clark@sdcsla.UUCP (Clark Quinn) (03/14/85)
I recently saw a sneak preview of LadyHawke on campus and will attempt a
review.
I say attempt because I have mixed feelings about this movie. Why, I ask
myself, when I generally can uncritically watch even the worst fantasy
adventure film, and enjoy it? First, the few particulars I can supply.
LadyHawke concerns a young thief (Matthew Broderick) rescued by a mysterious
knight (Rutger Hauer) to help aid a mysterious beautiful lady (Michelle
Pfeiffer). Also involved are a coarse old priest and a magic curse.
Matthew Broderick is, in my mind, becoming quite the actor. Since Wargames I
have seen him perform in the stage version of Brighton Beach Memoirs, and this
movie. He seems to get better with every viewing. He plays Mouse, the thief,
with the right balance of opportunist, coward, and underneath decent person.
He also shows a deft touch with the comic aspect of his character.
Rutger Hauer and Michelle Pfeiffer do not fare as well. I am not ready to
ascribe the blame to them, however. I think that they convey their parts
well, but the direction has muddied up the heroic and tragic aspect of their
characters. Hauer, in particular, looks every bit the heroic knight. Tall,
ruggedly handsome, quiet but commanding. He moves surely, and delivers his
lines with conviction. Michelle Pfeiffer, unfortunately for her, is not given
much to do in this film except hang around looking beautiful (which she has no
problem doing).
The problem with this movie, as I see it, lies in the direction. I cannot
remember who is responsible for the direction, but I believe I can describe
the transgression. This movie tries to work on two levels, the slightly
comic, and the fable. The director has a good grasp for the humor, but seems
to have lost the epic, heroic nature of the rest of the tale. Despite Hauer,
the knight's motives are muddled in the middle of the film, as he has no real
plan to make use of the thief, initially. And the knight's love for the lady
is not convincingly portrayed.
One other interesting aspect is that the remaining cinematic values do not
seem to have suffered. I would call the cinematography at least good, and the
production seems fine. The costumes and setting seemed unusually timely to
me, and the supporting cast was quite convincing. And I think that the
screenplay is a superior effort. The setup of and resolution of the curse
are convincing, often hard in a movie that is using magic as a premise.
There is no gratuitous sex, magic, or gore in this movie, and yet it is
satisfying. I suspect one of the reasons I am less than thrilled is that it
is much more frustrating to have a film come very close to being really good
than to have one that is obviously going to miss, so you can forget the
quality and just have a good time.
One final note that is a general complaint. I wish the powers that be in
Hollywood, whether scriptwriters, directors, or whoever, would quit assuming
that the only people who go to see fantasy/adventure films are adolescents,
generally male. The one aspect of the film requiring some intelligence,
figuring out the curse, is telegraphed far too much. I think some greater
suspense would be appropriate.
While the above review sounds somewhat negative, I would say this a movie that
is worth seeing if you have any tendency to enjoy fantasy or adventure movies.
Final rating: +2.5 out of 4
Clark N. Quinn
Institute for Cognitive Science C-015
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093
(619) 452-2541 (UCSD): (619) 481-0952 (Home)
{ucbvax,decvax,akgua,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!clark OR clark@nprdcreiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/15/85)
I, too, have seen "Ladyhawke" at a preview, and I am also lukewarm on the
film. (That's why I haven't posted a review. I don't have time at the moment
to review any film I don't really want people to see.) I wasn't satisfied
with either script or direction. The latter is by Richard Donner, best known
for "Superman". I liked the premise, but not the execution. I wasn't
overwhelmingly thrilled by Matthew Broderick, particularly his delivery of
some of his soliloquies directed to God. They didn't seem right for him, and
it sort of fell into place when I heard that the role was originally intended
for Dustin Hoffman: these speeches would be right up his alley. I can
practically hear him saying some of the lines.
The cinematography was by Vittorio Storaro, one of the finest of European
cinematographers, so it's no surprise "Ladyhawke" looks good. Of particular
interest, to me at least, was John Wood as the evil bishop. I've seen him
on stage three times (in "Sherlock Holmes", "Travesties", and "Amadeus"), on
the basis of which he is one of my favorite actors. His biggest film role
was the scientist in "War Games". It might have been old times week on
"Ladyhawke", except Wood and Broderick don't share any scenes. (They're both
in the final scenes, but never in the frame together, so these shots could
have been filmed months apart.) Wood is OK, but the part isn't that good.
As a final note, I was disappointed with the special effects, specifically
the recurring one (those who have seen the film know which one I mean). It
was done with unconvincing tricks of focus, small amounts of double
exposures, and cuts to different perspectives, in a manner so perfunctory that
I think they'd have been better off doing it entirely off camera.
"Ladyhawke" has some good points, but it's mostly for fantasy fans. General
audiences probably won't be especially thrilled. Let's hope Ridley Scott's
"Legend" works out better.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherleeper@ahutb.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (04/15/85)
LADYHAWKE
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Based on boxoffice results, I may be one of the very few people in the
world who liked DRAGONSLAYER. I very simply thought that it was the best
historical fantasy film that I had ever seen. Up to that point, I would
have judged films like THE SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD and JASON AND THE
ARGONAUTS as my favorites. But DRAGONSLAYER for the first time had a plot
that would have made a decent fantasy novel, and that was head and shoulders
above anything similar I'd ever seen on the screen. When I saw the coming
attractions for LADYHAWKE, for the first time I thought a film was coming
out that could be comparable in quality to DRAGONSLAYER. Well, it didn't
replace DRAGONSLAYER as my top historical fantasy but it easily comes in
second.
LADYHAWKE is a beautiful fantasy film set in Medieval France. It
follows the adventures of a likeable young pickpocket played unexpectedly
well by Matthew Broderick. He escapes from the evil bishop's dungeons and
is about to be re-captured when he is saved by the mysterious stranger
Navarre (Rutger Hauer) who travels with a hawk on his arm. At night man and
hawk disappear and are replaced by a beautiful woman who is often seen in
the company of a large and fierce wolf. The man and woman, it seems, are
lovers forever together but forever apart. A curse by the jealous bishop
turns Navarre into a wolf at night; his lover Isabeau becomes a hawk by day.
The story has a marvelous feel of real legend about it, and a haunting
beauty in the way it has been visualized on the screen.
Matthew Broderick's Phillipe is the main character and at the same time
comic relief. Broderick incessantly talks to God like Tevya does in FIDDLER
ON THE ROOF, but not always so reverently. He seems much better in the role
than I expected. Rutget Hauer is nearly perfect as the mysterious Navarre.
And lovely Michelle Pfeiffer of SCARFACE and INTO THE NIGHT is terrible as
Navarre's lover. The problem is that she talks like an American and wears
lipstick and eye-liner. She fits into the Medieval setting only slightly
better than Pacman.
And speaking of things out of place, Andrew Powell's rock score is
totally inappropriate. He takes scenes that otherwise have a beautiful
period and wreaks real havoc with the spirit and texture of the film. A
couple more faults, if you please. The camera work is usually very good,
but the use of color filters, particularly for the sky, is overdone. And
speaking of the sky, if you watch the moon and know some astronomy, you will
see something happen that is actually an impossibility. The script is
generally good, but too much of the legend we are simply told rather than
shown. Also note the anachronistic use of terrycloth.
Yet with all these faults, and more, this remains one beautiful and
enjoyable fantasy film. The settings, the photography, Hauer's acting, the
idea of the story are all marvelously realized. If this film dies at the
boxoffice the way DRAGONSLAYER did, perhaps modern audiences don't deserve
good fantasy.
Mark R. Leeper
...ihnp4!ahutb!leeper
But, on May 1, I become ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeperdwight@timeinc.UUCP (Dwight Ernest) (04/16/85)
We saw LADYHAWKE this weekend. I must take issue with several of your points, and add a couple of comments, after reading your fine review, Mark. First, on Michelle Pfeiffer as Isabeau: We thought she was extraordinarily appropriate in the role. She's beautiful, impetuous, strong-willed, and, yes, anachronistic in these strengths and in her power and her sexuality. But it's attractive to speculate how a "modern woman" would fit into these medieval times, and LADYHAWKE does just that. Your review was more than just a mild spoiler, incidentally-- perhaps I'm slow, but one of the most marvelous parts of the film was in slowly making the connection between the hawk and Isabeau, and between the man and the wolf. I'm glad I didn't know about that before I saw it. And you didn't mention the horse--Goodness, that horse--the black stallion--was just incredible. Perhaps, given your other cast-related comments, you could at least have given credit to someone, somewhere, for having made a most extraordinary casting decision when they found that horse. Verdict: Don't miss it. Enjoy it. Especially with your SO--for the scene at the end is perhaps one of the most romantic and delightful scenes ever filmed, although it's simple. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Dwight Ernest KA2CNN \ Usenet:...vax135!timeinc!dwight Time Inc. Edit./Prod. Tech. Grp., New York City Voice: (212) 554-5061 \ Compuserve: 70210,523 Telemail: DERNEST/TIMECOMDIV/TIMEINC \ MCI: DERNEST "The opinions expressed above are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Time Incorporated." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) (04/17/85)
-- I can not share excitement about Lh as a great phantasy. Probably most people would agree that fight scenes (large and prominent segment) were poorly done, villains were pretty wimpy and not much threat. I expected some special effects - well it is a bonus in a situation that offers such potential for those things. Nevertheless: some places in the story seem very weak and those gaps are much too big for cast's acting talents to fill them. Alternative is drowning of story's weaknesses in a barrage of spectacular action (a la Spielberg), but that's not done either. I agree with those who like the stallion and dislike the score. Overall I resent letting bimbo Ebert's judgement and my own wishful thinking coax me into expecting a lot from that film. It is better then avg, but is by no means "great" Mike Cherepov
leeper@ahutb.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (04/18/85)
<this message may have been somehow screwed up in a previous posting> >We saw LADYHAWKE this weekend. I must take issue with >several of your points, and add a couple of comments, after >reading your fine review, Mark. Well, I can't complain if you take issue and in the same breath call it a "fine" review. Thanks. > >First, on Michelle Pfeiffer as Isabeau: We thought she was >extraordinarily appropriate in the role. She's beautiful, >impetuous, strong-willed, and, yes, anachronistic in these >strengths and in her power and her sexuality. That is not what I objected to. She just seems too American somehow. It doesn't help that I recently saw INTO THE NIGHT, but her accent seems all wrong. The makeup may have been a strong contributory factor, also. She just does not sound Medieval when she talks. Rutger Hauer, carried it off and I think Matthew Broderick was not too far out of place. I just never believed her character as coming out of that period. >Your review was more than just a mild spoiler, >incidentally-- perhaps I'm slow, but one of the most >marvelous parts of the film was in slowly making the >connection between the hawk and Isabeau, and between the man >and the wolf. I'm glad I didn't know about that before I >saw it. By the time I saw the film I saw the film I had heard the premise in presentations at science fiction conventions, in ads, on TV's At The Movies, in a presentation at a science fiction society by Joan Vinge who is writing the novel, etc. Also I contend it is almost impossible to review the film without giving that much away. Incidentally, none of these excuses would I find acceptable if the tables were turned and I had read just the USENET review before seeing the film. What can I say? I was desensitized by the advance publicity and I flubbed it. >And you didn't mention the horse--Goodness, that horse--the >black stallion--was just incredible. Perhaps, given your >other cast-related comments, you could at least have given >credit to someone, somewhere, for having made a most >extraordinary casting decision when they found that horse. Not a detail I am likely to notice. I thought that the horse looked good in BLACK STALLION, this one did not impress me so much, but it could be I just didn't notice. > >Verdict: Don't miss it. Enjoy it. Especially with your >SO--for the scene at the end is perhaps one of the most >romantic and delightful scenes ever filmed, although it's simple. I actually thought this scene was a bit drawn out and for reasons I won't mention here, unrealistic. (Well, it is mostly for what most of the people are doing or not doing in this scene.) Incidentally this last paragraph of yours is something of a minor spoiler in itself. I have to agree with your verdict. I was impressed with the film. Thank you for following up on my review. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!ahutb!leeper
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/20/85)
In article <144@timeinc.UUCP> dwight@timeinc.UUCP (Dwight Ernest) writes: > >And you didn't mention the horse--Goodness, that horse--the >black stallion--was just incredible. Perhaps, given your other >cast-related comments, you could at least have given credit >to someone, somewhere, for having made a most extraordinary >casting decision when they found that horse. > The horse apparently caused an incredible amount of trouble. It was one of those animals that likes its trainer but hates everyone else. Rutger Hauer and Matthew Broderick could count on it trying to bite them whenever they were mounted on it. It did look good, though. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/22/85)
> And you didn't mention the horse--Goodness, that horse--the > black stallion--was just incredible. Perhaps, given your other > cast-related comments, you could at least have given credit > to someone, somewhere, for having made a most extraordinary > casting decision when they found that horse. Yes, the stallion in LadyHawke IS amazing. He cantors... he gallops.... he does EVERYTHING right and with complete precision. And he doesn't do anything when he isn't supposed to. I'm still trying to figure out what breed of horse he is! Any clues here? He's far too large and muscular for an arabian. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO Or as Jabba the Hut would say, "Brrrruuuuuurrrrrrrpppppp!"
mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (mike upmalis) (04/23/85)
<<<<<>>>>> Ladyhawke! Did you see it? I'm still in shock over the fact that people actually applauded at the conclusion of the film. Ladyhawke is definitely a "B" grade movie. Isabeau and the Mouse are both too bloody american to be fantasy characters. There was no depth to the film. It is a film meant to satisfy the lowest common denominators in the viewing audience, which it does, but it left me high and dry. I like to be entranced when I watch a movie, but Ladyhawke just didn't have the enchantment necessary. Oh by the way, the bad guy gets skewered in the end. Big Surprise! Mark Taylor broadcasting from Elba..... -- ~~ Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo>
schuetz@via.DEC (Chris Schuetz - backup System Manager 381-2647) (04/25/85)
I have to agree that the cinemaphotography was great, and the horse. The acting was just ok, and the plot not really gripping. No surprises at all. I was beginning to dread the rest of the movie when I heard the opening score. A rock-based beat does not fit with the sets or story. Happily, during the rest of the movie, the score was much less obtrusive. Until the ending credits again. However, I thought it was an enjoyable movie, not great though. Probably less actual violence than BABY, from the sound of it. ANyway, I have a couple of questions. 1) I'm not one to know names, but was the black captain played by the same actor as the android in BLADERUNNER? I think so. 2) Is the director/producer/cinemaphotographer the same as for KRULL? (Also a movie with great shots and sets but poor to average acting/plot.) Were they both shot in the same location (northern Italy?)? I left the theater thinking that I had seen the whole movie before, at least as far as the outdoor shots were concerned. Wouldn't it be nice to get these people who did the sets and filming together with someone with a decent script and actors? Then we'd have a truly 4 star movie. As it was, I would still rate LADYHAWKE 3 stars. No unnecessary violence in my opinion, as there was in GREYSTOKE. Some scenes there could have very nicely been left on the cutting room floor without detracting from the movie.
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/28/85)
In article <1841@decwrl.UUCP> schuetz@via.DEC (Chris Schuetz - backup System Manager 381-2647) writes: >ANyway, I have a couple of questions. > > 1) I'm not one to know names, but was the black captain played by >the same actor as the android in BLADERUNNER? I think so. > Yes, Rutger Hauer. > 2) Is the director/producer/cinemaphotographer the same as for KRULL? >(Also a movie with great shots and sets but poor to average acting/plot.) >Were they both shot in the same location (northern Italy?)? I left the theater >thinking that I had seen the whole movie before, at least as far as the outdoor >shots were concerned. > No connection I know of between "Krull" and "Ladyhawke". "Krull" was directed by Peter Yates, produced by Ron Silverman, and photographed by Peter Suschitzky. "Ladyhawke" was produced by Richard Donner and Lauren Shuler, directed by Richard Donner, and photographed by Vittorio Storaro. The writers weren't the same, either. I'd say that the similarity comes from people who know (and in some cases, care) little about fantasy trying to make a few bucks. (Actually, Donner worked very hard to get "Ladyhawke" made, so I imagine he cared very much about it.) -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
dts@gitpyr.UUCP (Danny Sharpe) (05/06/85)
I saw Ladyhawke (is there an e on the end? I don't remember) Friday night
and I wanted to make a few comments:
In accordance with the custom of listing anybody and everybody
who had anything whatsoever to do with the movie, they even put
the *payroll clerk* in the closing credits. (I figure some
movie mogul will see the movie and what an outstanding job the
payroll clerk did and declare "I want that payroll clerk to work
on my next blockbuster!" :-))
Some people have been complaining about the rock score and the
American accents. It seems to be mostly a matter of what you're
used to. I thought the score went pretty well, and the American
accents weren't nearly as obnoxious as in Amadeus (remember
what's-her-name calling Mozart "Wolfie"?)
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
-Danny
--
-- Either Argle-Bargle IV or someone else. --
Danny Sharpe
School of ICS
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!dtsbill@hpfcms.UUCP (bill) (05/16/85)
I guess I'm not that sensitive to romantic beauty, etc. I too saw Ladyhawke, and thought it to be an average, predictable movie. The connection between the wolf/man and the hawk/lady was unexpected at first, but I suspected it long before it was revealed. My favorite character was the boy - he was refreshing. The romantic climax of the movie was boring and predictable - villian is killed, man and woman stare into each other's eyes as the music swells, etc. I would hesitantly recommend it. I certainly wouldn't dissuade anyone from seeing it - there's a lot worse movie fare than this one! Bill Gates Hewlett-Packard Ft. Collins, CO hpfcla!bill-g