Although there was just a tiny bit of sorcery in it, but the Princess Bride should be on the list.

They missed one. (new window)

No Lord of the Rings?

/plus one for including LadyHawke. Still one of my favorite films.

Doesn't Lord of the Rings count in this?

Where the hell is Yor: the Hunter From the Future on that list?

i love most of the movies on that list; conan, willow, krull, highlander. they are a lot of fun. i was so disappointed that the new conan movie was crap though. the original conan did it right, the new conan was a mess.

farkeruk: Doesn't Lord of the Rings count in this?

Technically that's high fantasy, not sword and sorcery; buggered if I know what makes the difference though

Relatively Obscure: Excalibur has been just about the only attempt to tell a straight, dramatic version of King Arthur. No swapping up time and place, no removing the magic, no comedy. Just telling the legend in the best movie possible, and with an incredible cast. It launched the career of Liam Neeson, and starred Helen Mirren and Patrick Stewart.

I'm thoroughly embarrassed that I didn't notice Liam Neeson was Gawain. Then again, it has been quite some time since I watched Excalibur for the millionth time.

/So ashamed.

The man who played Arthur (Nigel Terry) showed up in a Doctor Who episode (The Doctor's Daughter).

capitulating fromage masticating simian: farkeruk: Doesn't Lord of the Rings count in this?

Technically that's high fantasy, not sword and sorcery; buggered if I know what makes the difference though

Sword and sorcery focuses on personal not world level conflicts. .

List fails without...

Without...

Actually, that's a pretty solid list. I wonder how much of that is streamable right now.

/LoTR just seems too big, too epic to really fit on this list.

Fail without: The Archer, Fugitive from the Empire (new window)

But then again, the movie was a tv pilot...

but it still counts to me dammit.

farkeruk: Doesn't Lord of the Rings count in this?

Lord of the Rings is a documentary.

I yhink thr criticism of the original Conan is off. It was actually a pretty good movie with a plot that makes some sense. The fight scenes were pretty bad and unrealistic in parts.
The script was decent because Oliver Stone was one of the writers, and James Earl Jones made the movie what it is. Stone is probably a better scriptwriter than director, except for platoon.

I'd imagine, that once it's released, Knight of Badassdom will boot something off this list.

Most of those I can agree with (Ladyhawke, conan, willow, dragonslayer, etc) but they missed a couple of obvious ones (in my opinion) such as Red Sonja, the 13th warrior, clash of the titans (original), etc

Unlike LOTR most of these didn't take themselves seriously.

Bring it, take it serious.

Gunther: Where the hell is Yor: the Hunter From the Future on that list?

Exclusion of Yor means this must be a list of the most awesome, because it is one of the worst ever.

But what about Hawk the Slayer (new window)?

kukukupo: Red Sonja, the 13th warrior, clash of the titans

Meh, Red Sonja wasn't really anything interesting- it was essentially another Conan movie where Conan had a hot sidekick. 13th Warrior had swords but not sorcery- it was more a historical fiction. Clash of the Titans, on the other hand, could be on the list (although mythology epics are kinda their own fantasy subgenre).

BizarreMan:

But what about Hawk the Slayer (new window)?

Yes! Yes! Saw this in college in 1979, and still remember it! Must have been too old to make it onto the list.

/"You will die by my hand!"

johnson442: Saw this in college in 1979, and still remember it!

It came out in 1981.

FlashHarry: i do remember a video store clerk once complaining to me that these so-called "dark ages" knights were all wearing 15th century plate armor...

He's right, but wrong. The Arthurian Legends were compiled over the course of a few centuries. Most of them originally date to the 12th and 13th centuries. The modern versions really date to Tennyson's work in the 19th century, and that where the tone of historicity gets set. The image of knights in armor was set by the paintings of the pre-Raphaelites who delved deeply into the myths for inspiration.

The late-Renaissance armor is as much a part of the Arthurian legends as the narrative itself.

I just watched the new Conan again last night. I think they should have focused more attention on the kid Conan.
That kid nailed it.
Ron Perlman can do no wrong by me either.

Epic Fantasy:
The plot is central to the world's history or even cosmology.
The story come to an end, usually with some sort of healing of the land, and either a restoration or dissolution of magic
The story is published as single narrative arc (for example, a trilogy).
Characters tend to the heroic.
Setting likely to be pastoral and expansive.

Sword and Sorcery:

The plot is what adventurous people tend to do within a particular world.
There is always room for another adventure.
The stories are published as a series of interlocking narratives (for example, individual novels)
Characters tend to the anti-heroic.
Setting can be urban and intimate.

(from here)

Lord of the Rings isn't on this list because LotR defined "epic fantasy" which is considered distinct from Sword and Sorcery... but yeah, maybe there's a little overlap there. LotR definitely had swords. And sorcery. And some in LotR were motivated by greed, or revenge I guess, but the movie as a whole is too epic to be considered a tale of people set in fantasy world

My only problems with the new Conan movie is they used the insanly wrong voice for the narration and the villain was exceedingly unimpressive. It was if the writters had built up so much back story and character development for him that they became impressed with him, but failed to translate any of that to film.

also, there was a sword & sorcery film where the main character had a gauntlet or wrist band which was computerized and Ibelieve it was called something cheese like X-Calib-R , anyone know of that film?

Let's see...

Conan the Barbarian, Krull, Sword & The Sorceror, BeastMaster, DragonSlayer, LadyHawke, Yor, Red Sonja, DeathStalker, Barbarian Queen, Warrior and the Sorceress.

I think that's the entire list of Sword & Sandals stuff on the must-see list. With the exception of Yor (Which you have to see just because it's sooooo bad), they are all decent films for the genre.

Have I missed any?

Unsung_Hero: Which you have to see just because it's sooooo bad

There are the MST3Ked ones:
The Cave Dwellers (better known as Ator, the Invincible)
Outlaw (better known as Outlaw of Gor, with Jack Palance in a stand-out role)
Deathstalker III (better known as the least of the Deathstalker films)

Watch them with MST3K riffing over them, and they're all awesome. I love MST3K doing crappy fantasy movies.

t3knomanser: I love MST3K doing crappy fantasy movies.

Meh. I like Yor because it's so bad, but it's an exception. I'd really rather watch moderately well done movies (for the genre).

Which reminds me, I missed Sorbo's Kull. Not terrific, but an acceptable late-90s attempt at recapturing the old barbarian movie magic.

Deathstalker? REALLY? That movie is awful... but kind of hilarious, I have to admit.

James Rolfe actually reviewed all of them. Cinemassacre on Deathstalker (new window)

/FARK IT! PORK IT!

Conan the destroyer? Really?
List fails big time with the omission of Fleash + Blood.

Just saw the new Conan last night, and low expectations were met w/ much rejoicing.. sure a little stilted dialogue, but great action sequences, mamoa was a decent enough conan and they did seem to stay pretty true to Howard's vision of the character. I hope they do some sequels...

Mugato: Willow. I had such a thing for Sorshia when I was a kid. And that thing was a raging hard-on.

[img003.lazygirls.info image 348x500]

Couldn't find a good picture from Willow.

That one will do just fine.

God, what a crappy genre.

Kegovitch: My only problems with the new Conan movie is they used the insanly wrong voice for the narration and the villain was exceedingly unimpressive. It was if the writters had built up so much back story and character development for him that they became impressed with him, but failed to translate any of that to film.

I was surprised at what a good job Momoa did. It's a shame that the film's lackluster performance probably means he won't get another leading role.

What's weird about the film is, it's clear the writers read lots of Howard from the little nods they give (place names, gods, etc), and yet the movie doesn't even attempt to go for the same sort of tone, content to be a crappy b-grade revenge movie with a ludicrous villain. Why bother inserting references if it's clear you don't give a crap about the material?

List fails big time with the omission of Fleash + Blood.

A great movie, but a movie about 16th century mercenaries - no "sorcery" invovled.

Just wan to leave this (new window)

Unoriginal_Username: Just want to leave this (new window)

/ftfm....to early

swahnhennessy: God, what a crappy genre.

True, but the comment on Conan about being everything a 13 year old wants to see was dead on. Now, 20+ years later? What a horrible movie.

Relatively Obscure: Excalibur has been just about the only attempt to tell a straight, dramatic version of King Arthur. No swapping up time and place, no removing the magic, no comedy. Just telling the legend in the best movie possible, and with an incredible cast. It launched the career of Liam Neeson, and starred Helen Mirren and Patrick Stewart.

I'm thoroughly embarrassed that I didn't notice Liam Neeson was Gawain. Then again, it has been quite some time since I watched Excalibur for the millionth time.

/So ashamed.

I loved that film. I'm still deeply impressed by John Boorman's use of magical realism in his depiction of the story. The gleaming silver walls of Camelot scarred and pitted. The world that shifts seamlessly from Merlin as a demigod with the universe at his fingertips and men so weighed down by their heavy armour and weapons that all they can do to fight is crudely beat one another around the head and shoulders. It's base and brutal and mystical and beautiful and every bit of it works together splendidly.

bishop6042: notoneword: Just saw the new Conan last night, and low expectations were met w/ much rejoicing.. sure a little stilted dialogue, but great action sequences, mamoa was a decent enough conan and they did seem to stay pretty true to Howard's vision of the character. I hope they do some sequels...

True to Howard's vision? Really? Howard wrote exactly one sentence about Conan's childhood. The villain was made up for the movie. This movie was just an OK S&S flick. It could have been called anything else, but it wasn't a Conan story. I was going to give it a pass as a Conan movie if it was going to be a set up for making a real Howard story later. Beyond the Black River or The Sword and The Phoenix. But they handled it so badly it will be another 20 years before they try a reboot again.

Yeh, I'd rather they just use the original stories too. The one sentence was that he was 'born on a battlefield' and they definitely showed that (iyiyiii) - but like I said, I had low expectations but found it a lot better than it could've been. And yes, pretty true to his vision of the character, even if they added some of the background stuff for his childhood and the villain. The villain fit in well w/ many of the other power-mad wizards from Howard's stories - I didn't have a problem with it.

The most recent time I re-read Howard's stories, I realized they reminded me a lot of film noir detective movies.. Conan's the Bogart character - mercenary, but ultimately willing to do the good/heroic thing. There's a femme fatale, some various assorted powerful baddies - kings/wizards/demons - and lots of good twists. I thought the new movie did a pretty good job of staying w/in those confines.

'but it wasn't a conan story' - I feel that way about Arnold's movie..

Excuse me, may I have your attention?