Customer Reviews

Lovespell

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

One of my personal favorite movies. Richard Burton is ONE OF THE BEST actors I've seen in my life. He is, like this movie, an absolute pleasure to watch. I always smile when I see this film. It will make you feel good. One of the best movies ever.

Lovespell

LoveSpell is a charming and subtle film. The characters are well cast. But I don't think that the movie budget did justice to what the film makers were trying to do. Tristan shows well his emotional torture at seeing the woman he loves married to another man. Isolt is earthy and sweet. Richard Burton as the possessive King Mark is well chosen for his ability to show intensity at his desperate attempts to force Isolt to love him. Burton's portrayal of Mark is similar to his porformance as King Henry VIII in Anne of the thousand days. My favorite elements of the film are the moments of brilliant and beautiful dialogue, the music performed by the Chieftains, and of beautiful Ireland.

It really helps to know the full story of Tristran and Isult in order to enjoy this movie. For instance, there are several references to Tristan's victory over Marholt, which is both a monster and Isult's uncle. And there are a number of story elements that come up in the second half of the movie that probably don't make any sense unless you are already aware of them, like the second Isult that Tristran meets up with. I like the approach that the director takes to the material, an approach that can be quite successful when used with myth or folktale or stories set in the dark ages. It's a straightforward, almost simple-minded approach, without over-dramatization or clever narrative touches. This works very well in the first part of the movie, when it is a story of characters meeting and falling in love. But this approach can't handle the second half of the movie which needs a lot of exposition. And the final sequence, which unfortunately does get a laugh when it shouldn't, I think was botched in the editing room or something, because I think there is a way to make it work with all the same elements. (You know, how sometimes the difference between comedy and tragedy is slim.) Some movies that succeed in this approach are The Virgin Spring, The Song of Bernadette, and Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors. But Lovespell has fabulous art design and scenery. Green Ireland, old castles (exteriors and interiors), drinking cups and wooden chests. Seeing Richard Burton's red, soft-leather doublet is almost worth the movie itself!

It was a great present for my Mom, who loved this movie when she was younger! Unfortunately, no subtitles, I wish there were! But still good!

This film is beautiful.

Kate Mulgrew in fantastic and Richard Burton is fascinating

LOVESPELL (dir. Tom Donovan, writ. Claire Labin, 1981/1983, 91 minutes) is one of the most interesting old films I've ever seen. I just watched it, and would have loved to see it new. This is described as "a version" of Tristan and Isolde (another version of which exists in 1995's Tristan And Isolde).

This tame and hypnotic version stars Sir Richard Burton as King Mark of Cornwall, Kate Mulgrew as Isolt (yes, it's "Isolt"), Princess of Ireland, and Nicholas Clay as Tristan, King Mark's nephew and heir. I can find no reason why this was completed in 1979 but released in 1983 (some listings also mysteriously date it at 1981, maybe they believe in averaging the numbers).

In brief, this tells of King Mark cantering around Ireland; falling in love with Isolt; sending the wounded Tristan to her to be healed; dragging her to Cornwall so she may marry King Mark; the love affair between her and Tristan, blah blah blah. One funny thing is you will see the underpinnings of Boorman's Excalibur here, in more ways than a few.

All I know is that it's fun: it has no special effects to speak of, little music other than Renascence fare and some truly terrible acting. Oh they try, they just don't quite hit the mark. It reminded me of the cinematic days of my youth, really, bad acting and all. Kate Mulgrew is a typical teen: hysterically sobbing and heaving her jiggly parts one moment, laughing like a child the next moment.

More's the pity because this play-on-film would have been totally made with great acting. Richard Burton roars away like always, but he has too little action in this to be impressive. What I say in favor of this rich tale, filmed in County Galway, Ireland, is that it soothes, draws in the viewer and keeps one wondering what will occur next. For the ignorant of the original myth, it's a nice and easy introduction.

I've tried studying this weirdly insignificant old story and gave up after two minutes. I preferred this film far and away over any dusty old print versions that rambled inanely. Mostly I have been drawn to the story because of the rings, which are supposed to be plot devices (completely ignored in the film by the way). Here, Kate (Isolt) simply gives Nicholas (Tristan) her ring; later when Richard (King Mark) is betrothed to Kate, he gives her an ancient ring that has been passed down through his family. Significantly in the film, we see neither Tristan nor Isolt honor the wearing of their respective rings.

I knew of the legend only because I am a ring collector and amateur historian - I knew Tristan got a ring, and Isolde got a ring. My wife kept yelling at me for mentioning the rings all the time we were watching this. Also I think Wagner set it to operatic music. My knowledge of this tale ends there. As I know it, the legend is "Tristan and Isolde: Gottfried von Strassburg (German Library)", a Celtic legend as recorded in the medieval epics of Gottfried von Strassburg and Thomas of Britain.

This aching, pathetic love story is reminiscent of Arthurian legends, the Volsunga Saga: The Story of the Volsungs and Niblungs (you know, the Ring of the Niebelungen), even The Lord of the Rings: 50th Anniversary, One Vol. Edition. Told you it was about the rings. There is no point in listing the films this inspired directly or laterally. This film blew me away, being uniquely weird and old (a teen Kate Mulgrew co-starred with Sir Richard Burton, man!!). I say buy it because it looks to me like a pillar of true cinema, warts-and-all.

Dieser Film ist wirklich wundervoll. Er vermittelt eine zauberhafte Stimmung und ist ist auch von der schauspielerischen Qualität einwandfrei. Über die Verfilmung historischer oder literarischer Stoffe kann man sich streiten. Oft ist eine freie Interpretation im Film besser. Hier, bei diesem Meisterwerk, stimmt alles.

See this movie for Nicholas Clay and Kate Mulgrew - Richard Burton does not do the part of Mark justice and seems miscast, whereas Clay and Mulgrew absolutely steal the show. Clay does an outstanding job as usual and he and Mulgrew are perfectly matched. Clay delivers each word with Shakespearean accuracy and authenticity - with each word he makes you feel as though you are watching a great theater performance - he is a joy as always to watch and outshines everyone. One of the most fascinating scenes in the film is their discussion of fear. I like how Tristan suggests how we take a fear of the unknown and break it down into "manageable" proportions so we can deal with it on some level, therefore reducing it to some extent. Clay's delivery of this dialogue is riveting, and his reaction when she calls him on his lecturing is quite stunning. Mulgrew and Clay together have a great chemistry as well, and this scene is about as tight as it gets between two actors.

It is also ironic that this "lovespell" in the story is what joins them together through life and beyond death, because actually, they were in love and bound together forever before she shared the elixir with him. It is not the potion that makes him love her through no choice of his own, but his own free will that makes that a reality. Perhaps the "spell" is really just the true power of natural romantic love, chemistry between two people, attraction, and the enigma of those human feelings.

much closer than the new movie "Tristan & Isolde" that's out now. Why does Hollywood believe they can improve on a story that's been told for over fourteen centuries? If you're going to make a movie of this subject or any other well known tale then just follow it. Why is that so difficult? They made a mess of Homer's Iliad in "Troy". What a waste of money. It's the story, stupid. Not the special effects.

Lovespell, unfortunately, while adhering pretty closely to the original story doesn't satisfy. The costumes, sets and music are good. It does convey what 6th century Cornwall probably looked like.

The best part of the movie is the beginning when Mark meets Isolde in Ireland. Richard Burton's performance is very good. Kate Mulgrew more than holds her own opposite him. They are both believeable, and likeable in their scenes together. The third side of their triangle, Tristan, played by Nicholas Clay hardly seems there. I think the problem is with the way the part is written. There just doesn't seem much else for him to do except stare longingly at Isolde.

The movie begins after Tristan defeats Isolde's uncle the Morholt in Cornwall. Mark actually travels to Ireland to meet with Isolde's uncle about returning Cornish treasure stolen by the Morholt. Mark sends Tristan to Ireland to ask for Isolde's hand. There is no mistaken identity here. The two, of course, fall in love. Once in Cornwall Isolde decides to share the magic love potion with Tristan. Her choice didn't make much sense written this way, but oh well. From there on the tale winds down to the lovers being discovered and parted. Tristan's relationship with Isolde of the White Hands is not explored. She's merely his nurse in Brittany.

The ending is almost laughable the way it's staged as Isolde trips and falls off a cliff while the wounded Tristan jumps off the ship he's returning to Cornwall on. Mark jumps in after him and swims him to shore where the lovers crawl across the rocks to touch hands before dying.

At roughly 1 hour 30 minutes the film moves pretty quickly. I wish the makers had used the extra 30 minutes and included more of the original story. As produced, the movie lacks the emotional power of the original tale. Richard Burton does his best, but the script fails him.

I'll give it three stars for the production values, but the script is definitely no more than a two and a half. I recommend it for the authenticity of the production and the performances of Richard Burton and Kate Mulgrew.