leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (07/11/85)
Peter, some comments on two of your recent reviews: >Subject: "Red Sonja" This was a good review. We ended up covering some of the same points. I think you liked the film better. >Silly plot complications, in the form of a child >prince and his loyal protector and a romantic subplot >between Sonja and Arnie (hindered by Sonja's hatred for men >and her oath to give herself only to a man who can beat her >in a fair fight) serve only to pad the film to a sellable >length, 88 minutes, in this case. Didn't you get the feeling that there was more shot about the beginning of the story and the narration helped cut it out, whowing you only a scene or two. I certainly thought the original script called for more of story at the beginning and not the narration. > >Bad points first. Most important is Brigitte Neilsen, who >plays Red Sonja. She is beautiful and well trained in the >martial arts. Unfortunately, she makes Tanya Roberts look >like Katherine Hepburn. Boy, is she bad! Odd, I compared Bergman's performance to Roberts. I thought Neilson was marginally better. >Most unfortunately, laughable as her line readings are, she >isn't the worst performer in the film. That honor goes to >Ernie Reyes, Jr., who plays the young prince. Good, I forgot to lambast him. He was pretty bad. >Ennio Morricone's score is another neutral item, but >a disappointment, as it proves that Morricone, too, is a >mere mortal and cannot be counted on to always come up with >a great score. Frankly, I really like the score for CONAN THE BARBARIAN and they should have gotten Polidoris to do this film too. >The swordfights are quite well staged. In what???? Surely you aren't talking about RED SONJA??? They seemed terrible to me. Particularly the scene at the beginning with the priestesses. But Neilsen looked wrong with the sword and Bergman did not look much better. >The effects are fair to good, with some shaky >matte work, some good, etc. That mattes had good artwork, but they were too obvious. They did not blend in well at all. The skelaton bridge was a good example. I thought the pearl guardian was particularly unconvincing. >Sometimes I like to speculate about unlikely directors and >projects. The presence of Donati and Rotunno makes me >wonder what "Red Sonja" would have been like if, somehow, >producer Dino de Laurentiis had persuaded Fellini, his old >colleague, to direct it. Now that's a movie I'd like to >see. I am not so sure that I would. Artistic directors tend to make lousy works of the popular genres. Consider what Joseph Losey did with MODESTY BLAISE, what Ken Russell did with BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN. I am no fan of Goddard's ALPHAVILLE, though it is little worse than any other Lemmy Caution film. >But, getting back to the subject at hand, taken as a whole, >"Red Sonja" is a slightly better than average adventure >picture, marred largely by dreadful performances in key >roles. Fans of the genre will probably like it, non-fans >will be unsurprised to hear that they might as well skip it. I am one and I didn't, nor do I know a fan who did. >- >Subject: "The Emerald Forest" > >Ever since John Boorman has had the chance to direct the >films he wanted to make, he's been working on a single >subject: man's relation to nature, and particularly what has >been lost by modern society which was taken for granted by >primitive man. Boorman hasn't always been successful. >"Exorcist II: The Heretic" was laughably bad, as only a really >ambitious film can be, and Perhaps. Actually I and a few other people I know actually respect HERETIC. Why? For one thing, it was really a sequel, not a remake. It is rare that one sees a sequel that is a larger context for the original, in the same way that the second half of a film builds on what has gone before. The concept of the "good locust" is a new idea in the second film and it explains a lot of what has gone before. >"Zardoz" was peculiar and ineffective. It has its fans. I can't claim to be one really. >With "Excalibur", >Boorman began to get it right. "Excalibur" had moments of >power, and approached greatness. It fell short because of >Boorman's overambition, apparently his greatest artistic >flaw, manifested in this case by an attempt to shoehorn the >whole of the backbone of Arthurian legend into little over >two hours. An further added to the confusion between Excalibur and the sword in the stone, two different swords. It also seemed unlikely that a symbol of purity like Excalibur would be given to Pendragon. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper