Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsla.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcsla!clark From: clark@sdcsla.UUCP (Clark Quinn) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: LadyHawke Message-ID: <817@sdcsla.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 19:16:54 EST Article-I.D.: sdcsla.817 Posted: Wed Mar 13 19:16:54 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 05:43:18 EST Distribution: net Organization: U.C. San Diego, Cognitive Science Lab Lines: 65 I recently saw a sneak preview of LadyHawke on campus and will attempt a review. I say attempt because I have mixed feelings about this movie. Why, I ask myself, when I generally can uncritically watch even the worst fantasy adventure film, and enjoy it? First, the few particulars I can supply. LadyHawke concerns a young thief (Matthew Broderick) rescued by a mysterious knight (Rutger Hauer) to help aid a mysterious beautiful lady (Michelle Pfeiffer). Also involved are a coarse old priest and a magic curse. Matthew Broderick is, in my mind, becoming quite the actor. Since Wargames I have seen him perform in the stage version of Brighton Beach Memoirs, and this movie. He seems to get better with every viewing. He plays Mouse, the thief, with the right balance of opportunist, coward, and underneath decent person. He also shows a deft touch with the comic aspect of his character. Rutger Hauer and Michelle Pfeiffer do not fare as well. I am not ready to ascribe the blame to them, however. I think that they convey their parts well, but the direction has muddied up the heroic and tragic aspect of their characters. Hauer, in particular, looks every bit the heroic knight. Tall, ruggedly handsome, quiet but commanding. He moves surely, and delivers his lines with conviction. Michelle Pfeiffer, unfortunately for her, is not given much to do in this film except hang around looking beautiful (which she has no problem doing). The problem with this movie, as I see it, lies in the direction. I cannot remember who is responsible for the direction, but I believe I can describe the transgression. This movie tries to work on two levels, the slightly comic, and the fable. The director has a good grasp for the humor, but seems to have lost the epic, heroic nature of the rest of the tale. Despite Hauer, the knight's motives are muddled in the middle of the film, as he has no real plan to make use of the thief, initially. And the knight's love for the lady is not convincingly portrayed. One other interesting aspect is that the remaining cinematic values do not seem to have suffered. I would call the cinematography at least good, and the production seems fine. The costumes and setting seemed unusually timely to me, and the supporting cast was quite convincing. And I think that the screenplay is a superior effort. The setup of and resolution of the curse are convincing, often hard in a movie that is using magic as a premise. There is no gratuitous sex, magic, or gore in this movie, and yet it is satisfying. I suspect one of the reasons I am less than thrilled is that it is much more frustrating to have a film come very close to being really good than to have one that is obviously going to miss, so you can forget the quality and just have a good time. One final note that is a general complaint. I wish the powers that be in Hollywood, whether scriptwriters, directors, or whoever, would quit assuming that the only people who go to see fantasy/adventure films are adolescents, generally male. The one aspect of the film requiring some intelligence, figuring out the curse, is telegraphed far too much. I think some greater suspense would be appropriate. While the above review sounds somewhat negative, I would say this a movie that is worth seeing if you have any tendency to enjoy fantasy or adventure movies. Final rating: +2.5 out of 4 Clark N. Quinn Institute for Cognitive Science C-015 University of California, San Diego La Jolla, California 92093 (619) 452-2541 (UCSD): (619) 481-0952 (Home) {ucbvax,decvax,akgua,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!clark OR clark@nprdc