The Sword and the Sorcerer

Albert Pyun's minor budgeted sword and sorcery foray is just as amusing now, as I remembered it to be and one of the better (if not one of the best) attempts of the over-flooded sub-genre that skyrocketed in the 80s. Never does it cop out on the ingredients that make this type of b-films fun. The wonderful camp level is high, as blood and flesh (topless mainly) run freely. Pace stays zippy, and while the pulpy story has cut and dry outline, it still has personality and a complex array of schemes to keep it excitingly brash, and not just relying on set-pieces. Don't go looking for a mythical medieval journey filled with a variety of beasties, and obstacles on this one though. It's the standard boy seeks revenge when grown up on the man who killed his family, and took over his father's thrown. The hacked-up script is colourfully tacky, but has an agreeable sarcastic edge and unpretentious novelties streaming off it. Sure there are some untied plot details, but never does it fault the entertainment. Yes its entertainment, that's better not to delve too hard in to. Pyun (in his directorial debut) confidently does a workable job constructing an epic scale treatment, by using his budget wisely. Enthusiastic set-designs, and prop work look respectable and are well-integrated. We get bravado sword fights, busting with adrenaline and guts. It's pure mayhem during certain stages, but commendably executed. Then there's the potent make-up FX that holds a vivid imagination, and brutal punch. David Whittaker spirited score chimes in largely, and overwhelms many sequences. Lee Horsley makes for a charming, brawn heroine and a lively Richard Lynch mercifully eats it up as the clichéd villain of the piece. Kathleen Beller stands tall with her bold performance, and makes for nice eye-candy. Simon MacCorkindale has a strong showing, and Richard Boll (in gooey make-up) stands out too in his role as a monstrous sorcerer. In solid support are George Maharis, Joe Regalbuto and a formidable Robert Tessier.

An evil conqueror Cromwell (Richard Lynch) revives an even more evil sorcerer Xuxia (Richard Moll) to help him to battle against the king of Aragorn (no kidding) Richard. So short story short, the Vromwell wins and executes the king and the queen and guess who stays alive to seek vengeance? Bingo. The prince Talon (Lee Horsley) and his silly three bladed sword, that can shoot blades as a projectiles.

Now, all things considered, this is a silly movie. In fact, I would dare to go as far, and say it's pretty idiotic. But, from the reasons beyond my poor knowledge, I liked it. not that I'm gonna give it 10 stars or anything, but it was surprisingly enjoyable, as far, that I liked it better than Red Sonja and that dreadful Conan The Barbarian sequel, Conan The Destroyer.

Acting is pretty horrendous in this film, just as the plot. But the film manages to be pretty funny, some times unintentionally (the projectile sword), sometimes intentionally. It keeps its quirky tongue in cheek atmosphere pretty well to the end, so it ain't that bad way to spend a couple of hours.

At the end during the credits there is basically something that says there is going to be a sequel, but there never was one. Kind of surprising they didn't considering this made 39 million back in 1982 which was a good take to say the least for that time. Considering it was rated R and didn't have anyone really big in it...the only person I recognize in the cast is Richard Moll. In the end though they didn't, which is too bad. This one is a good, bloody, fantasy film. The story isn't the best, but it has good action and sword fights, though the director really likes to show scenes where swords break like glass. As a kid I had trouble following the plot though as it was a bit hard to distinguish the good and bad guys, but later when I saw it, it was easier though I still say it could use a better plot.

The main reason this movie was even made was that they wanted it to be in theaters at around the same time as the film "Conan the Barbarian" in 1982. Believe it or not, both films were even released by the same studio! If the films had been made thirty years earlier, they would have been released as a double feature. They were part of a wave of sword fight pictures that included "Excalibur" and "Dragonslayer." Without a lot of fanfare, "Sword and the Sorcerer" managed to become a minor hit. One of the cast members was on a talk show and confessed that the success of the film was a surprise because that person thought it was not very good.

I enjoyed the action scenes and some of the humor. It has some good one-liners. The second half also has generates a fair amount of tension concerning the whereabouts of the sorcerer mentioned in the title. I also liked how the forces came together randomly for the climatic battle scenes. True, the film has many flaws, but it still works for me as an enjoyable adventure. It is the kind of thing I watch on a Friday night to ease me into the weekend.

Add me to the list of those disappointed that the sequel promised in the closing credits was never made.

This is a wonderfully well-done feature with top marks for its value in sheer fun.

If you're not into fantasy, see this anyway as a great swashbuckler a la the Errol Flynn-as-hero genre. (And Lee Horsley even resembles Errol throughout this film, which I was fortunate enough to see theatrically at time of release.)

There are terrific villains galore, rip-roaring adventure, great castles and dungeons, complicated skullduggery, and comeuppance aplenty, all done with delicate humor.

This is great screen entertainment with a '40s-'50s look to it, and that's a compliment. There are no wasted moments. The fast-moving story relies much more on quality writing, acting and expert direction rather than copping out with the sort of elaborate special-effects that producers/directors of such films seem to lean on so heavily now, nearly two decades later.

I think it's a classic, and a model, of its type.

Highly recommended to all except small children.