Legend 25 years later... hit or miss
I first saw this celluloid fairy tale back when I was a kid in theatres. I don't remember liking it much at the time (made me uncomfortable and queasy actually) and in fact, the only thing I really remembered from the film itself was the big red devil. Perhaps I wasn't sophisticated enough then to enjoy it properly so why not see it again as an adult and give it a second shake...
My main opinion during and after the screening (of the director's cut) was that although the decors and the makeup of the creatures are great even by today's standards, that the movie dragged, mostly in the second half. It felt long and I even yawned a few times. I don't know if it's because the pace is wrong, the film lacks action or the story is not engrossing enough but I was bored too often. I also expect some kind of sense of wonder in fantasy films. It happened with the unicorns, although unfortunately their horns were wobbly at first breaking the illusion, and it did happen with the grand entrance of the devil (seen on the cover). It did not happen much other than that. I loved the devil played by Tim Curry in heavy costume and makeup making him unrecognizable. His deep operatic yet comforting voice (slightly modified) is perfect, his expressions are very good and his movements are quite believable. He's the best representation of a traditional devil I've ever seen. Although the main human actors are played earnestly and rather well by Mia Sara and a young Tom Cruise, I was mesmerized by the character of Honeythorn Gump, the apparent leader of the small fairy-folk. He looks like a child but his big expressive eyes, his often severe facial expressions and the way he moves are reminiscent of someone older, kind of appropriate for an elf having lived for a long time. The actor playing Gump was 19 years old which would explain some of his performance. I found him fascinating yet somewhat sinister. I didn't find the comic-relief goblins and gnomes particularly appealing or interesting. To be fair, they were buried under tons of makeup making them less expressive.
I watched the director's cut on DVD and the normal shorter US version afterwards. I will not go in details on the differences here but those interested can check this link : http://www.figmentfly.com/legend/different4c.html . Neither version is perfect but I think I preferred the director's cut in part because of the classical music score (instead of Tangerine Dream's new age synthesizer remade soundtrack for North America). The relationship between the princess and Jack (Tom Cruise) is also more ambiguous, my favorite character other than Darkness, the elf (?) Gump, has more screen time, the appearance of Darkness is not spoiled right at the beginning making his first "real" entrance a lot more dramatic and the fun swamp "sorceress" is there longer. On the other hand, with the shorter US theatrical version, you are less likely to find your mind wandering or being bored
In closing, Ridley Scott the director said he was proud of his film despite all its problems (main set burning, big commercial flop and critically panned at the time being a few) and that at least, he managed to get that kind of film (fantasy fairy-tale) out of his system. Not the most ringing endorsement if you ask me... Scott might be proud but I would not call Legend really good even today. it's passable but it pales in comparison to other fantasy films of the eighties (Willow, Princess Bride, Neverending Story (only the first one), Labyrinth, etc) that should be rented or purchased long before Legend. However, Legend has several redeeming features pushing it above the lower dregs of that genre. Legend was middle-of-the-pack for that era but suffered from expectations that were too high.
Rating : 5 out of 10
My main opinion during and after the screening (of the director's cut) was that although the decors and the makeup of the creatures are great even by today's standards, that the movie dragged, mostly in the second half. It felt long and I even yawned a few times. I don't know if it's because the pace is wrong, the film lacks action or the story is not engrossing enough but I was bored too often. I also expect some kind of sense of wonder in fantasy films. It happened with the unicorns, although unfortunately their horns were wobbly at first breaking the illusion, and it did happen with the grand entrance of the devil (seen on the cover). It did not happen much other than that. I loved the devil played by Tim Curry in heavy costume and makeup making him unrecognizable. His deep operatic yet comforting voice (slightly modified) is perfect, his expressions are very good and his movements are quite believable. He's the best representation of a traditional devil I've ever seen. Although the main human actors are played earnestly and rather well by Mia Sara and a young Tom Cruise, I was mesmerized by the character of Honeythorn Gump, the apparent leader of the small fairy-folk. He looks like a child but his big expressive eyes, his often severe facial expressions and the way he moves are reminiscent of someone older, kind of appropriate for an elf having lived for a long time. The actor playing Gump was 19 years old which would explain some of his performance. I found him fascinating yet somewhat sinister. I didn't find the comic-relief goblins and gnomes particularly appealing or interesting. To be fair, they were buried under tons of makeup making them less expressive.
I watched the director's cut on DVD and the normal shorter US version afterwards. I will not go in details on the differences here but those interested can check this link : http://www.figmentfly.com/legend/different4c.html . Neither version is perfect but I think I preferred the director's cut in part because of the classical music score (instead of Tangerine Dream's new age synthesizer remade soundtrack for North America). The relationship between the princess and Jack (Tom Cruise) is also more ambiguous, my favorite character other than Darkness, the elf (?) Gump, has more screen time, the appearance of Darkness is not spoiled right at the beginning making his first "real" entrance a lot more dramatic and the fun swamp "sorceress" is there longer. On the other hand, with the shorter US theatrical version, you are less likely to find your mind wandering or being bored
In closing, Ridley Scott the director said he was proud of his film despite all its problems (main set burning, big commercial flop and critically panned at the time being a few) and that at least, he managed to get that kind of film (fantasy fairy-tale) out of his system. Not the most ringing endorsement if you ask me... Scott might be proud but I would not call Legend really good even today. it's passable but it pales in comparison to other fantasy films of the eighties (Willow, Princess Bride, Neverending Story (only the first one), Labyrinth, etc) that should be rented or purchased long before Legend. However, Legend has several redeeming features pushing it above the lower dregs of that genre. Legend was middle-of-the-pack for that era but suffered from expectations that were too high.
Rating : 5 out of 10
- Quebec_Dragon
- 6. Mai 2010