Skip to main content

Would you follow a king to the Black Fortress?

Krull
(1983)

(SPOILERS) Krull is the embodiment of what happens when a studio has a vision of money to be made but lacks a visionary to make it. It wasn’t just that it came late to the sci-fi-fantasy party, released the same year as the finale of Star Wars, the trilogy that spawned a thousand imitators. More damagingly, it was armed a paucity of inspiration and no grasp of the alchemy required to turn a huge budget into a blockbuster, or mould the tried-and-tested principles of the hero’s journey into something that would resonate with audiences.


What Peter Yates’ film actually is (which is not to denigrate the stop-motion pioneer’s fine and inspiring legacy), is closer in tone to the Ray Harryhausen mythic romps that peaked with Jason and the Argonauts some two decades earlier, with all the problems of vague travelogue plotting, listless pacing and indistinct leads that ensnared later outings. While offering tokenistic laser-zap and space-wise gestures as a nod to George Lucas’ saga, Krull is firmly grounded in the pure fantasy arena. One that had not, despite multiple attempts, really experienced a resurgence during the period. Harryhausen’s own Clash of the Titans was one such casualty (as if to prove it, Lucas’ later foray, Willow, would also meet with a tepid response).


Beyond our time, beyond our universe there is a planet besieged by alien invaders, where a young king must rescue his love from the clutches of the Beast. Or risk the death of his world. KRULL. A world light-years beyond your imagination.

And if that tag-line (or tag-essay) doesn’t have you itching to see it… Not to be confused with the Krell (pointy-eared, Sontaran-esque aggressors in DC Thompson comic strip Starhawk), Kroll (many tentacled giant squid and the fifth segment of the Key to Time in Doctor Who), or Kull the Conqueror (that would be plain old Kevin Sorbo), Krull (the planet, not the monster, which doesn’t really compute, as Krull sounds like a monster, not a peace-loving, pageant-promoting place), according to some (but not others, including TV cartoon producer E Gary Gygax), began life as a Dungeons and Dragons movie, before morphing in The Dragons of Krull and then coming to rest as plain old Krull.


Writer Stanford Sherman, a TV veteran who had contributed to Batman and The Man from U.N.C.L.E. before moving on to the glory of gargantuan Clint Eastwood orangutan sequel Any Which Way You Can (and later contributing to mystifying cult favourite The Ice Pirates), is unable to seize the opportunity to show he’s more than a plodding journeyman as he delivers a movie that’s no more a plodding journey.


You only have to re-read the lumpen sales pitch above to twig no one was going to be on fire for Krull, so Columbia’s decision to simply throw money at it seems abjectly foolish. Its cost is reported as between $27 and $50m (it made $16m in the US), so probably in the ballpark of a $100m movie in today’s terms, and unlike the recent Warcraft – another movie without any discernible hook for the average moviegoer – it didn’t have Chinese box office receipts to underpin the outlay. This was a period where studios were going after fantasy by simple dint of Star Wars having elements thereof: 2 and 2 makes 5. There were some successes – Excalibur, The Dark Crystal, Conan the Barbarian, the ultra-cheap The Sword and the Sorcerer (possibly entirely based on the poster art) – but none on a level that the average accountant would say would justified Columbia’s outlay. 


Notably, Krull’s failure did nothing to stop another expensive bomb, Ridley Scott’s Legend, from underlining the point that iconography isn’t enough; you have to have characters to invest in, something that didn’t really happen to the genre until Peter Jackson came along with an idea for bringing Tolkien to the big screen.


It sounds obvious to say it, and it’s certainly the case that plenty of pictures could be picked out to prove otherwise, but looked at in the cold light of day, Krull seems to have been fashioned on a basis almost determined to do everything Lucas did right entirely wrong, engineered by artisans with no aptitude or affinity for the genre, so mimicking its features badly or listlessly.


What it undoubtedly does have going for it is some strong design work, from the glaive (understandably central to the poster art, yet cluelessly hardly used in the movie, on the basis that it isn’t to be until its needed) to the eye-catching Slayers (they may not move with anything approaching dexterity, rather favouring standing around waiting to be slain, and their innards show the kind slavish devotion to copying other genres without much wherewithal why seen elsewhere in the picture, in this case the Alien squittery things that leaps down gutters when their lives are forfeit; but, in the right movie, they could have been as memorable as Stormtroopers). The Black Fortress and the Lair of the Crystal Spider are memorable pieces of design, effectively rendered (albeit, the former looks as if it’s been plundered from Time Bandits), as is the monstrous Beast and his black-eyed minions (albeit, he has no personality to speak of).


The locations are all well-chosen, and the sound stages well-stocked, but there’s little sense that they marry together. Director Peter Yates, who scored big with Bullitt and then spent the next couple of decades seemingly trying to convince everyone it was a fluke, shows little indication that fantasy’s his thing, but he at least seemed to understand what looks good in it, requisitioning Irvin Kershner’s The Empire Strikes Back cinematographer Peter Suschitzky; there are memorable scenes and shots throughout, but in crucial distinction to Kershner’s film, they fail to blend into a coherent whole. Adding to the vague, disjointed, languorous feel is James Horner’s score, resolutely evocative of the stirring adventure epics of yesteryear and so entirely missing out on much needed atmosphere and urgency. It’s bracing, triumphant, heady, and entirely dull. And yet, you can hear all the things in it that make his surrounding scores during that period so great.


Also, as a facet, the marriage of medieval and technological has merit (Doctor Who tried it, more successfully, with its Prisoner of Zenda pastiche The Androids of Tara about five years earlier), it’s just that the visual juxtaposition is all the conceit has going for it. Yates knows his shots and vistas, but if he cares about his story, he doesn’t convince us. Variety called it a “blatantly derivative hodgepodge of Excalibur meets Star Wars”, while Quentin Falk in the third Film Yearbook similarly complained that it was “a gigantic, unwieldy amalgam of hand-me-down ideas and plodding execution”.


But, while it’s certainly taking its cues from the success of those pictures, Krull’s trapped in a mode that condemns it to a then-exhausted style of filmmaking. The Variety review alludes to the Harryhausen formula when it refers to “a Ulysses-scaled series of tests”; this is closer to the Greek quests. Yates himself called the film “a swashbuckler and a love story, using modern special effects and told in a totally different way. It is not Captain Blood, it is not Star Wars, and it is not Excalibur, maybe it’s a mixture of the three…” 


Certainly, dramatically, Krull is stuck in the mode of ‘40s swashbucklers (and, to be fair, Errol Flynn was also invoked when Star Wars first arrived on the scene), something Rob Reiner could get away with when he commented cheekily on the genre in The Princess Bride, but which appears bereft and disconsolate in the MTV-inclined ‘80s. If you look at the most vital re-invigorators of genre, the Star Wars and the Aliens, and if we’re talking Captain Blood, the Pirates of the Caribbeans rather than the Cutthroat Islands, they came equipped with a quality that made their trappings seem fresh again.


And, while you cannot underestimate the importance of the filmmaker in those examples, you also can’t underestimate the importance of the cast (leaving aside for the moment that the screenplay stinks). Both Lucas and Boorman’s movies, even where the leads aren’t necessarily the biggest subsequent thing since sliced bread, are cannily cast, with much room for shade and texture. Ken Marshall, with his glue-on beard and ineffectual gait, is exactly the kind of indistinct hero you don’t need if you want an anchored movie.


It’s no doubt a difficult task to find a next-big-thing to cut a dash across your would-be epic. There’s John Carter and the Star Wars prequels on one side, and on the other The Force Awakens – and the recast Star Trek, even Avatar, despite Jai Courtney’s Sam Worthington’s subsequent career, for that matter – offering contrasting levels of success at the art. It certainly helps to have screen presence, and it helps if you can offer chemistry and contrast with your fellow performers. Marshall is able to do none of these things. He’s more Jason Connery than Michael Praed. Patrick Swayze in a vacuum tunnel.


He’s backed by a collection of stalwart British thespians who might easily have been summoned by Lucas for his trilogy (and one later was). Yet, without that all important intelligent design, their equivalents (the mentor, the rogue, the comic relief) fail to make much impact. Freddie Jones as Ynyr, the Old One (if this were Python or Mel Brooks, the next line would be “Why do they call you Old One?”) probably fares best; while Jones is too personable to bring Guinness-like gravitas to Ynyr, he pays it off with the sincerity of easily the best sequence in the picture, his visit to Lair of the Crystal Spider, where he encounters old flame the Widow of the Web (Francesca Annis).


Much of the picture’s internal logic amounts to little more than narrative non sequiturs, but Annis and Jones are able to invest something genuine into the sad tale of a spurned love who, out of loss and despair, killed her son when he was born. Ynyr’s response is that, far from not being able to forgive her, he cannot forgive himself. It provides a faint resonance too, that the Widow’s motivation in helping Ynyr is to aid one of the same name as her, that she should not suffer a similar fate. This scene also offers a glimpse of the urgency the picture so desperately lacks elsewhere, as time runs out for both one-time paramours and there’s a slender window in which to race to the ever-moving Black Fortress before it’s off on its travels again (a neat idea that feels like it could have been lifted from the labours of Hercules of Perseus).


Alun Armstrong, a through-and-through supporting character giant, here probably as close as he would get to top billing, takes on the Han Solo part of Torquil, bandit leader, but must rely on sheer dint of being Alun Armstrong to make an impression. He’s aided and abetted by Liam Neeson (Yates showing he took notes during Excalibur), Robbie Coltrane (rather unfairly dubbed by Michael Elphick, of all people) and Tucker himself, Todd Carty.


The merry band might be seen as Knights of the Round Table, but they owe more to Jason’s crew or Bilbo’s dwarves (especially so as most are indistinct, but for their recognisability from other roles). David Battley, offering the glass-half-empty comic relief of Ergo the Magnificent, who can magically transform himself, usually by error, into various ineffectual creatures, can’t quite hit that stride between likeably broad and irritatingly invasive, so he just settles for irritatingly invasive.


Bernard Bresslaw is more notable as the noble, monocular Rell, a Cyclops. His background, like much of the narrative approach here, speaks to an awkward stapling of fairy tale/myth logic and ostensible realism. We’re told the Cyclops used to have two eyes, but exchanged one for the power to see the future. Alas, it was a trick, and they were enabled to see only the time of their own deaths (the only consequence of this is that Rell ends up looking like a bit of a drama queen, staying behind to croak before giddying up on his flame mare to then succumb heroically in the fortress).


There’s a certain cachet to this kind of faux-Olympian punishment (also applying to the Widow of the Web, banished to her realm for infanticide by forces unknown) but it doesn’t feed into a coherent storytelling tone. Much like the simplistic polarities of Legend, the overlaying of sophisticated production values ends up jarring, and leaves a sense of the cobbled together, or lazily scripted; we discover that love kills the beast (rather than the all-important bit of gadgetry, Krull’s equivalent of a lightsabre) but its apropos nothing revealed hitherto.


There’s no rationale, so it means in the kingdom of Krull anything can be conjured, as the mood takes the writer. It also drains any drama form the big confrontation, because there’s no context to understanding why a marriage rite should pack this kind of punch – beyond the sophistry of “Power is fleeting. Love is eternal”. There’s a vital difference between such hasty improvisation and relaying the idea through the underpinnings of plot and character; for all its many faults, it’s this that lifts the best part of Return of the Jedi (the Luke-Vader-Emperor confrontation) to a different level, despite having the same basic message as Krull.


Like Coltrane, poor Lysette Anthony (also like Andie McDowell in Greystoke a year earlier) suffers the ignominy of being dubbed, this time by Lindsay Crouse. Trevor Martin, a one-time stage Doctor Who, at least lends the Beast’s nuance-free utterances some weight. The Beast tells us he’s out to fulfil the prophecy in his own special way by making the girl of ancient name choose him as a king, so his son will rule the galaxy. The actual outcome is rather suggestive of a reactionary approach to heroism; sure, the son may turn out to be a benign despot, but it still positions him as traditional wielder of power over millions of billions of minions (as opposed to shunning it for the nobility and altruism of the Jedi).


The production took up 10 soundstages at Pinewood, and elicits occasionally sublime results. Unlike Dagobah, the swamp set never truly impresses, though; it’s most memorable for the black-eyed doppelganger of the Emerald Seer (John Welsh), who is all too quickly disposed of, rather than employed for sustained tension.


Why do Slayers rise from ‘neath a swamp? Because it looks cool (basically the same answer as what that Dalek was doing trawling about in the Thames). It’s for the same reason that the monsters come from space. Because space is “in”, not because its pertinent to the tale being told.


The interior of the Black Fortress, with its smoothed, curved corridors, floors that become gaping crevasses and uneven surfaces, is a strong piece of design. Likewise, the scenes of the menaced Lyssa, wandering around the interior of a giant eye, as if plucked from a Dali dream sequence or set of an elaborate musical, and later within a giant claw that leads to the unreachable outside, are also striking.


And, while her interactions with the Beast never amount to much due to his absence of discernible characterisation (see also Tim Curry in Legend, and the monster in The Keep, cumulatively suggesting the mere incarnation of “evil” is insufficient; “it is because it is” isn’t enough), the doppelganger motive is employed effectively here too; the black-eyed Ken Marshall is the most substantial he is in the entire movie (“There is no love in that form”).


Krull was a snooze in the ‘80s, and it’s a snooze now. It follows a similarly miscalculated approach to the conceptually superior The Black Hole, whereby dazzling designs are for nothing if you don’t first have a clear sense of story, a filmmaker who knows how to tell it, and strong, definable lead characters, or at least ones illustrated by bold performances. I’d suggest that, due to its poverty of pace and potency, Krull would be ripe for remaking, but you’d still be starting with the only aspects that piqued interest in the first place: the concept art. Warcraft is illustrating just now that you desperately need relatable characters and a strong story if you’re going to make fantasy work. It’s not that it needed The Lord of the Rings for the genre come into fashion; it just needed someone to understand how to do it right (and it promptly took Peter Jackson a mere few years to forget all over again).




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.