Director Ridley Scott followed up Blade Runner with the fantastical whimsy of Legend.
Michael looks back at Scotts cult fantasy…
Hindsight is a strange gift.
Of the bunch, Ridley ScottsLegendremains a particularly tricky case.
Various cuts, endings, even soundtracks exist, but nothing that Universal changed attracted the desired audience.
Just imagine crossing the fantasy worlds of JRR Tolkien and George Lucas!
Nevertheless,Legendlived on.
Likewise, neither of the young protagonists make much of an impression.
The chemistry between the leads is hamstrung by mannered, stuffy direction and an utterly ridiculous script.
Take the scene where the lovers initially meet, in a secluded glade.
Jack is cuddling a fox, while Lily harps on about learning the languages of various wildlife.
Rabbit, Jack replies, looking up momentarily from his vulpine chum, its much harder than finch!
This is high fantasy by way of Jim Steinman.
And then out steps Tim Curry, wearing what looks to be twice his bodyweight in blood-red prosthetics.
Currys subsequent slide into smaller roles and voice work has only obscured his talents.
As he attempts to steal away Lilys innocence (or, as he puts it, INN-NOH-SENSE!
Legend, on the other hand, is cramped and superficial.
Taken out of context, he might as well be talking aboutLegend.
Of course, unlikeGladiator, Legendwasnt a hit.
Until recently, Scotts career was characterised by such troughs between box office peaks.
Have his misses outnumbered his hits, either commercially or creatively?
And thus, these cult films developed their own mythologies, and gathered their own disciples.
Its for this audience that directors cuts are reassembled and released.
On the other side of the Atlantic, its a very different story.
But, it begs asking, doesnt that fit the film perfectly?
