Remember how I said there were a lot of dopey-ass movies made in the 1980s? Well, The Sword and the Sorcerer is certainly one of them. I confess going into this review that I have a small chip on my shoulder as regards how Hollywood has treated the Sword and Sorcery genre (a genre of which I’m quite fond). In my estimation, there has yet to be a good S & S film made… period. When I say this, I’m not counting things like The Lord of the Rings trilogy which, while it’s a class-A production, is not, strictly speaking, a Sword and Sorcery movie. (It is, to be precise, High Fantasy. Trust me: there’s a difference). The closest S & S has gotten to being successfully translated to the screen is 1982’s Conan the Barbarian. There, at least, the physical production and the production design were quite good but, in adapting the material, the filmmakers botched things pretty badly. The character depicted in that film is not the Conan of Robert E. Howard’s pulp stories thanks, in large part, to Schwarzenegger’s limited acting chops. The Sword and the Sorcerer (which came out about the same time as “Conan”) gets a few things right — the creators were clearly very enthusiastic and Lee Horsley gives it the old college try as Talon, the movie’s hero — but the screenplay doesn’t properly connect all of its own dots and the movie, let’s be frank, looks like it cost about $1.98 to produce. With other sorts of genre pictures, a low budget isn’t necessarily a deal breaker, but in a Sword and Sorcery film where a whole world is being created, it’s the kiss of death. All in all, in regards to The Sword and the Sorcerer, I’d have to say B for effort, D+ for execution. For all of the enthusiasm on display, I’m still left without a proper Sword and Sorcery movie, and that makes me sad.
And things aren’t about to get any better… There’s currently a new adaptation of Howard’s Conan in pre-production at Lion’s Gate. The director currently attached is Brett Ratner — he of the Rush Hour films. I feel rather strongly that this new movie won’t be any closer to the source material than the 1982 original because of that fact. (I guess you can tell I’m not a huge Ratner fan.)

Frost/Nixon is Ron Howard’s best film to date (at least of the ones I’ve seen — I admit to taking a pass on stuff like The Da Vinci Code and The Missing). Howard is certainly competent, but his movies generally don’t fire me with passion at all. I admire his willingness to move from genre to genre, but in that process, I believe that he’s failed to develop a distinctive voice. Frost/Nixon took a step or two toward making me believe that Howard could transcend simple by-the-numbers film-making. A lot of what makes the movie successful boils down to the excellent writing by Peter Morgan and the terrific lead performances by Frank Langella and Michael Sheen, but there’s definitely some craft on display in the directing as well. The camera work is good, and the pacing is almost thriller-like; there’s a tension that bleeds through the whole piece that keeps you engaged and wondering what’s going to happen next. For the first time since maybe Splash or Apollo 13, Ron Howard had me well and truly “on the hook”.








Recent Comments