LEGEND(1986)A work of perfection

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Bryan.  I have always enjoyed Legend and picked up the Blu-ray from Amazon this week but haven't had a chance to watch it yet.  I'm looking forward to it.

A must-own for me as well. Time to sell the DVD!  Too bad that Universal totally jumped the shark on the cover art. It's simply God-awful.

Any thoughts on the transfer Bryan? How does it look?

I'm kind of embarrassed to admit it - but I've never seen "Legend" - that said, I probably should.  Is there one version better than the other that should be the one I see?

I watched everything on the Blu-Ray a few days ago.  I thought it looked about as good as can be expected given the source material.  The detail on some of the make-up was really impressive in some scenes.  I'm not the movie's biggest fan, but I'm so obsessed with Alien and this feels like a spiritual brother to Alien and Blade Runner.  There's something about it that just clearly marks it as being from the same filmmaker and it's something that Scott has never achieved again.  Like those movies, this is the work of a true artist.

I never saw the movie before DVD, so I have no attachment to the theatrical version.  I like The Director's Cut better because it just makes more sense to me and has a few things about it that make it feel more like a fairy tale.  Goldsmith's score isn't the greatest to me, but I think the "love theme" is really solid.

Despite Scott's disclaimer regarding the PQ of the director's cut, I found it mesmerizing and beautiful. Since first seeing (and hearing it), this has been my favorite version, hands down. For one (important) thing, it withholds the appearance of Darkness until quite a ways into the film, whereas the theatrical reveals him from the start. As they say, it's what ya don't see...

Josh,

The only way you could embarrass yourself would be by saying this.

"ive never seen it and i never intend to watch it.

I'm sure that's never the case with you.

And i'd be tempted to also say,watch everything on the Bluray.

Then come back and give us one of them great long posts you usually do.

I will definitely check it out sometime - with the caveat that fantasy isn't my favorite genre, so I may not be the target audience, and more to the point, I may not be up for watching two versions of the film if the first one doesn't do it for me.  (I can imagine someone who hated Lord Of The Rings would not be interested in watching a longer version of Lord Of The Rings to convince them otherwise - for the record, I liked Lord Of The Rings.)

Is the director's cut a very recent thing, or was it released shortly after the original film?  I'm trying to get a sense of if it's more of a Blade Runner-this-is-what-I-was-trying-to-make-and-they-got-in-my-way director's cut, or more of a George Lucas-look-what-I-can-do-now! director's cut.  Either way, I'm probably long overdue for checking this out in some form or another.

(I'm really scared to admit this, but I hated Labyrinth.  Maybe those two films are nothing alike but they're all kinda blended in my memory of 80s pop culture fantasy epics as being sort of the same thing, which I realize is probably terribly unfair.) 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg 

I will definitely check it out sometime - with the caveat that fantasy isn't my favorite genre, so I may not be the target audience, and more to the point, I may not be up for watching two versions of the film if the first one doesn't do it for me.  (I can imagine someone who hated Lord Of The Rings would not be interested in watching a longer version of Lord Of The Rings to convince them otherwise - for the record, I liked Lord Of The Rings.)

 

Is the director's cut a very recent thing, or was it released shortly after the original film?  I'm trying to get a sense of if it's more of a Blade Runner-this-is-what-I-was-trying-to-make-and-they-got-in-my-way director's cut, or more of a George Lucas-look-what-I-can-do-now! director's cut.  Either way, I'm probably long overdue for checking this out in some form or another.

 

(I'm really scared to admit this, but I hated Labyrinth.  Maybe those two films are nothing alike but they're all kinda blended in my memory of 80s pop culture fantasy epics as being sort of the same thing, which I realize is probably terribly unfair.) 

The DC didn't show up until 2001, but the claim is that it's legitimately an earlier cut that's different from both the US and Euro versions that was recovered for the DVD release.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan^H 

It is very film-like.  Nice texture,  and grain. 

Comparing it to the upconverted s-dvd, it is a small miracle as it adds much more detail. 

Fans of the film can breathe easy, this is quite a looker.

 

Thanks for your impressions. Just ordered it from Amazon and I'm looking forward to a revisit. I haven't watched Legend in over 6 years.

I agree with the OP, what a brilliant transfer. Goes a long way to restoring Scott's vision for the film since the visuals are such a key component to the picture's allure. I realize the DC comes from an answer print but he needn't have been so critical of it -- it looks spectacular and superior to the American version too.

The DC is the movie Scott originally made and preferred out of all the versions. It was found after an extensive search and was taken from an answer print, which was literally the only version they could find.  It was not an "afterthought" or one of these Director's Cuts you talk about where directors tinker after the fact.

Though the US theatrical release version has its fans, its sole reason for existence was borne out of commercial motivations, not artistic ones. It was cut down and re-scored purely out of commercial considerations at the behest of Universal studio brass -- most notably Sid Sheinberg, the same guy who wanted to trash Terry Gilliam's BRAZIL several months prior. Unfortunately Scott didn't fight for his original version and probably was talked into it, which is a shame because in every way the short US release version is a travesty: the plot makes less sense, the cuts are jarring, and Tangerine Dream's electronic scoring (which I realize appeals to people who like their music) not only feels anachronistic but was a pure cash-grab to try and push sales of the soundtrack album, and appeal to the teenage market. (There's a hilariously awful Bryan Ferry song that plays over the end credits too). It truly was the only reason for that bastardized edit.

The Director's Cut is Scott's original, preferred version of the film. Goldsmith's music was not only conceived for the movie, his songs (with lyrics by John Bettis) were a PART OF THE SCRIPT. Goldsmith's music was his favorite out of every score he composed, and with good reason: it's classical but lyrical, haunting and perfect. It totally changes the tone of the film.

Beyond that, the 113 min. version flows better in every regard. Restored dialogue helps to totally smooth over pacing, and clarify the story. It's fascinating to watch it, then go back in and see how much the whole intention and execution of the film are utterly ruined by what Universal wanted for the American release cut. Scott's DC has a timeless fantasy feel; the US version is like an 89 minute MTV music video from the mid '80s.

That said, if you do like the US version, you can still see it on the disc...it's a great release that will satisfy everyone :)

Personally, part of the film's appeal comes from the realism of the sets, as opposed to films like Labyrinth, where everything is obviously fake-looking. I can't watch these kinds of movies if, subconsciously, I know the action is taking place in some studio with mattes in the background. Listening to the commentary, Ridley talks about how they went the extra mile to make the forest scenes look as realistic as possible and I appreciate this kind of effort in ALL movies. Legend comes right after The NeverEnding Story as personal favorites in the fantasy genre. Also, while re-watching Legend recently, I couldn't help but think of Avatar, especially during the forest scenes. I have a feeling Cameron may have been influenced a bit by this film.

I wouldn't call Legend the film a work of perfection but the bluray presentation is certainly close enough. The movie is quite corny and even embarrassing in many spots but I love to put it on just to look at it. There is a level of production design and photography in this thing that is a marvel to behold. I don't think it's been equaled on that level since. Thankfully, the bluray transfer is spectacular. Easily the best bluray Universal has ever put out.

This is my least favorite Ridley Scott film. Why he even bothered to make this film is  a mystery to me.

it's ok trajan

you can watch the next one he did right after...that is if you can locate it.

cop film with Tom Berenger called Someone to watch over me,then come back to tell us

how you love Legend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trajan 

This is my least favorite Ridley Scott film. Why he even bothered to make this film is  a mystery to me.

It's clear from the docs that Scott and the writer had a strong vision for the movie.  The final product could have been much stronger, but the artistry involved makes me think a family film was his "safe" choice after Blade Runner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbbb1138 

I'm not the movie's biggest fan, but I'm so obsessed with Alien and this feels like a spiritual brother to Alien and Blade Runner.  There's something about it that just clearly marks it as being from the same filmmaker and it's something that Scott has never achieved again.  Like those movies, this is the work of a true artist.

 

While I absolutely LOVE Aliens and Blade Runner, to say that Ridley never achieved that level of filmmaking I simply must disagree with. I know that Gladiator has its detractors, but I think it's a marvelous film, and the Director's Cut of "Kingdom of Heaven" is an absolute masterpiece.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick 

Despite Scott's disclaimer regarding the PQ of the director's cut, I found it mesmerizing and beautiful. Since first seeing (and hearing it), this has been my favorite version, hands down. For one (important) thing, it withholds the appearance of Darkness until quite a ways into the film, whereas the theatrical reveals him from the start. As they say, it's what ya don't see...

My guess & its only a guess, is that Riley only saw the transfer of the "DC" for the SD DVD release.

(or, that's what his opinion of which version looks better comes from)

Because the new scan of the "DC" outshines the current "TC" transfer; IMO.

The "DC" is eye & ear candy!!
 

Well both transfers on the dvd looked pretty terrible so it's not too hard to improve on them. Really looking forward to watching this blu-ray even though there's nothing new added from the old 2-disc,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Williams 

 

While I absolutely LOVE Aliens and Blade Runner, to say that Ridley never achieved that level of filmmaking I simply must disagree with. I know that Gladiator has its detractors, but I think it's a marvelous film, and the Director's Cut of "Kingdom of Heaven" is an absolute masterpiece.

 

 

I think those are both great (along with Thelma & Louise), but not on the same level as Alien and Blade Runner.
 

I did a comparison for my site here, a review will be coming next week.

I think a little ringing is on the theatrical cut but the colour timing and black levels look far superior to the answer print directors cut, pity they couldn't do some additional work to fix all that.

http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_reviews/2011/06/17/hd-comparisons-legend/

This is probably an old thread but i don't want to clutter up any new one, anyway there is no comparison, if you don't mind the pun, for watching the film and forming your own conclusions, the screencaps show differences but do not show how the film looks in motion.

I love comparisons,although like most people mention are quite different when in motion.

But i must say that the theatrical seems to have better range of  light and dark,especially if you look at the Oona eye shot.

the director's cut is a lot more flat ,more neutral,everything is in the greys,i mean this is a film with a light and dark theme at its core right ?

i"m not sure i'm making myself clear here...trying to find the right wording

as i was stating before in regards to that post from Trajan

when anyone compares a film director to his films,one has to generally have seen a great portion of his

filmography to get a much better judgement call.

If the poster believes Legend is crap city,then he ought to watch Someone to watch over me,White squall,G.I. Jane,Hannibal and then ask

why he even bothered to make those when compared to Blade runner,Alien and of course,Legend

Hell,i'd even throw in Gladiator

Maybe its that thing about the getting out your best stuff first early in your career and then go a bit downhill from there,which tends to happen

to a lot of filmmakers and tv series.

Putting Gladiator in the same category of G. I. Jane and Hannibal is absolutely ridiculous. If you don't think it deserved to win Best Picture, fine (I disagree), but it is certainly a helluva closer to the Alien/Blade Runner end of the spectrum than it is G. I. Jane and Hannibal.

This forum got me thinking about the Best and Worst Ridley Scott films. Please provide your own lists. These are my Top Eight BEST and Top Five WORST.

1.  Alien

2.  Blade Runner

3.  Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut

4.  Gladiator

5.  American Gangster

6.  Legend

7.  Thelma and Louise

8.  The Duelists

1.  A Good Year  (snoozefest)

2.  Hannibal

3.  G. I. Jane

4.  White Squall

5.  Someone to Watch Over Me

The more I learn about the editing process, the more I realize that what we have as the "Director's Cut" is probably not exactly what we would have gotten in 1985, even if Scott had been able to finish the movie his way (although I imagine it's pretty close). From what I understand, the "Director's Cut" is essentially the version that was test-screened in Los Angeles, but it's likely that Scott and editor Terry Rawlings would have fine-tuned a few more things before releasing the film. In fact, I actually think there are a couple of spots (only a couple, mind you) in the US Theatrical Cut that actually play a little better (if only they had Jerry Goldsmith's music behind them). For example:

It is a minor quibble, but it's the kind of thing that I think they would have fine-tuned if they'd been able to. That said, the "Director's Cut" is overall the best of the three official versions by far, and it's probably a good thing that Scott didn't go back and try to change anything major, as he is a different person now and would have made different decisions.

Anyway, with the DC, Legend feels much more like the dark fairy tale it was intended to be, and Goldsmith's score is wonderful, even though it's bafflingly replaced by temp track in a couple of scenes, a la Alien. (Why, Ridley and Terry, why?)  It's not a perfect movie, but it's one I admire a lot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Williams 

This forum got me thinking about the Best and Worst Ridley Scott films. Please provide your own lists. These are my Top Eight BEST and Top Five WORST.

I was starting to think about this (with some help from IMDB), since I've seen all but 2 or 3 of his films, but I quickly realized that after Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, and Gladiator, I put almost all of his movies on equal footing with a few that I can put at the bottom from general blandness (Body of Lies, GI Jane, Kingdom of Heaven theatrical).