!

One of my most beloved anecdotes is about the time Pope Pius XII visited Disneyland. Walt Disney showed him around the theme park. At the end of their tour, the Pope thanked Disney and said, "Thank you so much. This is a wonderful fantasy." Disney actually became agitated. He said, "This is not a fantasy." He pointed to the city outside Disneyland's gates, and said, "That, out there, is a dirty lie!"

A dream is a wish your heart makes.

[–] MAGolding (1098) 5 years ago

Gandalf in The Hobbit might have been inspired more or less by Merlin, but when Tolkien wrote LOTR he put LOTR in the fictional universe of The Silmarilllion and other works about the First Age of Middle-earth. You might be interested in what I wrote about the wizards in LOTR in my posts in this thread:

https://moviechat.org/tt0167261/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Two-Towers/58c7f02e2214d80b5cea9e1b/How-much-did-Gandalf-level-up?reply=5c3a6fd37127a7299b6f2f20

My posts show that Gandalf and the other wizards in LOTR are not mortal men who study magic, but members of a totally different species higher even than Elves, and disguised as humans.

Excalibur is not the first magic sword in ancient and medieval literature, and Aragon's sword was not the first special and perhaps magical sword that Tolkien wrote about.

[–] geoffreygould 8 years ago

Krull is one one my favorite films! Such a great movie! The music is amazing! A lot of really good actors!

[–] gss2 8 years ago

Yes. Robbie Coltrane and Alun Armstrong are wonderful and successful actors. Liam Neeson went in to be an a-lister. There was some real talent acting here in this film.

[–] Thomas-FordJr-1 8 years ago

I like Krull, it's one of my childhood favorites. But come on man, it's corny as hell, even for a Sci-Fi/Fantasy film. But I think that's what gives it, it's charm.

I mean look at what we are treated to:

Aliens, who have mastered space travel, and the art of teleporting large objects, but choose to ride on horses(wtf), and have these laser sticks that shoot once, and they choose to sword fight with what should be a far inferior foe???

You have some HUGE ugly alien leader, who wants some human chick to be his bride??? The 'love fire', need I say more.

I will watch Krull any time it's on, but it is what it is, a good/corny 80's movie.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

You left out the adjective “sweet.” Krull’s most redeeming, and its most endearing, feature is that it’s sweet. Ridley Scott’s Legend, which is thematically very similar to Krull (in story meetings for Legend, one of the producers told screenwriter William Jortsberg, “The Devil is NOT going to fuck the Princess!”), is not sweet in the least. Legend is a fantasy story. Krull is a fairy tale.

[–] Joogle83 (4148) 5 years ago

agreed its 80s fun i watched my digital copy awhile back Though Liams death is similar the one in Star Wars:The Phantom Menace which is ok

[–] SeussMyTub (226) 5 years ago

LOL Krull has got good acting? Are you kidding me? The chick's voice was dubbed, Ken Marshall is a loser, and not even Liam Neeson could have saved this turd of a movie!

[–] johnmiller (3406) 4 years ago

Why fantasy "doesn't work" for me, for the most part, is that it is about things that can't happen. That's why it's fantasy. So, there is a heavier burden for you to suspend your disbelief. "Lord of the Rings" worked for one reason: The characters. Even with the original "Star Wars," when we had just seen it on opening day, we all asked each other, "Who was your favorite character?"

Characters are key. If you don't buy the characters, you won't buy anything else.