siskel/ebert - Krull (1983) Discussion

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] timmy_501 16 years ago

This story is already over

reply

[–] symetri 15 years ago

Umm first of all Siskel/Ebert's show didn't start until 1986 or 87 and this was released in '83... so your dumb

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] txfilmfan 15 years ago

Actually Siskel & Ebert had a show on PBS from the mid-70's until the early 80's when they went commercial and syndicated their show. So it's entirely possible they reviewed this film on their show.

reply

[–] pacificboy 15 years ago

PWNED.

"My brain rebelled, and insisted on applying logic where it was not welcome."

reply

[–] Caractacus23 10 years ago

Yes, I used to watch Siskel & Ebert (on the old PBS show, entitled "Sneak Previews"...but most people simple called it "Sikel & Ebert") back in the 1970s, so you are entirely correct. It was actually somewhat superior to the commercial TV version of their show, which came out over a decade later, and which that guy seems to imagine is the only show they were ever on.

reply

[–] gorn9146 9 years ago

Very possible. I've seen a video on youtube of them reviewing the movie "Dune" which came out just a year later in 1984. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSjyo9tzYNs

Also their review of Krull here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1ItrMcD6mc

reply

[–] BoSoxRule 15 years ago

I just watched their review of it, dumbass.

I'm happiest...in the saddle.

reply

[–] mail-924 9 years ago

You used "your" instead of "you're" so yore dumb.

Cardboard Box is the Future.

reply

[–] metallian-1 16 years ago

Who on earth cares about people who get their salary for critizing movies? I hate movie critics so much... I mean "official" critics.

reply

[–] nathanfiveash5 16 years ago

I remember the fat one being extremely critical of David Lynch's Wild at Heart. Couldn't stand him.

http://www.nathanfiveash.com

reply

[–] skiop 9 years ago

Critics are just bitter failed writers.

reply

[–] duke3571 16 years ago

The "flying knife rack" as you call it LOL isn't what killed to beast. They also had to light it on fire.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SylvanK 16 years ago

Siskel & Ebert know what they're talking about. This movie is terrible by every standard. Horrible writing, terrible pacing, extremely poor direction, the leading man cannot act, the effects are embarrassing even for the time (compare to Return of the Jedi and Bladerunner), and the villain is a joke in terrible makeup.

I first saw this movie when I was about 10, and remember being excited to see it: wow! A glaive-thingy that flies around! I remember nothing of how I felt after, I must have blocked the trauma from my mind. Just having watched it again 25 years later, it's clearly an awful film that deserves the poor reviews it got, and the poor rating here on IMDB.

And you can't blame it on budget either. Krull cost 27 million in 1983, and bombed. The Princess Bride cost 16 million in 1987 and is one of the top fantasy films of all time. Hell, Jedi only cost 5 million more than Krull.

Writing. Plot. Directing. Acting. These things make a good film, not a silly plot device that shows up near the end of the film.

reply

[–] ira33324 15 years ago

Don't be so hard on the movie. It did have fire mares.

reply

[–] xerses13 15 years ago

SylvanK; I too suffered through this travesty in its original release. The films only saving grace is James Horners' musical score. Our rating IMDB*One (1). The real question is what did they spend the money on? 27 Million$! Styrofoam is not that expensive for that is what most of the props and sets appear to be made with. The opticals were far from inspired and production design left much to be desired.

The plot, explain how their Son is going to rule the Galaxy when they have not even perfected inter-plantary travel let alone inter-stellar? Swords and one-shot energy weapons do not make for much of a army.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xerses13 15 years ago

Full Frontal Nerdity; You know not of what you speak. These are the same feeling I had when I sat through it in its ORIGINAL RELEASE. That was our judgement by 1983 standards NOT 21st Century. It was crap in 1983 and it is crap now.

reply

[–] Caractacus23 10 years ago

I was also HUGELY disappointed when I saw this in 1983 (for my 13th birthday, no less). In retrospect, the movie (while still bad), is somewhat less bad than it used to be, because a person viewing it in the 21st century, isn't going into it with an expectation of seeing something state-of-the-art.

reply

[–] xerses13 10 years ago

Caractacus23: Our opinion has not changed, it's a bust. Nor being exposed to 21st Century SFX has influenced us. Boring is boring and it did not past the 15" test since I looked at my watch 15" into the film. I think highly of some films going back to the Silent Era.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xerses13 15 years ago

Full Frontal Nerdity; You are under the delusion that we have to justify ourselves to you. This is a sense of entitlement, so you must not only be a 'nerd' but a liberal a double default. Our message board profile is available as well as the fifty (50) plus comments we have made on various films. If you are that interested you can go too those. As for movies of 1983, you need nothing magical to find out which were superior to KRULL. Just common sense and a little taste. You need to develope both.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ayanami-rei 15 years ago

Siskel and Ebert both failed at film reviewing, but not nearly as much as you both fail at grammar.

Perhaps the two of you should do a show together?

"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" - Dorothy Gale

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ayanami-rei 15 years ago

You know, you're right. I didn't consider that perhaps english wasn't your first language, so I apologize. However, I never really said that I agree with you, did I?

Ah, who am I kidding? I do love this movie, though maybe not for the same reasons you do - it is so supremely goofy, it's hard to find any fault with it, really. The fact that I was 5 when I first saw it, and extremely hooked on Conan and He-Man probably had something to do with it.

"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" - Dorothy Gale

reply

[–] ayanami-rei 15 years ago

I still contend that you and Lanternlit should do a Siskel/Ebert-type review show, however. I'd watch it every day.

"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" - Dorothy Gale

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jaddjamar 14 years ago

I don't pay attention to critics. It amazes me that people pay them for their opinions.

Do you understand the words that I am saying to you?

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] montecristo42 11 years ago

Siskel and Ebert's review is laughable.

It's clear they had dismissed the movie before they sat down to watch it. Ebert thinks The Beast's name is Krull when it's made clear in the first few minutes of the film that Krull is the planet. This reveals a man who is not even trying to engage with the movie.

Ebert takes issue with the fact that the Black Fortress has to fly through space when it has the ability to teleport while on the planet's surface. It's clear the fortress's teleportation ability is linked with the sunrise ... so I'm guessing it can't teleport on space where there is no such thing as "day."

Siskel complained about the fire mares still creating fire while they were flying in the sky. He thought they made fire because they ran so quickly on the ground, which could be one explanation. On the other hand, they are called "fire" mares and maybe they just make fire when they move quickly?

Ebert's and Siskel's complaints amount to minor quibbles and not really plot holes because they're easily explainable. Nitpicking over things like this is a failure of imagination on their part and they fail to address the bigger picture in their review.

reply