Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 765 Joined: 9 Apr 2008 | Thar be spoilers in these waters.
Sitting next to me on my shelf sits a great film. A masterpiece of character and emotion, it combines sweeping battle scenes with political and social intrigue. This film covers many topics, from family relations to the nature of man's service to his State. All of this is set in a beautifully shot vision of a long lost civilization.
That movie is known as Gladiator. Gladiator is also well known for popularizing a genre that had long been abandoned by most filmmakers and studios. These films are generally large budget and feature large numbers of people killing each other.
King Arthur is one of those films.
King Arthur's hook that is supposed to make it unique and draw in moviegoers is the decision to not portray Arthur as a medieval King in shining armour. Instead it takes the names of characters in the Arthurian legend and stamps them on top of an unrelated set of individuals in 5th century Britain. Although this has been done better in the literary world, it is a fairly original concept for a big budget film.
Arthur is now a half Roman-half Celt. His knights are now a group of eastern European cavalry that is semi-enslaved to fight for Rome. Guinevere is now a half dressed Celt warrior women played unconvincingly by Keira Knightly. Merlin is no longer a powerful wizard, reduced to a weird old Celtic chief who is covered in dirt and has 3 minutes of screen time and about 10 lines.
For the most part the acting is either acceptable or bad, with nothing deserving any special reccomendation. Clive Owen plays an Athur whose main moral conflict comes from his slow loss of faith in the Catholic church. This could have been well done, but it is ruined by Clive's hilarious tendency to shout at the sky whenever he is mad at God. Arthur's knights are distinguished mainly by the weapons they use. One has an ax, another has a bow etc. The only characters I found myself vaguely interested in were the main villain, a Saxon warlord played by Stellan Skarsgård, who is somewhat remarkable in the degree to which he avoids showing emotion, the Saxon chief's son, played competently by Til Schweiger, and the knight that fights with a curved middle eastern sword. Mainly because he was a badass.
The story itself deals with Arthur's quest to save a wealthy roman family trapped behind enemy lines, and then his trip back home while being pursued by Saxons and Celts. Following that there was a predictable large scale battle in which there are shouts of "freedom" and various people are killed, including Lancelot. That last but was rather odd, as Lancelot was the narrator. In the end there is a sword fight between Arthur and the Saxon chief and then there is a marriage or something. I kind of stopped paying attention.
My biggest problem here was the story. There is nothing wrong with moving the story of King Arthur back a few hundred years. This could rejuvenate the stories and give them a fresh feeling. The problem was that there were so many classic elements missing. Where was the love triangle between Lancelot, Arthur, and Guinevere? Where was the watery damsel distributing weaponry? Where was a green, unkillable knight leading Gawain on a pointless quest? There are so many good stories in the Arthurian mythos and they gave us this poorly thought out tale about "freedom" and religion.
Technically the film is above average. Sets are well designed and realistic. Costumes look good and the scenery itself looks very nice. The fight choreography is good enough for what it has to do, but it does not approach the quality of 300, Troy, or Gladiator. Only one duel has a nice feel to it, the rest descending into the standard Hollywood fare of men swinging swords like pointy clubs. Accents are all over the place, but that is really to be expected in these sorts of films. The music was a standard orchestral score, but not memorable in any way. Finally, the level of violence is very inconsistent. In some parts men are cut down without any visible wounds, but in other scenes men have their heads chopped off onscreen.
My recommendation: pass it. Watch the Monty Python version instead. It is more faithful to the originals. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1232 Joined: 31 Jul 2008 | I feel it unfair to compare King Arthur to 300 and Troy since 300 is three years in the future and Troy was more or less created at the exact same time. There's not much else I can say since if I were to write a review of King Arthur, it would probably feature the same remarks and criticisms: unremarkable quasi-epic that's at least competent. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2761 Joined: 6 Jun 2008 | I actually like this movie, as a "fairly good."
Most of your complaints seem to be in the loss of the fantastic and romantic elements as per the more realistic setting. This movie is actually based on archeological theories of the events that lead to the King Arthur fairy tale we know today.
You're technicle review is much more spot on but I think your opinions are colored by how much you hated the story being different. Thus I will say you have a "fairly good" review. |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 888 Joined: 29 Mar 2008 | i did like this review but dont like that movie... |
Thar be spoilers in these waters.
Sitting next to me on my shelf sits a great film. A masterpiece of character and emotion, it combines sweeping battle scenes with political and social intrigue. This film covers many topics, from family relations to the nature of man's service to his State. All of this is set in a beautifully shot vision of a long lost civilization.
That movie is known as Gladiator. Gladiator is also well known for popularizing a genre that had long been abandoned by most filmmakers and studios. These films are generally large budget and feature large numbers of people killing each other.
King Arthur is one of those films.
King Arthur's hook that is supposed to make it unique and draw in moviegoers is the decision to not portray Arthur as a medieval King in shining armour. Instead it takes the names of characters in the Arthurian legend and stamps them on top of an unrelated set of individuals in 5th century Britain. Although this has been done better in the literary world, it is a fairly original concept for a big budget film.
Arthur is now a half Roman-half Celt. His knights are now a group of eastern European cavalry that is semi-enslaved to fight for Rome. Guinevere is now a half dressed Celt warrior women played unconvincingly by Keira Knightly. Merlin is no longer a powerful wizard, reduced to a weird old Celtic chief who is covered in dirt and has 3 minutes of screen time and about 10 lines.
For the most part the acting is either acceptable or bad, with nothing deserving any special reccomendation. Clive Owen plays an Athur whose main moral conflict comes from his slow loss of faith in the Catholic church. This could have been well done, but it is ruined by Clive's hilarious tendency to shout at the sky whenever he is mad at God. Arthur's knights are distinguished mainly by the weapons they use. One has an ax, another has a bow etc. The only characters I found myself vaguely interested in were the main villain, a Saxon warlord played by Stellan Skarsgård, who is somewhat remarkable in the degree to which he avoids showing emotion, the Saxon chief's son, played competently by Til Schweiger, and the knight that fights with a curved middle eastern sword. Mainly because he was a badass.
The story itself deals with Arthur's quest to save a wealthy roman family trapped behind enemy lines, and then his trip back home while being pursued by Saxons and Celts. Following that there was a predictable large scale battle in which there are shouts of "freedom" and various people are killed, including Lancelot. That last but was rather odd, as Lancelot was the narrator. In the end there is a sword fight between Arthur and the Saxon chief and then there is a marriage or something. I kind of stopped paying attention.
My biggest problem here was the story. There is nothing wrong with moving the story of King Arthur back a few hundred years. This could rejuvenate the stories and give them a fresh feeling. The problem was that there were so many classic elements missing. Where was the love triangle between Lancelot, Arthur, and Guinevere? Where was the watery damsel distributing weaponry? Where was a green, unkillable knight leading Gawain on a pointless quest? There are so many good stories in the Arthurian mythos and they gave us this poorly thought out tale about "freedom" and religion.
Technically the film is above average. Sets are well designed and realistic. Costumes look good and the scenery itself looks very nice. The fight choreography is good enough for what it has to do, but it does not approach the quality of 300, Troy, or Gladiator. Only one duel has a nice feel to it, the rest descending into the standard Hollywood fare of men swinging swords like pointy clubs. Accents are all over the place, but that is really to be expected in these sorts of films. The music was a standard orchestral score, but not memorable in any way. Finally, the level of violence is very inconsistent. In some parts men are cut down without any visible wounds, but in other scenes men have their heads chopped off onscreen.
My recommendation: pass it. Watch the Monty Python version instead. It is more faithful to the originals.