INFO
REVIEWS
MAP
OPEN FORUM
PHOTO ALBUM
 Chris' Review: "Hail, King Arthur!" Camelot it's not. Monty Python it's not. First Knight it's not (thank all that is holy for that). The poster reads, "The untold true story that inspired the legend." After seeing the movie this week, our little band of Tuesday Movie Night goers was torn. Was it good. Was it a travis-sham-ockery? After enjoying the movie thoroughly, yet hearing the opposing views and reading quite a few reviews afterwards, I decided to research the movie a little better. Read some more reviews, update myself on what the legend states and what little we do know about the historical happenings. The "true" part of that statement is a little far fetched since no one has been able to prove that Arthur ever actually lived, let alone if he was king or if there was a Camelot. This was not intended to be the "legendary" tale of King Arthur and his Knights of Camelot. I went into the film knowing that full well and what I received was a well thought out, well directed depiction of what might have happened. The acting was competent. The story was excellent. The dialogue was a little bit stunted, but given the educational system of the time, I'll dismiss it as realistic. Some of the effects (ie. the frozen lake battle) were absolutely incredible. Although a bit heavy handed at times, especially during the last scene, overall I found myself thinking that if I was going to make a movie about King Arthur... this is the type of movie I would make. The problem that I discovered most people had with it was that they were looking for the sparkly, idyllic Arthur of legend. They wanted magic and love triangles and swords in stones. The thing is, those things only appear in legend. If someone told us that Merlin actually was a magician, we wouldn't have believed them, but put him in a Pict tribe with druidic religious leanings and a tendency to sneak around so they seem to appear out of nowhere... and you have a realistic view of what the legend of Merlin could have sprung from. Have Arthur pull his sword from his father's burial mound instead of a stone, have Lancelot just give longing glances at Guenivere, and you can start a rumor that there was something going on between them. Most of the reviews that I read stated that this was supposed to be the "true" story... and then proceeded to bash it for not having Merlin perform magic or to complain about how dreary it was or how brooding the noble Arthur was. Ok, there were no true magicians in the Dark Ages, and for that matter, they called them the Dark Ages for a reason. It wasn't a time of glitz and well-to-do! Arthur learns that the teachings of Rome are being overthrown and he has no where to go back to. You expect him to do anything BUT brood? His world is being torn down around him! This movie accomplished all it set out to do and more! To the nay-sayers: stop trying to interject what you think the history "should" be and just enjoy this fierce depiction of what it "could" have been. Sure, as with every movie it had problems. Guinivere would not have been bathing, in the woods, in the middle of winter, with only a mosquito net as her privacy screen. Arthur would not have had pierced ears (hey, make-up guys, wake up!), and Lancelot wouldn't have had manicured facial hair. It really didn't do anything to wreck the overall film, though. So all in all, I really enjoyed this movie and it was sullied more by the negativity surrounding it than anything in the actual film. I give it 7 thumbs up and I will most definitely be buying the DVD. Damn, I so love sword movies.   Jim's Review: The "sword-and-sandal" epic has a long and rich history in cinema. "Gladiator" pictures of larger-than life warriors sporting shining armor and lofty ideals have fascinated audiences since time out of mind. This summer alone has given us "Troy", the upcoming "Alexander", and the ambitious "King Arthur." The story of King Arthur and his valiant Round Table knights has been told scores of times, and in scores of ways. But typically, the telling focuses on the myths...The legendary, almost otherworldly status of the people, places, and events involved. In "King Arthur", director Antoine Fuqua ("Training Day") and screenwriter David Franzoni ("Gladiator") take a relatively fresh approach: De-mystifying Arthur, and grounding him in the tangible. Peering behind the embellishments of legend to find the man behind the myth. It may shatter expectations, and present an unfamiliar twist on the story, but in postulating that all legends have a factual basis, it cleans the slate and forces you to confront the story on its own terms. And, even though when it comes to Arthur we may be conditioned to accept maidens in pointed hats, Merlin in blue robes, and the misty moors of Camelot...it works. Fuqua's Arthur is re-imagined as a half-Roman, half-Briton warrior descended from the bloodlines of the Sarmatians, a warrior race so fierce and skilled that the Roman army could not conquer them. Out of respect (and more than a little fear), the Romans allowed the Sarmatians to keep their lives...Under the condition that they, and their descendants, would be conscripted to 15 years' service in the Roman Army upon reaching the age of eligibility. The story picks up as the Romans arrive to collect a young boy from his tiny village in order that he might begin his mandatory service. When next we meet him, he has matured into Lancelot, Knight of the Round Table. As Lancelot, Ioan Gruffudd is well-cast. With his angular features, deep-set eyes, and roguish goatee, Gruffudd looks like nothing so much as a medieval Dave Navarro. And what were knights but the rock stars of their time? He has the gravitas to convey serious battle scenes, but just the right touch of impish levity to lend credence to the character's supposed lothario reputation. No less superb is Clive Owen as Arthur. The story paints Arthur in this phase of his life as not yet a king, but a de facto captain of the guard. He leads without diverting from his dedication to his own romanticized version of Rome, and what it represents. If his character has a flaw, it's only that he is a bit humorless; his eyes never wavering from his ideals even for a moment. He eats, sleeps and breathes battle. He lives for it, and is willing to die for it. As such, he comes of as a smidgen stuffy, but this is neither a fault of the writing, direction, or performance. It is simply who Arthur IS. And Owen brings bucketloads of intensity and drive to this version of Arthur. His conviction is as solid as his steel. What remains of the Round Table are names that are familiar in legend, but are here wrapped in fresh skin: Bors (Ray Winstone) is boorishly lovable, stealing scene after scene. Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen) is a graceful falconer, who moves as though he is in a perpetual dream. Sad-eyed Dagonet (Ray Stevenson) may be a man of few words and a pronounced paternal streak, but nevertheless springs to action when needed. Gawain (Joel Edgerton) and Galahad (Hugh Dancy) are proud men who value freedom, but do not have the capability to shirk duty. All are thick, richly-drawn characters with a depth supporting players typically do not enjoy. They portray a team of men bound by honor, duty, friendship and experience to the fullest extent. In the face of such a strong cast, the story becomes almost secondary...But the film suffers little in that regard, either. As the tale unfolds, Arthur's knights find themselves on the eve of the end of their conscripted service. They celebrate...Until given the bad news by Arthur that a shady bishop (Ivano Marescotti) has word from Rome: The fearless, seemingly immortal Knights of Sarmatia will be required to undertake one final task before their discharge will be granted: The godson of the pope needs an escort from a remote Roman outpost deep in British territory. The catch? As Arthur and the knights approach from the south, a menacing band of Saxons, led by the fearsome Cerdic (a barely-recognizable Stellan Skarsgård) approach from the north, hoping to kidnap the boy and hold him from Rome for ransom. Naturally, the knights are not happy about the prospect of placing themselves in harm's way on the cusp of their release, but realizing that their discharge hangs in the balance, the journey is undertaken. To complicate matters, the arboreal Picts, led by the mysterious Maerlyn (Stephen Dillane) have a beef with the occupying Romans AND the Marauding Saxons. But, once they realize that Rome's intent is to pull out of their land, their attention is turned to the new Saxon threat, and an uneasy alliance is struck between their people, and Arthur's. What follows is almost perfunctory, but nevertheless satisfying and beautiful to watch. Battles are raged, blood is spilled, and the dichotomous grace/brutality that permeates the proceedings creates a balance most action epics are not successful in striking. That's not to say there aren't issues. Any historical epic isn't going to nail it perfectly. Some of the weaponry was a bit anachronistic, and the ability of Kiera Knightley's Guenivere to stand and fight with the knights simply would not have stood in an age of regimented chivalry. But overall, bringing Arthur down to earth in the context of solid history is a fresh twist on the tale, and a well-executed one to boot. I'm going to give "King Arthur" 8 thumbs up. It may be just one more take on a centuries-old story, but this ain't your father's King Arthur. BackHome - Info - Reviews - Map - Message Board - Photo Album |
|
IMDB.com answer all your movie questions! RottenTomatoes.com Get more reviews here! Hollywood.com Find showtimes at your local theatre, order tickets online! |