Review of Krull

Krull (1983)
5/10
Destined to be remembered with fondness for years to come.
25 December 2002
This movie is half way between being so bad, it's good and being so good, it's er...good. It's neither too camp, nor badly acted, nor does it have any really dire special effects. But then again, the acting isn't brilliant nor are the effects stunning (except for the spider, which is pretty good).

In short, it's OK.

The hero's main weapon is a kind of giant shuriken-thing which slices through almost anything. It's also under his mental control, which is nice, but as he's non-too bright we don't get to see any of the really wicked things you COULD do with a flying circular saw if you had an imagination.

The cast has a few well-known names in it. Liam Neeson, for example, in his early years. The things actors do before they become famous.

There's also my fave bad actor, Bernard Bresslaw. Sadly, his bad acting is hampered by a dodgy facial prosthetic which hides half his face. So we are not treated to his usual silliness and clown-like mugging. Instead we have to endure the presence of his cyclop's prosthetic throughout the movie. And trust me, it ain't very convincing. Imagine a one-eyed giant whose face has been frozen through Botox abuse and you'll get the idea.

And there's the evil Beast, which the cast are trying to destroy. Apparently it doesn't have legs, and is trapped inside it's fortress. All it can do is blow fireballs at the hero, which are pretty ineffectual. I actually felt a bit sorry for it. The final fight scene was rather like watching someone beat up a disabled person.

But on the whole this movie is alright and destined to be remembered with fondness for years to come.
74 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed