MovieChat Forums > Kull the Conqueror (1997) Discussion > Horrible movie

Horrible movie

posted 15 years ago by GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom
14 replies | jump to latest

This is easily one of the worst adaptations of any author's work ever made. The soundtrack is jarring and out of place. The acting ranges from uninspiring to disastrous. The special effects are downright laughable, and the productions values are on a par with those of any of the myriad of bad Sci Fi Channel movies released over the past decade. It's hard to say if Howard's Kull would have benefitted from a more faithful adaptation though because Kull, unlike Conan, is more ethereal and introspective than Howard's work in general and may have been hard to translate to screen anyway. That said, a bit more fidelity to Howard's creation certainly couldn't have hurt. Of the many reasons this movie collapsed out of the gates and became infamous for its horridness, probably because of the fact that the producers had no idea how to make a successful movie that's reasonably faithful to Howard's work. That being the case, I wish it had never been made, for it probably set back interest people might have in reading Howard's work more than anything else.

[–] roman8 15 years ago

^ Undoubtedly, because Howard's "work" is like... Tolstoi or Homer or Dante... Would you eventually envisage the prospect of relinking with a more veracious version of standardizing sets?

(Or in your words: get real!)

[–] Taranaichsaurus 15 years ago

^ Undoubtedly, because Howard's "work" is like... Tolstoi or Homer or Dante... Would you eventually envisage the prospect of relinking with a more veracious version of standardizing sets?

Not entirely sure what you're talking about with your obfuscating text, but your placement of Howard's work in quotations indicates no small level of condescension on your part.

Which is a shame, because Howard's work (note the lack of quotations) is collected in the Library of America and Penguin classics, alongside the greats of American and World literature - works like that of Tolstory, Homer or Dante. Obviously the LoA and Penguin found something of value in his work.

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 15 years ago

Tar, this is the same guy who think everyone loves Kull the Conqueror because a couple of years ago it was shown a grand total of three times in a whole year on German TV. That should tell you the level of idiocy you're dealing with.

[–] roman8 15 years ago

^ So is Ann Aguirre as far as Penguin Classics: http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Search/QuickSearchProc/1,,Author_1000072 645,00.html What's that got to do with anything?

As for the Library of America: he's in an anthology with his short story The Black Stone, pretty much as an example of a Lovecraft-disciple.

[–] Taranaichsaurus 15 years ago

^ So is Ann Aguirre as far as Penguin Classics: http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Search/QuickSearchProc/1,,Author_1000072 645,00.html What's that got to do with anything?

So you're saying you know more about literature than Penguin Classics?

As for the Library of America: he's in an anthology with his short story The Black Stone, pretty much as an example of a Lovecraft-disciple.

And that unsourced reasoning shows that Howard has zero literary value because...?

I do enjoy Howard's work as much as the next person, but I am uner no illusions on what its literary value consists of, namely zero.

Well I guess guys like Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Poul Anderson, H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Leigh Brackett, David Weber, George R. R. Martin, J.R.R. Tolkien, Joe Abercrombie and the Poet Laureate of Texas must be under some sort of illusion, seeing some literary merit that isn't there.

And Penguin Classics and the Library of America, of course.

[–] roman8 15 years ago

1. Penguin Classics is an edition of fiction. It by no means claims to publish only literature, but does indeed offer also a vast range of so-called escapism fiction. Which is exactly what Howard's works are.

2. Unsourced? As in "with no link"? Oh well, simply check the Library of America.

3. You do realize that in that list there are exclusively escapist fiction authors listed, yes? And that, while escapist fiction CAN be literature, it very seldom is? In the horror, fantasy, science fiction genre Mallory, Poe or Wells are literature, but none of the ones you presented above is.

Anthologies of fiction comprise escapist authors, naturally. But you will find out upon checking that they aren't listed as literature. Which is fair enough, because they aren't. They write well, compelling, thrilling, even very good. Only: they write something else than literature. Therefore movies erived from their works are best served with a distanced view on the subject and as much humour as possible, because otherwise you end up with the LotR- or Conan-effect: the products age very quickly and start looking ridiculous much more than the inustry as such cares for. What's so difficult to grasp about all of this?

[–] Taranaichsaurus 15 years ago

The mere fact that you make a division between "literature" and "escapist fiction" says all I need to know. Literature is a medium, not a genre. That's like saying one form of art is "art" while everything else is just "paintings" or "illustration."

I'm also amazed how you can cite Poe & Wells as examples of "literature," when one could make the exact same arguments you use to dismiss Howard and Tolkien as "escapist fiction."

And with that, I know that nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you, and nothing you're going to say will convince me. This conversation is just going to go round in circles. For my own sanity, I'm going to just ignore you from now on, and I suggest you do the same to my posts.

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 15 years ago

Well, Roman the Kool-Aid drinker, I made no comment on Howard's work other than to say Kull would be hard to translate to the screen because of the way it's written, Roman. Maybe you should read what people post next time before launching into such asinine posts, jackass.

[–] roman8 15 years ago

^ Exactly. Your argument (you might want to re-read it, and this time try processing the words not just visually, but also intellectually - that means: use more than just the vegetative functions of your brain) was that it may translate poorly to screen because of its literary value.

I do enjoy Howard's work as much as the next person, but I am uner no illusions on what its literary value consists of, namely zero.

[–] onehipdad 15 years ago

What the hey, there's not much else on.....

"Admit to poisoning the monkeys, and we'll give you a cigarette."

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 15 years ago

You are an absolute *beep* moron. Whatever literary merits Howard had are going to be points of debate, but never once, idiot, did I say Howard's work would be hard to translate to screen because of literary value or lack thereof. The way the character is developed makes it hard to film, unlike Conan, who is a more accessible character--and even there no filmmaker has really succeeded yet or is likely going to any time in the future. You're seriously too stupid to have a debate with, so I'm going to join other posters in ignoring your puerile rants.

Carthago delenda est.

[–] tiger01 15 years ago

I'm just going to choose to ignore roman's postings as they are just laughable ravings. You're not by chance related to De Laurentiis, are you?

Anyway, I do agree with most of what you said, GWAoB. To me, this was more like a Hercules episode with last second name changes and rewrites. Unfortunately, I don't think the producers actually cared about staying faithful, at all, to Howard's original work. Universal Studio's live-action Conan sword of sorcery spectacular was in all likeliness more faithful than this movie, heh.

You do make a very good point about the differences between the characters of Conan and Kull and translating them both to the screen. I only hope that one day, a true REH fan with no ulterior motives (ie: vehicle for action star, dumbass producer ideas - rock guitar soundtrack, etc) gets to make a movie or miniseries based on Howard's stories. I mean, say what you will about The Lord of the Rings trilogy but look at how successful a fantasy movie did when it was given a serious attempt by top notch filmmakers and actors. Ahh we can only hope.

[–] kerrydragon 14 years ago

I really liked this movie,and I admire sinbad,sorcery and dragon movies.Cheesy special effects can sometimes be enduring in a fun,campy sort of way.

[–] dan-willi84 12 years ago

I like Kull the Conqueror, but the only thing I didn't like about the film was Kevin Sorbo's acting.