लेजेंड

There's the original version, released in 1986 and on videotape, and the 2002 Director's Cut, available on DVD. The latter version is one of my all-time favorite movies. It compares quite favorably with Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" and is a modern classic.

The theatrical release of 1986, shamefully butchered (chopped up and badly re-edited) by the mindless suits at Warner, and with its original Jerry Goldsmith score replaced by the rather trite Tangerine Dream soundtrack, is the version most people have seen. It was released on videotape as a children's movie. What it is, and was intended to be, is a fairy tale for adults. In fact, it's too intense for really young children.

It's hard to say that the '86 version deserves any more than the "6" it's rated at on its IMDb main page. It is a disappointment, primarily because it's now impossible to watch without think how much better it could be. The feeling and tone of the film were ruined by its treatment.

The Ridley Scott Director's Cut, released in 2002, is a completely different movie. If you haven't seen this version, you haven't seen the movie. It deserves a score of 9 or 10.

It doesn't look like a movie made 20 years ago. Scenes which are vital to the tone of the film and the meaning of the story have been restored. The sumptuous original soundtrack, recorded with a full orchestra, has also been restored, and this adds more to the film than can be put into words.

About the performances: A very young Tom Cruise is excellent as the hero. Tim Curry as the Lord of Darkness is awesome; his costume and voice alone are worth the cost of renting or buying the DVD. Mia Sara is absolutely stunning as Lily. She actually plays two different versions of her character, both wonderfully. This was her first role, a risk for Scott on such a big budget film, and she turned in the performance of her career. She's never been better, or looked more beautiful, than in this movie. The elves and fairies, both good and evil, are incredibly real-looking and believable. The costumes are perfect, and the sets are breathtaking, literally. One of the largest indoor sets ever constructed - a huge fantasy forest - was built for this movie.

If you haven't seen this version, rent it. If you have kids, buy it for them; they'll watch it over and over. My daughter and her friends watch it repeatedly, she's probably seen it 50 times.

So tell me if you've seen this one before: Two innocent lovers are corrupted by an evil villain played by Tim Curry in a dark castle where they somehow have to escape but are forever tainted by the experience.

I could be talking about the Rocky Horror Show, but I could also be talking about Legend. Both films are cult classics, and I think the reason why they manage to achieve this is through the time-tested "Garden of Eden/Original sin" plotline. The difference is that Legend lacks all the fun, silliness, and musicality of the Rocky Horror Show. It's all replaced with a dark fantasy setting and supporting actors that look the part.

I saw the US release with the Tangerine Dream soundtrack. The music is not at bad, especially the unicorn theme. Costume design is incredible as one imagines just how long it took for Tim Curry to get his demon head on before every filming session.

Ultimately the writing and pacing is fairly weak and it's not hard to see why it did poorly at the box office. I lived through the 1980s as a child and had never even heard of this film until recently. Now I know why.

As a huge fan of Tangerine Dream and Jon Anderson, I praise the fact that their music is in the "American" cut of this film; their music has always sounded like they were trying to do soundtracks to a movie. You hear a song, you get visual images in your head and make a movie of your own.

However, ...

I do have to say that the American Version with Tangerine Dream's soundtrack only makes this movie into a "Cult" film. It could have been great, but (well, you fill in the blank).

Fortunately, I've seen the way it was SUPPOSED to have been released in the States (which you can find on the 2-disc DVD, which has both versions).

The Non-American version has a story which is much fuller, and the music (with a full symphony orchestra) is much better and adds more drama and punctuates the mood of each scene more properly.

I do find the American version's end much more climatic musically and story-wise with Jon Anderson (singer of Yes)'s angelic voice thundering with Tangerine Dream's score in the background.

So, pick an afternoon when you got about 4 hours to spare and watch BOTH. Then, take parts of each version and make YOUR OWN wonderous story.

And another thing, keep in mind that this movie came out a whole 20 years ago. The early 80's. Next year it can buy it's own beer (if it was a person). So, Tim Curry and a lot of others would have been just voices over CGI characters instead of being in actual makeup and there would have been MORE to the story and script if CGI was as available back then as it is now.

There IS such a thing as knowing limitations, you know.

American Version, good enough to make one wonder what was more.

International Version, done much better and fuller (though I like the American ending better)

As I said, watch both versions and make your OWN version to enjoy.

Aaaaannnd ... CUT!

That's a wrap.

Never did the phrase "a beautiful film" have more relevance than in this wonderful piece of adult fantasy. Make no mistake, this masterpiece, Ridley Scott's fourth film (it followed BLADE RUNNER) was never intended for children. Those who have written it off as a kids' movie totally betray their limitations and inability to see what is being offered here.

A youthful Tom Cruise was such a good choice as Jack, the forest dweller destined to plunge the world into darkness and then have but one opportunity to restore the light. Mia Sara is the beautiful princess, part Cinderella, part angel, all virgin! and Tim Curry? well, what a simply staggering contribution as the Lord of Darkness. Totally unrecognizable both visually and audibly but what a performance.

All the Ridley Scott trademarks are here, the back-projected blue light, the filtered scenes of wonderment, central characters in a crisis, the enigma of life itself. If anything, LEGEND is better now than when it was released. In '85 it received critical praise - just no-one went to see it! Well that's not strictly true. I attended the Sydney premiere and sat thru it entranced as others fidgeted, whispered, and generally brought attention to their limited attention spans and lowered perceptions!

Certainly it is a film that on one level children could relate to and even enjoy but it is a far deeper film with a host of reflective ideas and quite magical concepts. What really IS the Lord of Darkness? What is the significance of the Unicorns? What becomes of the innocence we leave behind in childhood? If none of this interests you, make sure you avoid this film!

Legend (1985)

2.5/4

A lot of 80's fantasy movies focus on hero's trying to save the world, the universe, their love, their home, and so much more. 'Legend' follows that formula, with the hero (Tom Cruise) saving the world AND his love. It kind of works, to a limited degree. But it's not very good, and mostly doesn't work this time. The movie's fatal flaw is no compelling story. But what does work are the visuals. Beautiful, complex, and strangely fascinating, its own style kept me engaged. The story is lackluster; but the visuals are some of the best I've ever seen for a fantasy film. But unfortunately, the story gets in the way of a positive review, which is why I'm giving it a mixed negative review.

The movie follows a young man named Jack (Tom Cruise), who sets out to stop the evil Lord of Darkness (Tim Curry) from completely obliterating daylight and from marrying the woman he truly loves (Mia Sera).

As with a lot of director Ridley Scott's work, the style eventually overrules the substance. In 'Legend' there's little to no substance, but excellent doses in style. For years, this film tried to be made, but Scott couldn't get the proper conditions. He's finally working off an original screenplay from William Hjortsberg, who doesn't provide good groundwork for the picture. It's kind of a mash of 80's fantasy scenes, and all stringed together by a relatively basic plot. The film is also famous for having its sets burned completely to the ground during filming, and Tom Cruise's father dying during the production of the film. It's no wonder this movie is such a mess.

The visual style is exhilarating; beautifully thought and wonderfully calculated. The sets are just as fantastically produced. But the story, at its best, represents other fantasy movie plots; and at its worst, represents a lousy movie. It's a very complicated picture; but it all comes down to a very basic solution: there's more style over substance, something Scott is sometimes known for.

2 ½ STARS (OUT OF 4)