One could perhaps make some allowances on the basis of the low budget, Roger Corman's involvement, and what I'm given to understand was a production plagued by difficulties. "Could," maybe, and "some" is a key word; "should" is another matter. The screenplay is mostly just awful, particularly the dialogue and scene writing but much of the characterizations and plot, too; some aspects of the tale aren't actually explained. That all lines were dubbed over is peculiar; that they were dubbed so poorly is confounding. The actors themselves aren't excused, however, for the acting at large is equally unconvincing - though in fairness, the same goes for the direction, so maybe the cast isn't entirely to blame. Some of the costume design is altogether terrible, especially for any non-humans, but this pales in comparison to astonishingly gratuitous nudity, and pointless and unnecessary treatment of women as little more than meat. Any post-production effects can in generosity be approached with an ethos of "Okay, sure." And so on, and so on: to say 'Sorceress' is a laborious viewing experience is a considerable understatement.
It's not all bad. Though constrained by the minimal financial resources and flailing production, more than not I think the contributions of crew behind the scenes are just fine. With exceptions this does include costume design, production design and art direction, and weapons and props. Practical effects are fine, and any stunts and fight scenes are either suitable themselves or at least good on paper. I'd go so far as to say that there are some good ideas in the story. Those ideas, however, are employed in an altogether dubious way, and even the stunts and action sequences don't always come off well. This would almost be funny, a deserving source of mockery, if it weren't so plainly bewildering. I can't say it's not entertaining to at least some degree, but "entertaining" and "worthy" are not the same thing.
I'm sure there are probably worse sword and sorcery pictures out there, though in this moment it's hard to imagine. What's so strange about 'Sorceress' is that those elements of it which are most troubled would have been very easy to fix. Director Jack Hill had plenty of experience heretofore; why was his guidance here so weak, and pacing broadly so lethargic? Why was dialogue dubbed? Why all the nudity, and such poor treatment of women in the script, to the point that this is all but exploitative? Why is the plot development so flimsy? It would have all probably been fine had those on hand endeavored to produce an earnest fantasy flick on the cheap, but it sure seems like the goal all along was questionable, half-baked schlock. That goal was most assuredly achieved, with the unfortunate result that the finished film is an unbelievably flailing, sloppy, almost problematic mess.
What fun this has to offer is too minimal to actual deserve exploration. There are many other genre titles of this ilk from the same period; any of them are certain to be more worthwhile. 'Sorceress' is an oddity, but not one that any movie-goer specifically needs to see.
It's not all bad. Though constrained by the minimal financial resources and flailing production, more than not I think the contributions of crew behind the scenes are just fine. With exceptions this does include costume design, production design and art direction, and weapons and props. Practical effects are fine, and any stunts and fight scenes are either suitable themselves or at least good on paper. I'd go so far as to say that there are some good ideas in the story. Those ideas, however, are employed in an altogether dubious way, and even the stunts and action sequences don't always come off well. This would almost be funny, a deserving source of mockery, if it weren't so plainly bewildering. I can't say it's not entertaining to at least some degree, but "entertaining" and "worthy" are not the same thing.
I'm sure there are probably worse sword and sorcery pictures out there, though in this moment it's hard to imagine. What's so strange about 'Sorceress' is that those elements of it which are most troubled would have been very easy to fix. Director Jack Hill had plenty of experience heretofore; why was his guidance here so weak, and pacing broadly so lethargic? Why was dialogue dubbed? Why all the nudity, and such poor treatment of women in the script, to the point that this is all but exploitative? Why is the plot development so flimsy? It would have all probably been fine had those on hand endeavored to produce an earnest fantasy flick on the cheap, but it sure seems like the goal all along was questionable, half-baked schlock. That goal was most assuredly achieved, with the unfortunate result that the finished film is an unbelievably flailing, sloppy, almost problematic mess.
What fun this has to offer is too minimal to actual deserve exploration. There are many other genre titles of this ilk from the same period; any of them are certain to be more worthwhile. 'Sorceress' is an oddity, but not one that any movie-goer specifically needs to see.