Overall, as a movie, this film is moderately enjoyable. .. if you can forget that it is supposed to be Kull.
Now, if you are a fellow Howard fan, this film is kinda insulting, and I feel that the worst part, aside from extracting Kull's philisophical side, is having Litefoot in the movie, and NOT having him play Brule. How the hell did this hapen??
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I find the biggest insult is that Kull is pretty much a pansy in the movie and in Robert E. Howard's work he destroys hundreds and heeps their corpses at his feet.
share[deleted]
That's a good point. It's just a shame that Brule was extracted from the movie... the dynamic of their rivalry-cum-friendship is one of the things that really clicked in the Kull stories, as uneven as they were. I wish that they could have some how kept Brule AND EScalante in the script (though the latter's contribution to the story was debatable at best).
And yes, Kull's character was way out of wack .I wonder if the traditionally fine scribe Charles Pouge gave the Kull stories anything more than a cursory glance. Howard made it clear at least on one occasion that Kull had never known the pleasures of women, and in this film he was practically a walking erection. Kinda dumbs down a greta character, doncha think?
If you can close your eyes and imagine the character is anyone but Kull, this film is a harmless enough way to drain two hours. But taken as Kull, it's blasphemy.
Almost as bad as "Conan the Adventurer".....
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Aye,Brule wasn't in it,and neither the snake-men (if i remember well)...All in all a disappointment :(
shareActually the biggest insult was that this damn piece of *beep* was ever conceived, much less made.
share