Belated Film Review
Dec. 6th, 2004 07:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
athersgeoYesterday was a bit of a non-event for various reasons (note to self: Vodka cocktails = bad idea), while Saturday was a busy hockey day, so I didn't get in too many films this weekend, BUT, I did get to finally watch Jerry Bruckheimer's "King Arthur" film on Friday night so...
Well. What to say about it?
It's an odd one. Historically speaking, it's actually probably one of the more accurate ideas for who King Arthur was (assuming he 'was' one person and not an amalgam of several different people). I know that people have balked about the idea of the Saxons invading from north of the wall but I can just about buy that (as a piece of creative license [if it is one, and I'm the first to admit I'm decidedly rusty on that period's history], it's not so far fetched as, say, a secret Nazi base on a Scottish Island in 1943 [Hellboy, this means you!]). Plenty of people have balked about the idea of Guenevere being a warrior rather than a helpless princessy type person - but that worked out very nicely as far as I'm concerned, and so nice to see a strong female character in this sort of movie. There's also serious brownie points for casting someone relatively young as Arthur (after all, the whole point is he IS a young character; one of my biggest gripes with certain other Arthurian epics [*cough*firstknight*cough] is who they cast as Arthur [*cough*seanconnery*cough*]).
It's got some really kickass action sequences, some really, *really* kickass sword fights [PotC editors take note: This is how you edit a sword fight!], more kickass action...and hey, did I mention the sword fights? The whole action side of the film is well done. [One thing I did find amusing in an out-of-film context was one of the sword masters on the film was Mark Ryan. One of Arthur's knights (and a dab hand with the long bow) was Ray Winstone. The pair of them were notorious outlaws on Robin of Sherwood. Yeah ok, I did say it was an out-of-film context!]
Also, I have to say that the story moves along at a fairly nice clip so it never feels like you're watching a 2 and a half hour movie - I was stunned when I discovered that was how long I'd sat absorbed in it, I can tell you!
Oh, AND, it gets major kudos for coming up with a plot twist I didn't see coming. I thought I'd more or less pegged which of the knights would die - and for once Ms Cynical Film Watcher was completely off base about two of them.
So if all those are the good points, are there any bad? Ooh yes. Firstly, there's the butchery of a couple of scenes (and I don't mean scripted carnage!). I am pretty sure there's a missing scene or two between Guenevere and Lancelot - they get a couple of very meaningful looks in the latter section of the film without there really being anything to back it up. Then there is the scene between them that IS in the film - I'd swear there's at least one Lancelot line missing: She asks him what his home's like; he answers with something flipant to start and then there's a pause. The next line he says "What I do remember is..." which implies one of them said "I/you don't remember" but that line has gone the way of the dodo. I also have to say that the ending is rather saccarine (the DVD contains the alternative ending and I really do wish they'd gone with that!). Lastly, I do also have to say that while Clive Owen was a destinct improvement on Sean Connery, he was a little bit too earnest and a bit too free with the Intense Look for me to entirely like him.
Oh, and then there was the laughable snow. Ah the snow. Bless them. Filming in Ireland in August, all the snow needed to be fake - fair enough. Except it was unevenly fake AND they kept having sunny days, which really did rather ruin the effect; then there were the long shots that showed the snow thinning out considerably...and the whole "why isn't it snowing at the wall" issue. That little piece was nonsensical, unfortunately. The action that went along with it was good, but...the background snow (or lack thereof) rather detracted from it.
Lastly, Merlin. Last time I checked, Merlin was supposed to be a Welsh Celt. Not a Scots one. Nuff said!
Overall, as long as you're not a leading Saxon scholar and you're willing to turn a blind eye at one or two of the background inconsistancies the film is a decent bit of fun. And the soundtrack to it is also very, very nice.
Well. What to say about it?
It's an odd one. Historically speaking, it's actually probably one of the more accurate ideas for who King Arthur was (assuming he 'was' one person and not an amalgam of several different people). I know that people have balked about the idea of the Saxons invading from north of the wall but I can just about buy that (as a piece of creative license [if it is one, and I'm the first to admit I'm decidedly rusty on that period's history], it's not so far fetched as, say, a secret Nazi base on a Scottish Island in 1943 [Hellboy, this means you!]). Plenty of people have balked about the idea of Guenevere being a warrior rather than a helpless princessy type person - but that worked out very nicely as far as I'm concerned, and so nice to see a strong female character in this sort of movie. There's also serious brownie points for casting someone relatively young as Arthur (after all, the whole point is he IS a young character; one of my biggest gripes with certain other Arthurian epics [*cough*firstknight*cough] is who they cast as Arthur [*cough*seanconnery*cough*]).
It's got some really kickass action sequences, some really, *really* kickass sword fights [PotC editors take note: This is how you edit a sword fight!], more kickass action...and hey, did I mention the sword fights? The whole action side of the film is well done. [One thing I did find amusing in an out-of-film context was one of the sword masters on the film was Mark Ryan. One of Arthur's knights (and a dab hand with the long bow) was Ray Winstone. The pair of them were notorious outlaws on Robin of Sherwood. Yeah ok, I did say it was an out-of-film context!]
Also, I have to say that the story moves along at a fairly nice clip so it never feels like you're watching a 2 and a half hour movie - I was stunned when I discovered that was how long I'd sat absorbed in it, I can tell you!
Oh, AND, it gets major kudos for coming up with a plot twist I didn't see coming. I thought I'd more or less pegged which of the knights would die - and for once Ms Cynical Film Watcher was completely off base about two of them.
So if all those are the good points, are there any bad? Ooh yes. Firstly, there's the butchery of a couple of scenes (and I don't mean scripted carnage!). I am pretty sure there's a missing scene or two between Guenevere and Lancelot - they get a couple of very meaningful looks in the latter section of the film without there really being anything to back it up. Then there is the scene between them that IS in the film - I'd swear there's at least one Lancelot line missing: She asks him what his home's like; he answers with something flipant to start and then there's a pause. The next line he says "What I do remember is..." which implies one of them said "I/you don't remember" but that line has gone the way of the dodo. I also have to say that the ending is rather saccarine (the DVD contains the alternative ending and I really do wish they'd gone with that!). Lastly, I do also have to say that while Clive Owen was a destinct improvement on Sean Connery, he was a little bit too earnest and a bit too free with the Intense Look for me to entirely like him.
Oh, and then there was the laughable snow. Ah the snow. Bless them. Filming in Ireland in August, all the snow needed to be fake - fair enough. Except it was unevenly fake AND they kept having sunny days, which really did rather ruin the effect; then there were the long shots that showed the snow thinning out considerably...and the whole "why isn't it snowing at the wall" issue. That little piece was nonsensical, unfortunately. The action that went along with it was good, but...the background snow (or lack thereof) rather detracted from it.
Lastly, Merlin. Last time I checked, Merlin was supposed to be a Welsh Celt. Not a Scots one. Nuff said!
Overall, as long as you're not a leading Saxon scholar and you're willing to turn a blind eye at one or two of the background inconsistancies the film is a decent bit of fun. And the soundtrack to it is also very, very nice.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-07 04:48 pm (UTC)After having spent some time researching the legendry, I'm curious.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-07 04:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-07 04:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-07 07:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-07 10:33 pm (UTC)For me, it's not as bad as, say, U579 or Saving Private Ryan because they take extremely well documented events and actually change what happened either partially (omitting British involvement in getting the Americans of the beach at Omaha in SPR) or wholly (having the Enigma machine captured by the Americans rather than the British!) and ultimately ending up giving a completely false representation of events. With Arthur, although there's no documented evidence of what the movie depicts, there's equally no documented evidence that it *couldn't possibly* have happened either. Plus there is the whole "was King Arthur a real person or an amalgam of several?" issue - at which point, it does really stop being a historical drama and starts just being a period drama. I can live with that.
AH! I KNEW he reminded me of something!!! Thank you :) (Yep, not a Clive Owen fan - except to say he's preferable to Sean Connery...)
Yup :) Basically, the piece on the battle field where Arthur cries about not having shared the knights' fate over Lancelot's body is extended. Merlin comes out and says "No shared fate. Never shared fate." Then it cut to the funeral scene which begins as is in the final cut, then it extends; Bos has a line to Arthur that reinforces the idea that, in the end, there's no such thing as a shared fate, only your own, and that you make your own way by doing the right thing (Bos sums it up in about five words - it's a really characterisitic line!) then he and Tristan (?) leave, as do the rest of the gathering, leaving just Arthur, Guenevere and the boy. The boy goes to the grave of thefirstknightwhodiedandwhosenameIcan'tremember and tries to tug the sword from the grave, presumably to take up the sword in the knight's honour, but he isn't strong enough for it. There's a hawk's shriek and Arthur says words to the effect of "One day, you will be strong enough to do this, but not yet." It works out better than that description probably makes it sound; it certainly FELT better to me, partly because it just felt so completely WRONG to have the wedding and have Bos cracking jokes at the end.
Whew!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-07 11:21 pm (UTC)the alternative ending does sound better though. I just remember that I came out of the cinema after King Arthur thinking it was a total waste of money - the only consolation was that it was pretty much the only thing we hadn't seen so it wasn't as if we could have seen something else!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-07 11:54 pm (UTC)I can also see your point about seeing it in the cinema. I think I would have been disappointed if I'd hauled my butt to the cinema to see it. Oddly, I'm NOT disappointed for having shelled out for the DVD, but that's more because what I can do at home is stop-mo fight scenes and replay them (adnausium) to pick up moves and such for writing purposes...and plus the musical soundtrack is a nice background to work to :)