Hawk the Slayer (1980)

Hawk the Slayer is a basic story, revenge, magic, swords, assorted villains and one hero sort of the magnificent seven (if you include the sorceress). The acting with a few notable exceptions is wooden, the fight scenes are strained and the resolution unclear. But it works. Maybe it's the nostalgia factor, I was 6 when this was released. Maybe it's Jack Palance chewing the scenery for all he's worth. Maybe it's the amalgamation of Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and the Magnificent Seven. It doesn't really matter. Hawk the Slayer has enough action, enough characters and enough raw concept to still make me smile and reach for the remote whenever it's on television. There have been rumors of sequels in planning for years which shows that the idea works and with some slick production and solid direction could easily fit into the sword and sorcery revival with the Hobbit, a new Conan and more. It does still stand up against the low budget fantasy DVD releases that you see at the supermarket each week and that is not bad for a TV movie over 30 years old. Ultimately it is a great piece of nostalgia, a movie where everyone is clearly committed to the cause and still a lot of fun.

Hawk,, after seeing both his father and bride die at the hands of his malevolent brother, Voltan, sets out for revenge and the chance to live up to his title. Tooling himself up with the "mind-sword" and recruiting a motley band of warriors: a giant, a dwarf, a one-armed man with a machine-crossbow and an elf with the fastest bow in the land; Hawk leads the battle against Voltan to free the land from the forces of evil and avenge his loved ones......This is one of those movies that you have heard about and know that it has a cult following, but have never had the opportunity to get to see. On the rare occasion when it popped up on TV (the horror channel of all places) I had no choice but to put it on my planner and watch it.It's a daft movie for sure, but it has some really funny moments, and some of the casting is pretty genius, such as Bernard Bresslaw as the Giant. If the movie were made today, it would be compared to LOTR as the main characters are so alike, but back then it had similarities to A New Hope, so it was called a rip off to that movie.Palance steals the show right from under everyone's feet, his spouting of lines is beyond camp, and these sort of performances were rife in the early eighties.The rest of the cast are forgettable, just full of people that you would have seen in British sitcoms throughout the nineties, and people wearing silly ears and firing hilariously edited arrows.Not for everyone that's for sure, but if you like movies like Krull, Deathstalker, or just general films of people walking through woods, this is for you.

This movie has a troubled start. It's main character looks like a young John Cleese - thus making you wonder if it's just unfunny deleted scenes from "Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail" movie you're watching. But no - it's a movie on it's own! Unfortunitely, it has some issues:This movie lacks horizon - literally! You won't find a single distance-shot in the entire movie but the one with the castle at the beginning - and that's a painting! Seriously, there is no scene in which you can see a landscape, you have no way to figure out where this all takes place. Everything's taking place in an ugly forest (behind the abandoned train-station east-end London, I presume ?), and when it's not ugly that's because it's too foggy to see anything. No location (and I hesitate to use this term here) is in any connection to the other. The "hero" even has to warp to his friends as well as into the enemy base (a tent and a fireplace, that is). Come to think of it: Actually, the hero is barely moving at all!Also, this movie lacks depth - and I'm not talking about the plot! Half a meter outside the abbey's door starts limbo, or is it the black studio wall? The river is as shallow as the plot, the abbey's hall is gigantic compared to all other featured rooms with their 4m², a measure fitting any other dull place in this dull movie.Then: People die in this movie - dozens of them. Every two or three scenes some new characters are introduced. That's because they all won't last long. Many, many people die - and most of them are killed by the hero and his cohorts: crooks, lowlifes, thieves, travellers, unarmed spectators - just name them. There's little left to kill for the evil guy but nuns and the hero's party members. Unfortunitely, one of the very few survivors is the "hero"...Don't forget the not-so-special effects: There are some, but it's just the then popular video-effects you have seen in so many other mediocre movies from the early eighties. If it wasn't for the laughable green goo-spray effect near the end of the film there's not a single special effect to remember: no monster, no gore, no nothing but the stolen neon Hula Hoop effect from "Superman 2" and terrible speed-cut-editing...And there are other issues... plot hole issues! The evil guy Voltan looks as old as his supposed father, but must be 30 years ahead of his brother Hawk. How did that happen? Why is Voltan so desperately in need of the few gold from the nuns, and why is he revisiting the abbey again and again instead of plundering the place right from the start? And if it's gold he's after, why has he Hawk collect it from the slave-driver (obviously the only other supply of gold in the entire kingdom)? Is he too lazy to get it himself? What was he thinking?? Why are all the good guys so unlikeable? Who's that evil Overlord? And will our hero ever realize that it was indeed a witch he saved from being burnt as a witch by the pious peasants??What I'm saying is this: It's a movie without a big budget, so this is what you get - the story is simple, the acting is simple, the directing is simple, the music is simple (and better be used a science fiction flick), the humor is simple, the costumes are simple, everything's simple! Keep your expectations low and you might actually enjoy it...Luckily, this turkey was never continued...

Well intentioned sword and sorcery adventure has a few things going for it but there are far too many shortcomings to overcome.Our hero Hawk (John Terry) has inherited the "Mind Sword" from his father after he is murdered by his other son the evil Voltan (Jack Palance). Voltan has an army behind him while his brother gathers the stereotypical small band of hero's to help him defeat his brother. The small band includes a giant a dwarf and an elf and each gets a suitably stilted introduction.John Terry is ineffective and seems out of his depth at times, the fact he had some subsequent success seems to indicate either; poor casting, the obviously poor dialogue he was saddled with or a lack of direction. The largely British supporting cast is somewhat subdued and while they don't stand out they also don't embarrass themselves, they include; Annette Crosbie, Harry Andrews, Bernard Bresslaw (Carry On films), Roy Kinnear, W. Morgan Sheppard and Cheryl Campbell. Jack Palance as the villain of the piece is way over the top.The film sticks with many fantasy archetypes but strangely flips other on their heads. The result being that when these variations on the fantasy staples occur they are glaringly incongruous.The story is absurdly straight forward and simple as is the structure of the film, perhaps given a better budget it could have achieved more. The special effects are straight out of the era in which the film was made, and having a limited budget means they are somewhat embarrassing especially when they are poorly executed. We get big puffs of smoke to hide things, fairly cheap matte paintings for all the buildings, sped up film and spliced cuts to give the impression of speed.The films score is a very odd mix of orchestral and disco and while it may be appreciated my some it was far too strident and obtrusive to my ear.Despite the problems a true aficionado of fantasy might enjoy the film if they aren't too discerning.