|
I don't mind people taking a well known legend and then challenging
it and trying to make it more realistic. But if you're going to make a historically accurate film get someone who can do it
right. It's very true that much of what we know of King Arthur came from Thomas Mallory's book on him and that if there was
a real Arthur (and why wouldn't there be?) he would have been of Roman descent and lived during the 400s or 500s AD. The film
does place him in England during this time and really is historically accurate, at least as much as it can be since we know
very little of the real Arthur. The film's accuracy, however, might go a little too far. There are only six knights left of
the Round Table, a couple of which you might never have heard of if you aren't familiar with the King Arthur legends (I was
disappointed that Sir Bedivere was not around). It's not just that the film shakes up the legend and says it's not true; it
turns it on it's head. Lancelot and Tristan (sorry, Tristram here, but I prefer the other version of his name) die by the
end of the film, so the story of Guinevere and Lancelot's love affair (which might be the biggest part of the legend) can
never be. Neither can the story of Tristan and Isolde. These are big chunks of the legend that are being left out. If you
think about it, in reality these stories might never have happened in the life of the real Arthur, but I have read writings
from early Welsh and English manuscripts which mentions the affair between Guinevere and Lancelot, writings which otherwise
do not follow the traditional Arthur legend and are more accurate historically, like this film. So maybe the screenwriters
and others did their research but missed a bit. I don't mind the film trying to be realistic; I just wish they had kept some
of the old legend too. I had to laugh at the film's final lines, though: after all they did to prove the Arthur stories wrong,
at the end it is mentioned that the great Arthur in all his great deeds and glory sparked the legend that we know of him now.
Now if you're going to turn the legend upside-down why speak of it and make it seem so wonderful after you are done twisting
it around?
Acting wise, this film
is a disappointment. Clive Owen is decent as our man Arthur. He makes a fine one, but he is so dull. I think the plague descended
upon the whole cast. Everyone is so dull, even those who are normally very good (Keira Knightley and Stellan Skargaard-and
we all know how much I like him). Everyone is just dull. Not bad in acting, but dull. And I didn't like Gawain, who is supposed
to be so noble and good and didn't seem so here. And Galahad certainly won't become the only knight to reach the Holy Grail
if he continues as he does in this film. And I didn't understand what was going on with Tristan and his bird. I guess he was
a falconer. I also couldn't figure out where Guinevere came from. Her name is Welsh, but she comes from the North, which makes
no sense. And is she a Celt? And what about the people she was fighting with at the end of the film? Are they Celts too? I
ask because Celts were known for painting themselves blue before going to war as these people did. And where did they come
from? Arthur decides to fight the Saxons and suddenly Gwen isn't with him anymore and she's with a bunch of people who came
from nowhere. The love scene was also out of place. I felt like it was there just because the director felt obligated to include
it in his film. He needn't have bothered. There is also too much melodrama in the film, too much gloom. There is a sense of
doom shadowing the film, and not the good kind, the melodrama that is good. I think the cloudiness of the sky made it worse.
And why the heck is the movie called 'King Arthur' if he's only king for two minutes? There are too many things just thrown
in an not explained.
Not everything
was bad, but nothing was good, except for-haha- the costuming. It was probably as authentic as anything. But the cinematography,
musical score, and script were nothing to holler about. Simply mediocre. Except for the script. It was dull like the acting.
And a few lines (Gwen's during the love scene) were very much out of place.
This was disappointing. It had potential but didn't rise even a foot off the ground
to reach it. Don't see this, even if you're curious. Someday someone will grant my wish and make a wonderful movie about Arthur.
I don't care if it holds true to the legends or is historically accurate like this one tried to be. As long as it's good. |
|
