Wednesday, July 28, 2004
King Arthur
2004
Cursed by the beauty, grandeur and all-around awesomeness of Excalibur, I should, in all actuality, be banned from commenting on any King Arthur-esque movie that has been made since. But perhaps it is only out of pity and disgruntled curmudgeonry that I find myself writing this review on such a sad, sad excuse of a film.
In my opinion, the order of King Arthur movies goes something like this:
1) Sword in the Stone (1963)
2) Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
3) Excalibur (1981)
4) First Night (1995)
5) King Arthur (2004)
Now, one of these kids is doing his own thing, one of these kids is not like the other....and even the completely retarded performances in "First Knight" could not outdo the hell that I endured watching "King Arthur".
This movie version of the King Arthur tale takes the position of telling the story in the essence of supposed facts, not fantasy. The Knights of the Round Table are not silver-clad honorable and gentle men, but members of English pagan tribes, who have been taken away from their families as teenagers in order to serve under the Roman army. For 15 years they have fought along side of Arthur (Clive Owen), not yet a king, but whose legacy as a handsome and fearless warrior echoes throughout the dwindling empire. Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is not a flirtacious damsel princess, but a feisty tribal warrior who questions Arthur's involvement with the Roman Empire and accuses him of being a traitor to his own people. With Guinevere's fierce guidance and ice-cold accusations, Arthur finds his roots once again and gains a warrior queen and rule of England.
I know what you're thinking, and all this sounded pretty good to me at first, too. But what I felt after about an hour of watching these facts unfold proved to be it's downfall. The acting was a bit on the cold side, the action scenes were mediocre at best. And then after about 1 hour 10 minutes, the inevitable, unmistakable sign of a bad movie was identified: I heard people in the movie theater start to yawn. I was one of these people, but not the only one. It didn't take a genius to theorize that the reason for our boredom was not due to a popcorn carb low but because we were simply apathetic to what we were watching. None of the characters held much depth or intense interactions. And although the movie was a good 2 hours, 10 minutes, I still felt pretty empty when it was all over.
The acting and character development was a dead lay. I was really looking forward to the awesome animalistic sex that should have occurred between good ole Gwen and Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), but no such luck! I think they might have shared a intense glance or two...? But that was it. How about a hot, long, angry sex scene between the future King and Queen? NO!! Just a 1 minute, cheesy exchange of "this could be our last night together, let's explore that" moment...I think maybe I saw a smidgen of Keira Knightley's thigh at some point, but I can't be sure because it was over before it began.
Perhaps a story like this does need a little more fantasy in it after all. Let's face it, the classic story of King Arthur is based on fact, but there is a legitimate need and a desire to acknowledge the beauty and fantasy of such a glorious story.
Note to future King Arthur directors: keep the dragons, wizards, hot sex and fog machines....ditch the realism.
2004
Cursed by the beauty, grandeur and all-around awesomeness of Excalibur, I should, in all actuality, be banned from commenting on any King Arthur-esque movie that has been made since. But perhaps it is only out of pity and disgruntled curmudgeonry that I find myself writing this review on such a sad, sad excuse of a film.
In my opinion, the order of King Arthur movies goes something like this:
1) Sword in the Stone (1963)
2) Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
3) Excalibur (1981)
4) First Night (1995)
5) King Arthur (2004)
Now, one of these kids is doing his own thing, one of these kids is not like the other....and even the completely retarded performances in "First Knight" could not outdo the hell that I endured watching "King Arthur".
This movie version of the King Arthur tale takes the position of telling the story in the essence of supposed facts, not fantasy. The Knights of the Round Table are not silver-clad honorable and gentle men, but members of English pagan tribes, who have been taken away from their families as teenagers in order to serve under the Roman army. For 15 years they have fought along side of Arthur (Clive Owen), not yet a king, but whose legacy as a handsome and fearless warrior echoes throughout the dwindling empire. Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is not a flirtacious damsel princess, but a feisty tribal warrior who questions Arthur's involvement with the Roman Empire and accuses him of being a traitor to his own people. With Guinevere's fierce guidance and ice-cold accusations, Arthur finds his roots once again and gains a warrior queen and rule of England.
I know what you're thinking, and all this sounded pretty good to me at first, too. But what I felt after about an hour of watching these facts unfold proved to be it's downfall. The acting was a bit on the cold side, the action scenes were mediocre at best. And then after about 1 hour 10 minutes, the inevitable, unmistakable sign of a bad movie was identified: I heard people in the movie theater start to yawn. I was one of these people, but not the only one. It didn't take a genius to theorize that the reason for our boredom was not due to a popcorn carb low but because we were simply apathetic to what we were watching. None of the characters held much depth or intense interactions. And although the movie was a good 2 hours, 10 minutes, I still felt pretty empty when it was all over.
The acting and character development was a dead lay. I was really looking forward to the awesome animalistic sex that should have occurred between good ole Gwen and Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), but no such luck! I think they might have shared a intense glance or two...? But that was it. How about a hot, long, angry sex scene between the future King and Queen? NO!! Just a 1 minute, cheesy exchange of "this could be our last night together, let's explore that" moment...I think maybe I saw a smidgen of Keira Knightley's thigh at some point, but I can't be sure because it was over before it began.
Perhaps a story like this does need a little more fantasy in it after all. Let's face it, the classic story of King Arthur is based on fact, but there is a legitimate need and a desire to acknowledge the beauty and fantasy of such a glorious story.
Note to future King Arthur directors: keep the dragons, wizards, hot sex and fog machines....ditch the realism.
