This is not a good movie... No matter what some of these comments say (and I am skeptical that some of these seem to be posted by the production company given the fact that whenever a question is listed in the comments, an answer is posted from someone shortly after) this is not a good movie...
Now it was not completely wretched, the cinematography deserves every accolade that it has received, it is not simply that Oregon is pretty, it is that the pretty landscape was nicely shot. (I particularly liked the shots of Asbrey with the snow falling, both with the felled knight and afterwards) The score is also worth mentioning, this was a fully realized score, not a simple synthesizer created orchestra. It is a big help in creating a nice experience while watching the film.
That is unfortunately where my accolades must end. I am not sure where to start...
Perhaps this comment will frame my view on this movie "Lord of the G-Strings without the sex and wit" Now please listen to me...I am not holding up Lord of the G-Strings as a great piece of cinema (though it is funny from time to time), but you can see where I am going with this.
Characters: None were developed at all. I am sure there is an argument that Asbury was very well developed, given that it is his story, but it would be a weak argument. The biggest evidence of the non-existent development is the fact that only 2 characters are given names in the film. Asbury is one, and a guy who gets killed is the other. Yet in the cast list and end credits, almost everyone has a name, yet you have no clue as to who they are referring to...Is Glim the minstrel? Or the slaver? Which of the women's names is his wife's? (We assume it is his wife, but it is never said) Who was the gypsy? Why was she in that vision?
The costuming budget obviously went to Asbury and, for some reason, the foreign warrior at the end. Glim's (I found out who his is through these comments....) costume just looked odd. And all of the soldiers seemed to be wearing felt tunics with black pants they brought from home. Now I can forgive a lot of this due to the budget restrictions they were obviously under and I actually give them a lot of credit for stretching things as far as they did. Though I think giving your hero a huge scar and black eye in the first scene was kind of a mistake.
The script...well...it was just awful...it really was. The plot was very formulaic (When Asbury found the cottage we all knew that either a Beautiful woman or an old wise man would come in behind him. I called the thing about the door too, though it really came out of left field.) The dialogue was almost thrown in as an afterthought. There also seemed to be a very forced "He must loose all of his stuff" scene. Why would he have taken both swords into the fight? And a swordsman would never sleep with his blade stuck in the ground as he slept...it would damage the blade, even if it was just sand. Nitpicky I know, but there needs to be attention to detail in order for any film to work. Because of this, the acting is a toss up. It is sometimes hard to tell if an actor is doing his best with bad dialogue, or if they are making bad dialogue worse. I would not say that any of them are good actors, though the old man was oddly quite a bright spot. Glim was especially bad, while I was sitting there I thought of at least 5 more appropriate ways to deliver almost all of his dialogue. Now this may not completely be his fault, but I will address this next. (As an aside, this actor also wrote the entire score to the film...and bravo to him for it, but he should stick with his day job...or his night job...whichever one the music is.)
Finally is the direction, now this is where I think the movie was lacking most of all. As has been said before, there are far too many shots that are held for far too long. Asbury walks...a lot...alone...not talking...at all. Or he looks into the distance for a long long time. (The sideways shot in this scene however is very nice, but would have been equally poignant at half the length) Or he runs...a long long way...it is like that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where Lancelot is getting closer and closer to the castle. A little cutting down of those scenes would have opened the door for (here's a novel idea) more plot or at least better development of the backstory. SPOILER Especially why his wife was killed and what that had to do with his disenchantment with his calling as a protector. Or were the two things not related? END SPOILER I also think that the director is a little bit to blame with the poor performances of some of the actors. Surely he could have coaxed out slightly better performances. Take Asbury's many angry scenes. A little bit better editing or re-thinking of the scenes would have turned them from the little tantrums that they were, into genuine moments of agony and rage. There are plenty more things to address, but this comment is turning from a comment into an essay, so that is where I will leave it.
Now it was not completely wretched, the cinematography deserves every accolade that it has received, it is not simply that Oregon is pretty, it is that the pretty landscape was nicely shot. (I particularly liked the shots of Asbrey with the snow falling, both with the felled knight and afterwards) The score is also worth mentioning, this was a fully realized score, not a simple synthesizer created orchestra. It is a big help in creating a nice experience while watching the film.
That is unfortunately where my accolades must end. I am not sure where to start...
Perhaps this comment will frame my view on this movie "Lord of the G-Strings without the sex and wit" Now please listen to me...I am not holding up Lord of the G-Strings as a great piece of cinema (though it is funny from time to time), but you can see where I am going with this.
Characters: None were developed at all. I am sure there is an argument that Asbury was very well developed, given that it is his story, but it would be a weak argument. The biggest evidence of the non-existent development is the fact that only 2 characters are given names in the film. Asbury is one, and a guy who gets killed is the other. Yet in the cast list and end credits, almost everyone has a name, yet you have no clue as to who they are referring to...Is Glim the minstrel? Or the slaver? Which of the women's names is his wife's? (We assume it is his wife, but it is never said) Who was the gypsy? Why was she in that vision?
The costuming budget obviously went to Asbury and, for some reason, the foreign warrior at the end. Glim's (I found out who his is through these comments....) costume just looked odd. And all of the soldiers seemed to be wearing felt tunics with black pants they brought from home. Now I can forgive a lot of this due to the budget restrictions they were obviously under and I actually give them a lot of credit for stretching things as far as they did. Though I think giving your hero a huge scar and black eye in the first scene was kind of a mistake.
The script...well...it was just awful...it really was. The plot was very formulaic (When Asbury found the cottage we all knew that either a Beautiful woman or an old wise man would come in behind him. I called the thing about the door too, though it really came out of left field.) The dialogue was almost thrown in as an afterthought. There also seemed to be a very forced "He must loose all of his stuff" scene. Why would he have taken both swords into the fight? And a swordsman would never sleep with his blade stuck in the ground as he slept...it would damage the blade, even if it was just sand. Nitpicky I know, but there needs to be attention to detail in order for any film to work. Because of this, the acting is a toss up. It is sometimes hard to tell if an actor is doing his best with bad dialogue, or if they are making bad dialogue worse. I would not say that any of them are good actors, though the old man was oddly quite a bright spot. Glim was especially bad, while I was sitting there I thought of at least 5 more appropriate ways to deliver almost all of his dialogue. Now this may not completely be his fault, but I will address this next. (As an aside, this actor also wrote the entire score to the film...and bravo to him for it, but he should stick with his day job...or his night job...whichever one the music is.)
Finally is the direction, now this is where I think the movie was lacking most of all. As has been said before, there are far too many shots that are held for far too long. Asbury walks...a lot...alone...not talking...at all. Or he looks into the distance for a long long time. (The sideways shot in this scene however is very nice, but would have been equally poignant at half the length) Or he runs...a long long way...it is like that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where Lancelot is getting closer and closer to the castle. A little cutting down of those scenes would have opened the door for (here's a novel idea) more plot or at least better development of the backstory. SPOILER Especially why his wife was killed and what that had to do with his disenchantment with his calling as a protector. Or were the two things not related? END SPOILER I also think that the director is a little bit to blame with the poor performances of some of the actors. Surely he could have coaxed out slightly better performances. Take Asbury's many angry scenes. A little bit better editing or re-thinking of the scenes would have turned them from the little tantrums that they were, into genuine moments of agony and rage. There are plenty more things to address, but this comment is turning from a comment into an essay, so that is where I will leave it.
Tell Your Friends