Kull: The Conqueror

Is the film any good? No. Is the film at least fun? Yes. I agree the film does not take itself seriously. It's one of those lazy afternoon films when there's not a lot on and you simply want to rest watching a silly film - but you'd have to like sword and sorcery films to even begin to enjoy this movie.

Acting is mediocre at best. Costumes, sets and creatures are cool enough. Lame story but somehow fun enough to keep me a bit interested. I can easily watch this film and let my mind wonder off without missing much of anything.

Some funny scenes - I like the farting camel. LOL.

The Conan films are better but this one but this one is alright enough for something different in the barbarian category.

5.5/10

KULL is not to be taken seriously, even though it is derived from a serious book by the author of the Conan stories, Robert Howard. Kevin "Hercules" Sorbo plays Kull, a warrior in search of a kingdom in a time long forgotten, in a breezy, off-handed manner -- and his refusal to take his character too seriously works in favor of this low-budget quickie. The ever-delectable Tia Carrere plays a witch who plans to take over the world, and she is absolutely delicious as a supernatural villainess. The fights are clumsily staged, the sets are from hunger, but the dialog is a lot of fun and everyone would appear to be having a good time. A rainy day pick. It certainly kicks Red Sonja's butt.

I saw the movie on television yesterday evening. When I had looked into the tv magazine I saw that the movie is rather new (1997), but I had never heard of it, which means nothing good. Then I saw that Kevin Sorbo starred in it. I don't have a problem with him, but he's absolutely fixed to that "Hercules"-role, so I knew exactly what to expect. But it wasn't THAT bad. The plot was mediocre, but not ridiculous. The special effects weren't too good, but some looked nice. The scenery looked extremely fake from time to time, but there also were some nice backgrounds and such. It's not really a bad movie, I was not bored when I watched it. If you are a fan of such medieval settings and lower your expectations a bit it might be worth a watch.

5/10

First the good news. This picture has production design worthy of Conan creator Robert E. Howard's legacy. Everything else is bad news. The script is allegedly a many version hand-me-down re-working of the never made third Conan movie, the film in which Conan would finally win the throne of Aquilonia. Instead we get Howard's backup hero (Kull) who takes the throne at the beginning of the film in an un-stirring, non-epic little battle and then loses it quickly to Witch Demon Akivasha (played to the hilt by Tia Carrere who obviously had rare fun as a bad girl). Kull then kills an hour on a very routine quest-to-find-his-right-to-rule and finally returns for the classic Howard showdown between good brawn and evil sorcery. The main problem is Kevin Sorbo, who got so good at playing Hercules in self-spoofing post-modern fashion that he simply doesn't resonate with the necessary authentic bronze age thuggishness of a Howard hero. Here was a chance to play a variation on his usual screen self and he punted it. Too bad. The set decorators captured the proper essence of Robert Howard...

I like Kevin Sorbo, so I watched the film. It wasn't mentally tasking and it never set out to be. The movie was designed to be campy and it said so. You heard the rock music in the background during the trailer, so why are people so disappointed with it? I still enjoyed it for its dry wit and simplicity. It was a nice flashback to those old Conan movies. I've heard that Kull is Conan's father, and I don't know much about this character from the Conan films, but I dug him. I found him charming. The Conan movies wasn't much in the way of smart either, but people still enjoy it. I liked the combination of modern themes and music with the extremely old school nature of the film. It was like a land before time or something. Watch it if you just wanna watch something and don't expect much.