Fantasy Watch: Dragonslayer (1981)

the rare fantasy movie that earns the art on the poster

Watched:  03/21/2025

Format:  YouTube

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Matthew Robbins

In an era before CGI, a lot of love, skill and money had to go into making FX movies, and it was often the difference between a Star Wars and a Starcrash.*  Dragonslayer (1981) was a VHS staple in our house back in the earliest days of home video when my folks thought *owning* a VCR was a crazy idea so we rented a VCR at the same time we rented a stack of movies from the grocery (shit was wild, kids).  

My opinion of the movie hasn't budged much since I watched it as a kid.  It's a gorgeous film with a miscast lead and spends too much time on being goofy at the beginning for the movie it wants to be at the end without enough connective tissue to make it all work.  Maybe because of The Once and Future King casting Arthur as a nerd, maybe because this movie has serious "Sorcerer's Apprentice" vibes, we're stuck with basically a nerd as our lead, which feels like it's a particular part of fantasy fiction.  Think of the near miss we likely had with Luke and Star Wars with writing, casting and editing (yes, we can always make any post a Mark Hamill appreciation post).  

I like the bones of the movie *a lot* - the lottery, the corrupt government, even a novice wizard trying to solve the dragon problem.  And, of course, the obviously female Valerian turning out to be a girl.  All good stuff.  I'd forgotten there's a whole bit about the church and the dipshit of a king sliding in and taking credit for the dragon's defeat.  That's some fascinatingly cutting social satire for a mainstream fantasy film.

But we're here for the dragon puppets, both Henson-y and stop-motion, and man, they still look amazing.  No kidding, because this was ILM in 1981 as all engines were really firing after Empire Strikes Back.  

Anyway, I like the film well enough, still.  I feel like they could have cut some business at the beginning, but I get why they did this for a more general audience and because fantasy fiction has a tendency to want to dick around before we get to the dark part.

I am sure the fact this was not CGI, even if it was computer-assisted will blow the minds of the youths, but I think it's a great example of state-of-the-art practical FX as I remember them as a kid.  And maybe why Star Wars, Dark Crystal and other contemporaries seemed so special.  This movie looks like a million bucks, and once you're in it, I think it's not half-bad.

I did read that Caitlin Clarke, who plays Valerian, passed back in 2004.  Y'all raise a glass to her.

*that said, I will defend Starcrash with my dying breath 

Fantasy Watch: Legend (1985)

Watched:  02/03/2025

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Third, I believe

Director:  Ridley Scott

An absolute trainwreck of a movie, Legend (1985) is worth seeing mostly to say "wow, they had all these resources at their disposal, and this is what they did?"  

Unsurprisingly, this was also my impression of the movie when I saw it aged 10.  And knowing I saw it at age ten also reminds me my dear mother sat through this movie.  Sorry, KareBear!

Of course, in 1985, I was a Dungeons and Dragons kid, and was expecting more of a Conan style adventure, so was disappointed on that level.  But I did understand  we were looking at cutting edge sets, make-up and effects.  And especially now in the CGI fantasy world we see daily, this movie looks amazing - because it is practical and has real light, etc... and all that is really the thing to recommend it.

But...  The story was and is both overly complicated and mind-numbingly simple.  You can dress up anything in faux-Shakespeare or fantasy-novel-speak, but you're still just saying "Jack has to get the MacGuffin back - and the girl.  But that bad-guy stole them, and he's really tough and mean".  

I watched Legend again, I believe, in college (maybe high school) and liked it no better.  And then Jamie and I put it on probably 20 years ago, made it ten minutes in, and then tapped out.

But tonight we watched it from beginning-to-end, knowing this movie is bad.  But, wow...  is it a mess.

Visually?  Yes, it's a masterclass of 1980's optical and practical FX.  The make-up and creature effects are stellar.  If you want to put it on and listen to some music, you might have a good time.

I didn't, and don't, think this movie had characters.  It has impressions of characters.  It has vague archetypes.  Most surprising, no one really has an arc, they simply go through a little adventure where we're told that maybe the universe is at stake - but how, why or if we should care about this fact is all a little bit up in the air.  

What is the movie is trying to say?  I couldn't tell you.  Something about light and dark, not approaching wildlife, and that Mia Sara being the source of all of our problems.

A quick glance at Wikipedia tells me that there is a "director's cut" available that people are not as mad at, that actually lets the characters develop and reveal themselves and have motivations outside of the immediate crisis.  I am both intrigued by a version of this that isn't just people in costumes shouting over Tangerine Dream, and horrified at the idea of watching this movie ever again.  But it sounds like they trimmed out 30 or more minutes, and that tells me we accidentally left the story on the cutting room floor.

It's just a stunning disaster of a movie that may have been murdered in editing and sound design.  It fails basic tests like "hey, explain how and why these characters are now in this scene".  

As something that tried to go full Tolkien and create a new world based on familiar fantasy characters, it at least achieves a unique look, but then, if it had anything to say about it, forgot along the way.  The world is too empty - there's no sense of anything beyond the sets, which gives the film no stakes.  So what if this mile or two of woods is compromised?   "You can't have light without darkness" is a fine sentiment, if you want to spend any energy whatsoever giving that phrase meaning in the context of the movie, but here it just sounds like a 17 year old who just discovered the Doors.  

Anyway - if you think you need to watch this movie because it's been a while, I'd just watch any of the 1980's many, many fantasy movies other than this one.  Maybe even Krull.

Animation Watch: Fire & Ice (1983)

Watched:  08/18/2024

Format:  BluRay from Austin Public

Viewing:  First

Director:  Ralph Bakshi

This was the weekend for watching movies I considered viewing during COVID lockdown but never got to.  Certainly Gymkata was part of that, but I'd also bookmarked the 1983 animated adventure film Fire & Ice.  

Ralph Bakshi is a figure that I think those in the know were still discussing in the 1990's, but I'm not sure anyone under 40 in 2024 is really aware of Bakshi, his work or what should have been his legacy.  I'll leave you to Google the man, but he burst out of the counter-culture scene, partnering with R. Crumb and making animated features that were decidedly not all-ages.  His films were famously oversexed, and in the US, our relationship with sexualization battles between raw objectification, cartoonish piety, artistic vision and feminist criticism - leaving Bakshi an unapologetic provocateur.

But he also was trying to make art.  And as such, pushed boundaries and envelopes.  His work used familiar imagery, just off kilter enough to look like part of what you may see in other, more sanitized and popular work, but maybe what was happening in other parts of Toon Town where Mickey would never go.  But his interests also strayed into what one could do with music and image (as all animators get to), and an interest in what animation had the potential to do that live action was not capable of for high fantasy.

Pain Watch: Ember Days (2013)

Watched:  06/21/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Sean-Michael Argo

Where to start?

Since high school, intentionally watching bad movies has been a routine part of my film viewing.  I couldn't count how many bad movies I've watched with the aid of MST3K, RiffTrax, Dug, etc... or just putting a bad movie on myself and giving it a go with no professional support.  But the number of these films watched has been... astronomical.  And, in fact, my guilt regarding watching so many bad movies is part of why I've recently taken on my homework task of watching movies by the big name directors I've previously avoided.

And so it is that, thanks to Dug, I've now seen a movie that was not just bad for many of the reasons a movie doesn't work out (flat acting, a wandering script, horrendous editing...), but Ember Days (2013) pioneered new and innovative ways in how it chose to be a very bad movie.  It's one of those movies where you'd love a whole other movie to cover what went into this movie, what the filmmakers were thinking, and how they think of their product now.  

I do not say this lightly:  this is possibly one of the worst movies I've ever seen.  That's a spot which is, honestly, pretty hard to reach (and I'm pretty sure is usually occupied by Monster-a-Go-Go).  And I say this in the same year I watched Showgirls 2: Penny's From Heaven.  

If I have any sympathy for the film, it is most certainly due to the zero-budget nature of the production.  And, yes, I appreciate that a bunch of people outside of Hollywood decided to make a movie, and you shouldn't bag on people trying.  

But I watched it, and I'm here to tell the tale.

What makes Ember Days so magical?

D&D Watch: Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023)

I don't know who that @#$%ing dragon is, because he's not in the movie

Watched:  11/07/2023

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director(s):  John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein

Ok.  So.

Back when I was probably too young to be playing, my brother picked up the basic boxed set of Dungeons and Dragons rules in the fall of 1982.  From probably 1982 to around 1987 or so, we played the game regularly, making our way swiftly to Advanced D&D and the much more fun rule books and catalogs of monsters, spells, what-have-you that comprised D&D in the 1980's.  

We didn't so much quit playing Dungeons and Dragons as move on to other games.  Our interest in the fantasy world and complex rule systems of that game depleting as we found sci-fi games, games based on popular comic books, movies, etc...  

I could not tell you when I last played D&D itself, but I assume probably 7th grade.  And, I don't think I've touched a tabletop RPG since college.  I don't have a problem with them, but we all just sort of stopped making time for them.  Clearly I am into dork stuff that often shares retail space with RPG materials, so it's not that.  I just don't hang with people who game, I guess.

There's a lot of water under the bridge with Dungeons and Dragons itself, which has been sold and resold as a property, and now belongs to an offshoot of Hasbro.  I won't get into the history of D&D here, or why everything is stupidly complicated, but we'll just leave it at: people are complex and companies often make bad decisions.

But a curious thing happened.  

Watch Party Watch: Highlander (1986)

Watched:  07/23/2021

Format:  Amazon Prime Watch Party

Viewing:  Unknown

Decade:  1980's

Director: Russell Mulcahy

I hadn't watched The Highlander (1986) in years.  It was a movie I saw on VHS as a kid, loved it, and include it's mythology and catch-phrases as part of my Gen-X slang.  I mean, it did give us the phrase "there can be only one", which I think has leaked out into the popular consciousness, even if lots of folks don't know where the phrase came from.

But like The Beastmaster, The Highlander was part of the lingua franca of geek culture for Gen-X nerds.  It had a not-particularly charismatic lead, Connery chewing schenery, a woman throwing herself at the lead for absolutely no reason (and against all logic), swords, trenchcoats, a crazy-ass villain in the form of Clancy Brown as a mad Cossack, and a soundtrack by mid-80's Queen.

And sparks.  So many sparks.

Going in, I knew the movie wouldn't be what I remembered when I was 12, even if the movie was exactly what I remembered from when I was 12.  It's.... fine.  A little slim in the character department in favor of the plot and exposition departments.  And it's also a funny movie because it does feel like it should be the first installment in a series until you think about the plot and realize "nope, this is it."  Not that movie didn't generate three sequels and a TV show.  

I will never understand the idea behind casting Christopher Lambert as a Scotsman.  I will never understand casting Sean Connery as an Egyptian Spaniard.  And yet, I support both.  It's absurd.  And somehow just part of the fabric of the movie.  

I do like how the movie merges present with flashbacks to tell the story - this was not particularly common to sci-fi or fantasy at the time, and trying to imagine someone explaining all of this in realtime in the present would have been deadly.  Clancy Brown makes a hell of an impression as a badguy who has flipped his lid - maybe not new to cop thrillers by 1986, but new to fantasy.  And the bit with the girl MacCloud saved during WWII who is still with him is a brilliant little touch, even if she should have been introduced earlier and their relationship clarified.  I mean, there's a whole movie in that somewhere.

But it's also not something I think anyone should take particularly seriously.  Connery sets the right tone - this is crazy, and we should enjoy it.  The ending is telegraphed nonsense, but still fun.  

Now we'd be treated to someone's plans for a franchise, with massive world building and a wide array of characters.  Here, we get... four Immortals in the modern era?  And no women at that?  (So 1980's).  So I do appreciate that it's both semi-thoughtful, but smart enough to just tell the story and get out.  

Anyway. Highlander.  

Amazing Watch: Sorceress (1982)

Watched:  03/27/2020
Format:  Amazon Prime Streaming
Viewing:  First
Decade:  1980's (oh, how very 1980's.  Specifically, how very EARLY 1980's)

On facebook a friend (Hi, Laura S.) asked if I'd ever seen Sorceress (1982), and I was pretty sure I hadn't.  When I went to look it up on Amazon Prime, I realized I'd once watched the first two and a half minutes of the movie and then gave up.  People - this was a mistake.

The poster above does absolutely nothing to relate anything about the events or actual characters of the movie.  There is a sort of lion-winged thing, a blonde woman and an ape guy.  A snake appears on screen for about five seconds.  But there are two blonde women: that's the entire thing of the movie.  And it seems like that should have made the poster.  The titular sorceress of the film: not shown.