Review: Legend

Our hero is young Jack (Tom Cruise), who must save his beloved Princess Lily (Mia Sara) from the horned beast known as Darkness (Tim Curry, beneath a LOT of prosthetic makeup), whose evil plan is to kill the last two unicorns in existence which will result in darkness (and therefore Darkness) forever enveloping the land. David Bennent plays an unintentionally creepy forest sprite named Gump, Billy Barty plays a similarly creepy character by the name of Screwball.

 

I loved fantasy literature when I was a kid (sci-fi with a humorous bent was more my thing, though), but for some reason, this 1985 Ridley Scott (“Alien”, “Blade Runner”, “Black Rain”, “American Gangster”) film just wasn’t my bag. In 2014, it’s slightly more my bag, though I’m less into your princess fairytale stuff and more into your elves, warriors, and wizards stuff. This is full-on princesses, fairies, goblins, and demons. “Labyrinth”-style stuff, basically. It’d make an interesting triple-bill with “The Dark Crystal” and “Labyrinth”, albeit the lesser of the three. Nonetheless it’s a bit surprising that I liked it more this time around because I was pretty into the genre growing up (or at least books in the genre), and am far less interested in it now. So you’d think it would have a dramatically reverse effect, wouldn’t you?

 

If you ask me, Scott and scribe William Hjortsberg (who wrote the novel “Angel Heart” was adapted from) put too much emphasis on the wrong characters, leaving by far the most interesting character on the sidelines. Combine that with some unintentionally creepy characters who are meant to be benevolent or at least mercurial (even veteran dwarf actor Billy Barty, normally a genial fella comes across as quite seedy, unintentionally), and you have an intermittently enjoyable film that could’ve been even better.

 

There is no doubt that the film’s protagonists played by the stunning Mia Sara and a wet Tom Cruise are frightfully dull. In the right role, Tom Cruise can be very effective and charismatic as hell (“Magnolia”, “Born on the 4^th of July”, “Rain Man”, “War of the Worlds”, “Knight and Day”, “A Few Good Men”, and “Collateral” for instance). Playing an impish young romantic fantasy hero is precisely...the wrong usage of his talents. At least in “Interview with the Vampire”, it looked like Cruise was struggling valiantly against his tragic miscasting as a vampire villain, but in 1985, Cruise wasn’t even accomplished enough to struggle here. He’s just bland, playing a bland character that he’s not right for in the first place. Some actors are just too ‘modern’ to fit into the fantasy genre, and Cruise is one of them. At least Matthew Broderick’s “Ferris Bueller” charm fit his character in “Ladyhawke”, even if his Woody Allen-esque humour was somewhat unnecessary to the film. Cruise is shockingly uncharismatic and lacking in presence here. It’s like the genre has dwarfed him (No pun intended, and there’s at least two right there). It’d be interesting to see where Tom Cruise would be today if he never made “Risky Business” or “Top Gun”, and instead this film, “Losin’ It” (which is underrated and under-seen), “The Outsiders”, and “All the Right Moves” were what his early career stood on (For me his career never truly began until “Rain Man” and “Born on the 4^th”, but would he have ever gotten those roles? Interesting to ponder if he might’ve ended up another C. Thomas Howell, Noah Hathaway or Kevin ‘Not Matt’ Dillon).

 

Mia Sara is absolutely stunningly beautiful in this film, and given how beautifully designed this whole film is, it says something that she still stands out and at least visually she’s right for the film. She does not, however stand out for her acting, which is uninspired, once again playing an uninteresting and bland role. Cast the right actors in these roles, however, and it will matter a bit less that the characters aren’t very inspired. So the casting director is partly to blame here, but it is undeniable that Jack in particular, is a boring as shit character, and it’s a big problem the film never overcomes.

 

The other flaw with the film is pretty crucial, too: pacing, or more to the point, a lack of energy or excitement. The film just never gets off and running, bogging down with the uninteresting protagonist and a bunch of fairies and irrelevant side characters. Even though I’m a fantasy kinda guy, I usually like my fantasy light on the fairies and heavy on the rousing adventure and derring-do. Sadly, there’s little of that here, especially with our dull hero and agonising pacing. It’s a seriously slow film, and it takes at least 50 minutes before we get a look at the villain’s face.

 

Which brings me to one of the film’s chief positives. It’s a shame that the heroes are favoured over the villain here, because Darkness had the potential to be one of the best villains of all-time. Tim Curry and FX whiz Rob Bottin (“The Howling”, “The Thing”, and sadly not much else- where is he now?) certainly turned up with their working boots on. Some of the Bottin work is uneven, but he absolutely, positively gets Darkness right. He is one of the most fantastically demonic-looking (Satanic?) creations of all-time and the most memorable thing about the entire film, to be honest. What an impressively frightening-looking villain. Electronically altered or not, Tim Curry’s distinctive voice is still recognisable, even if the role of Darkness doesn’t play to that strength, let alone his other strength: His trademark gleefully evil facial expressions. At first there isn’t much Curry can do with the role, because even his face is obscured for the first half, but once it is revealed, Curry gets much, much better, as does the film. He’s terrific with what he is given, and I don’t think the makeup restricts him so much as screen time does. It’s not like the makeup in “IT” hampered him at all. Performance-wise I prefer him in “The Three Musketeers” and “IT”, but Darkness absolutely rules this film, and Bottin’s not doing 100% of that work, Curry does his share. He brings a touch of world-weariness to the part that sets the role apart from being just straight-up evil. More screen time would’ve definitely brought this quality out even more. Curry is too good for the film and should’ve been seen early and often. This is the one film that doesn’t benefit from the “Jaws” treatment, because Darkness and Curry are the biggest assets here. Maybe someone should make a film called “Darkness” and cast Michael Shannon in the part.

 

I must give proper respect to the cinematography of Alex Thomson (“Excalibur”, “Labyrinth”) and the music score by my favourite film composer, Jerry Goldsmith (“The Omen”, “Planet of the Apes”). Both are big assets here, with the latter sounding a bit like your classic Disney choral score. The sound design is excellent, too. So on those fronts, there isn’t a damn thing wrong. It’s a gorgeous film and I love me some unicorns. So I liked some of this film, just not all of it.

 

I have a long-standing affection for fantasy, but although this film has its merits, ultimately it is dead at its centre. The hero and heroine are far less interesting than the villain, and the latter takes up much less screen time than the former. That and a lack of excitement in what was going on, ultimately stop the film from being anything more than average. No, I think I’ll just stick to “The NeverEnding Story”, “Ladyhawke”, and even “The Dark Crystal” thank you very much.

 

Rating: C+