This film is like junk food for the brain, a guilty pleasure, and a movie not to admit liking in front of fans of true cinema. Hawk the Slayer was produced as a knockoff of the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings fantasy genre. Somehow the producer mixed those elements up with the budget of Dr. Who. The resulting mutation is rife with cheesy effects and unintentional hilarity.

First, the casting. Jack Palance gives ham a whole new dimension as the necessarily evil elder sibling Voltan. He's too old to be credible and his acting is so overdone it hurts to watch. John Terry as the heroic lead character is flat and wooden, with little vocal inflection; he almost seems to sleepwalk through the movie. The minor characters and supporting roles are far better: Gort the giant was fun, as was the dwarf Balin and the strangely alien elf Crow. The nasty hunchback was great, as was the woman who played the part of the Mother Superior who's kidnapped. Even the villains and lowlifes were more interesting than the leads, but, then again, Mr. Terry could make anyone in a scene with him appear superior by default.

Next, the plot. Good versus evil, it could be surmised, but more like twisted jealous older brother versus supremely indifferent younger one. The viewer is supposed to believe that Hawk is a loner because he lost someone precious to him at Voltan's hands. That's hard to buy when the lead character doesn't convey any serious emotions of any type. It's possible that the subplots of battling brothers and the church against Voltan were echoing each other, but the whole thing seems banal and contrived.

Finally, the effects. Dr. Who and then some. It's been years, maybe even decades, since we'd seen such horrifically cheap stuff. The scene when the witch helping Hawk sneaks in and douses a bad guy with Silly String had us rolling. The repetitious camera shots of the elf firing arrows, the obvious backwardly rolled footage of him leaping "into" a tree, and the freaky little plastic things in the supposedly terrifying forest were all pathetic.

So, why do we watch this thing? It's a great flick to hit mute on and toss in alternate dialog, a la MST3000. Our kids come up with great comedic material from viewing this thing. Treat it as a serious movie and it's a groaner. Have some fun with it, and it's great. Just don't admit to lovers of cinema that you watch this type of cheesy flick.

I am aware that this film has been badly received by most reviewers, but I cannot get myself to agree. It may be corny, cheesy, gimmicky, but for me, all the gimmicks worked. I loved the matte paintings, which most sfx connoisseurs scoff at. I loved the stiff acting, and melodramatic cornball dialogue, and the shallow Tolkienesque ambiance. I adored Jack Palance's ham acting as the villain. I loved the Elf, and the Dwarf, and the Giant, and the Witch. I loved the music (and did not notice anything particularly "70s" about it, but perhaps that was because I grew up in that era). What I loved most about it was an aspect that another commentator complained about: its incompleteness. That other commentator (from IMDb) complained that he felt like he was watching part 2 of a three-act play. Well, that's a good thing, isn't it? What is the point of immersing oneself in a fantasy world if it is going to be so small it can contain itself in a single film. The implication that I was watching a small part of a much greater story was what gave this film its charm. The cryptic references to things beyond its borders made the world created seem far vaster than it was, and helped the matte paintings seem to come to life.

-- NystulC