?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

King Arthur

In summary: King Arthur was a movie based on an idea with good potential (as long as you buy into its world view) and given a terrible script which made mishmash of all the potentially good details. The characters weren't charismatic, none of them had chemistry (and I mean in a friendship-buddy way as well as romantic, depending on circumstances), and they struggled with lousy dialog. The movie was shot largely documentary-style, and the battle scenes were somewhat abstracted as a consequence. There was some pretty scenery and everybody had photogenic teeth. The movie certainly had redeeming qualities, but I couldn't say it was especially good.

* One of the jobs credited in the credits was for "Greens Dressing".

* Although there's a line at the beginning of the movie about "news archaeological evidence" about Arthur having been recently discovered, never once does the movie claim to have actually acted on any of this information.

* Any Hollywood movie which mentions the Pelagian Controversy endears itself to me.


* I felt that this movie wanted to be about the American Revolutionary War and the fight for democracy, or something like that, but it was stuck being set in fifth century Britain and about an amorphous fight for "freedom", whatever that is.

* I'm sad to say I spotted what looked like a typography error in the credits - "Sound MIxer".

* There weren't enough tertiary characters among the Woads or the Saxons.

* At least they made it very easy to tell who the bad guys were - they were the ones raping and torturing.

* The script writers had a decidedly macabre sense of humor.

* At the end, Arthur says something about Britain being united under one cause. I have no clue what cause that is.

* I thought white wedding dresses were a product of the 19th century.

And so the Saxons were driven out of Britain (those who weren't already dead) in the fifth century forever more, never to return... or something like that.

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
moon_custafer
Jul. 12th, 2004 04:14 am (UTC)
something about Britain being united under one cause. I have no clue what cause that is.

I assumed the cause was fighting off the next wave of Saxon invaders. Everything you've said is quite right, but I did enjoy the movie as a kind of Magnificent Seven remake - and come on! Bors is pretty charismatic! I especially like the scar across his head where someone evidently once tried to put an axe through his skull.
owlfish
Jul. 12th, 2004 06:18 am (UTC)
Bors is more charismatic than his competition (although I liked Tristin best for coolness factor). Bors has much more personality than his fellow knights though as well. I don't know if it's because he was given a backstory involving a passel of kids and a woman to relate to, a reason to keep alive and fight for. Quite possibly it was.

I've still not seen the Magnificent Seven.

I'm glad I saw King Arthur - it wasn't an outright bad movie, but I wouldn't call it good either. I felt too detached from the characters to care too much when they died, and I'm usually rather unhealthily empathetic with movie characters, part of why I prefer movies with happy endings so I don't mourn characters I cared about so much.
maxineofarc
Jul. 12th, 2004 10:12 am (UTC)
White wedding dresses are absolutely a Victorian invention, but if I were a Hollywood costume designer and wanted to design a costume that would telegraph to a movie audience, "WEDDING DRESS!" then I'd design a white one.

However, Ioan Gruffudd is hot.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )