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.
