MovieChat Forums > The Sword and the Sorcerer (1982) Discussion > Why the low rating?

Why the low rating?

posted 16 years ago by big_kmc
15 replies | jump to latest

I found this movie so enjoyable and I noticed that this and many other awesome eighties movies are ranked so low like Valley Girl, Secret Admirer, Weird Science,Summer Lovers etc. I don't get it. I rarely enjoy films now like I did then. Movies today rely too much on special effects and gore. Like the last King of Scotland was good but way too graphic. I think it's why all my favorite movies in the last 18 years are foreign films like Talk to Her, Uspizin, Like Water For Chocolate, etc.

[–] MrArioch 16 years ago

Movies that are so obviously from the 80s typically won't appeal to today's kids. I guess you really had to "be there" to appreciate movies you saw when you were younger.

I haven't seen this movie in years, but it's stuck with me since the first time I saw it, 25 years ago. Talon as the dashing hero with his 3-bladed sword, rescuing the beautiful princess ... ahh, the memories...

[–] patbuddha 16 years ago

You might be looking at the past with rose colored glasses. There were a bunch of movies from the late 70s through the 80s that were incredibly gory:
Taxi Driver
Dawn of the Dead
Day of the Dead
Return of the Living Dead
The Thing
Scanners
The Fly
Friday the 13th series(especially the 4th one)
Excalibur
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

[–] jnathan 14 years ago

The 70's were certainly the bloodiest decade in cinematic history. But your typical 80's movies weren't known so much for their gore, except maybe a few early on before things were toned down somewhat.

My vote history: http://us.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=9354248

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jetgraphics 14 years ago

When I first saw this movie, in the 1980s, I was disappointed. I was lured by the trailers, but found that the trailer was more exciting than the movie - in fact - the trailer had every decent scene in the movie.
The rest was dreck. Or at least it seemed so at the time. Perhaps when compared to other cinema greats like "Battlefield Earth" it may rise in the ratings.

[–] jetgraphics 14 years ago

On second thought, after watching it again, it's more wooden than the Trojan Horse, with lousy fight scenes (did they take the wrong pills?), and leaden dialogue with pitiful direction.

All the bosoms bared did distract but for a moment, and that was fleeting.

But I can't equate it to the ultimate of bad movies - Battlefield Earth. That still wins the lowest possible rating.

[–] jetgraphics 8 years ago

After another viewing, I now nominate the music for "worst possible score."
. . .
The low budget scenes of post battle mayhem we shall forgive.
But the overall direction was not good. Movies are a collection of cliches that the audience has been trained to respond to.
Favorite cliches - "Cavalry comes to the rescue"
- In "Ivanhoe" when you see King Richard and his knights, you know that help is near. But the combat to the death still goes on.

In Talon's case, the cliche fell flat. Or was it a self-rescue? Couldn't quite tell.

"Arthropodocracy - not voting for the lesser of two weevils... stomping the two weevils!"

[–] BHt88 8 years ago

its lukewarm it could've been better
needed more energy/chemistry/a better story/better love story between
Alana and talon/be a bit less cheesy/be a bit darker /less "silly" action
/better music/more cinemacy/better acting and/or actors etc

its difficult to rate but around a 2-5 ish its sorta a tweener/seesaw
it needs a HD or blu ray release to take a closer look

Id list it around 3.8-4.5 ish 4 for now until I see a HD version of it
I can't say exactly

BHT RISES myspace.com/blackheart60

[–] Mathias001 7 years ago

I grew up on movies like this one. Saw it at the drive in (I miss those) and it was utter cheese but fun to watch. I only wished Kathleen Beller was lying on her back instead of her stomach in that scene...

---------------------
Long live the 70s!

[–] SandyR (7330) 2 years ago

This movie got bashed when it was new. Critics and uptight viewers don't understand the appeal of a movie like this.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2120) 2 years ago

This movie is a masterpiece. I actually still have the toys that went along with the movie. they were cheap, but it's cool to have them regardless. I did read the book at one point... it was terrible. This movie actually made more than Conan The Barbarian. There were plans for a sequel, but that never truly materialized. There was a side story released about a decade ago, but it was dire.

[–] SandyR (7330) 2 years ago

That is all great information. I didn't know they had toys for this movie!

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2120) 2 years ago

Yes, they did release toys for this film. They are BEYOND cheap. As I said in my previous post, I actually still have the toys. The first time that I saw this movie was when I was around 6. It was on HBO, and I watched it with my parents. The next day (it seemed) as if all of my friends watched it too. I had an assortment of toy weapons that my father had made for me in his work shop. I had wooden swords, knives, axes, and my father even fashioned shields out of old hubcaps that he had lying around. It made for great fun. I did ask him if he could build me a three bladed sword. He said he could, but it would be pointless as it would break as soon as I hit anything. In hind sight he was 100% correct. I would have killed that thing (had it been built) in almost an instant. Anyway, the original plans for the sequel were shelved because the producers felt that they had released this movie at just the right time, and they were concerned about the early 80s sword and sorcery explosion would be coming to an end soon. So, they waited to see how Conan the Destroyer would do before committing to a Sword and the Sorcerer sequel. When Conan the Destroyer under performed at the box office it spelt the end of a Sword and the Sorcerer sequel. A "Sequel in Spirit Only" was released over a decade ago, but none of the original cast returned aside from a small cameo from Lee Horsley. There are actually two versions of that movie. I saw the pre-netflix version which was terrible. Although Kevin Sorbo was in it, and he was pretty funny, and a girl named Melissa Ordway was also in it and she was stunning. There's another version on Netflix, but the first version was so bad I wouldn't be interested in watching the second cut, but I figured that I'd mention it just in case you were interested. I feel kind of bad for bashing the sequel so much, as Albert Pyun (director of the original and the "sequel") is a good director (when he has the means to be) and he's also a good guy in real life. Before he got dementia he was very interactive with his fans via social media, and would even post on IMDB when it had it's message boards.

[–] SandyR (7330) a year ago

[deleted]