Rating: 
Summary: "Arthur", Thy Name is Blow
Review: Normally, "boring" is a term I avoid. Why? Well, it's usually a word simpletons use to describe movies they don't fully comprehend, either intellectually or emotionally (think of the average man's lackluster response to the amazing "Lost In Translation"). But in the case of the mind-numbingly shallow and seemingly endless "King Arthur", I think the simpletons would put "boring" to its most appropriate use.This embarrassing Jerry Bruckheimer production yearns to tell us the "true story" of the legendary king, which apparently happened years earlier than in the "fairy tale" version and involved not only the Romans but some of the most uninteresting events in the history of the world. I thought the film would delve deeper into who Arthur (portrayed here by Clive Owen) was, or at least focus on more than the one story it does, which involves the future king and his noble knights going on a final mission before being released from their Roman contracts (don't ask). Along the way, they rescue religious prisoners and pick up the feisty Guinevere (Keira Knightley). The movie might've been at least passable at an hour and a half -- or less. Even with the laughably overdramatic narration at the beginning and end. Even with the characters who would be indistinguishable from each other if they didn't at least look different. Even with the wholly un-involving action set-ups. But no...we get two hours and ten minutes of this sh**. And man, let me tell ya, it's rough going. In fact, I might have actually fallen asleep if it weren't for all the times I checked my handy cell phone to see how much longer I had to suffer. And speaking of suffering, we see very little on screen, thanks to Buena Vista's last minute decision to turn the film, which was created specifically to be R-rated, into a poorly edited, ridiculously blood-free PG-13 money-maker. Well, that backfired. The $130 million production took in a mere $23 its opening week. A hit this ain't. As I think back on it now, perhaps I should have given in to the inclination to take a snooze. I'm sure I could have dreamt a better, more exciting movie.
Rating: 
Summary: King Arthur (Unrated Widescreen Director's Cut)
Review: The Roman Empire is stretched across many nations, including Britain. In their conquest for more land, the Romans went into Sarmatia where they fought the very brave Sarmatian cavalery. The Romans, impressed by the Sarmatian's weaponery and fighting skills, included them into their army as knights. After 15 years of serving and fighting for the Roman Empire the Sarmatian Knights, lead by Arthur/Artorious Castus, are about to receive their freedom as the Romans are leaving Britain. But the Knights must carry out one final order before they are free. A Roman priest and his family, especially his son Alecto, must be rescued from the invading Saxons. But there is another danger lurking on the road to freedom - the Woads, British rebels who hate the Romans.
Rating: 
Summary: This legend just didn't live up to itself
Review: This movie was yet another retelling of the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. It had an unusual angle to the familiar story, and a lot of potential that I believe it just didn't live up to. But wait, isn't this a kind of foolproof, proven winner? Well... What I liked:
it was a grittier, more historically plausible interpretation of the King Arthur legend than anything filmed before. The chaos of the battle scenes was nicely done. There was nothing mystical or magical mixed up in there. The main characters were very flawed humans with their own stories: Merlin was a prominent leader, perhaps a Druid, but not a wizard; Arthur was a conflicted half-British, half-Roman noble who learned egalitarian values and cared deeply for his pagan comrades; and all the knights of the Round Table were foreign men eager to leave the service of the Roman Empire once their 15 year tour of duty was up. I was able to appreciate the care that went into researching the likely historical setup for the tale of these renowned "heroes". What I disliked:
First, there were logistical flaws like wimpy people pulling bows that had 120 lb draw weights, weapons from inconsistent historical periods and countries, the overly done "tough Amazon warrior princess" typing done with Guinevere (it was laughably implausible). That's enough to bother some people, but I can get over that sort of thing if the rest of a movie is pulled off well. Sadly, King Arthur wasn't pulled off that well overall, and I think it was a problem with the basic story being a bit underwhelming. The biggest (meaning, what took up most of the screenplay) task that these men faced involved not the fate of the nation nor the defeat of great evil, but protecting a small village from a band of marauding Saxons. I just had a hard time caring. You know a film is in trouble when the director has to rely so heavily on the music to convince the audience that there's deep emotion to a scene. Yes, that score was swelling heavily and often, but somehow, I just didn't connect on the visceral level with the dilemmas of Arthur and his knights, or the plight of the oppressed common folk that they were shepherding to Hadrian's Wall. The Arthur/Guinivere/Lancelot romance was halfhearted. Even the "sad" parts involving deaths of good guys didn't grab me, and I normally choke up. I kept wondering, what's missing -- why can't I lose myself in this story? So this is a valuable lesson to all future filmmakers that may wish to tackle this subject. Perhaps the Arthurian legend does need magic and mystery to carry it successfully on the big screen - after all, if you're going to take on a larger-than-life tradition, your scope had better be larger than life. Otherwise, why bother? You could any number of other documented military campaigns instead. Too much petty realism combined with a too-small plot focus may have been the death of this King Arthur movie. -Andrea, aka Merribelle
Rating:
Summary: Camelot! Camelot! It's Not
Review: When we did the obligatory Arthurian tour through southwestern England 20 years ago, we saw Tintagel. We saw Glastonbury (where some monks dubiously claimed to have found the bones of u-no-who). Amesbury, where Guinevere was exiled to a nunnery (no nunnery here, however, or other 6th c. ruins). We saw Camelot - a flat-topped hill that was the site of a long-gone stone age fort. It was a beautiful day, even sunny, a rarity for the area. No trace of a castle though. I had read Morris' "Age of Arthur" and understood fully that Arthur was a dimly-documented 6th century figure that may have checked the Anglo-Saxon advance on the Romano-Britons, but not the silver-armoured knight of 14th century hagiography. And what was I thinking sitting on the hill at Camelot? All that I could hear going through my head was Richard Harris singing from that ridiculous Broadway tune, "Camelot! Camelot! Where we write the legal laws!" My mind was filled with media gunk!
So I was ready for "King Arthur" which in ads promised to tell the real story of King Arthur as the savior of the Britons against the invading Saxons - getting the chronology rolled back to something close to the 6th c.(assuming the guy lived at all). What do we get? Some concession to history, but otherwise your typical bearskins and clubs Hollywood mush. I'd like to beleive, really. But:
1. Assuming spotty 8th century records are accurate (a leap of faith), Arthur would have been somewhere in the late 5th to 6th century AD. The movie has him as a Roman legionary or auxillary. Probably not. The Roman legions left the island for good around AD 410 to save what was left of the colapsing Empire and fight the incessant civil wars. Whoever was left would have been worrying about the Saxon Shore and interior settlements, not Hadrian's Wall which was long abandoned. This Arthur is depicted as a foreign auxilary from the Russian steppes, so, let's give a pass here.
2. The movie's reference to the Arian heresy is nice, but the victory of the Roman church did not result in an early Spanish inquisition agianst everyone else as indicated. There were too many other sects (e.g. Mithras) still around. I also don't think personal or nationalist freedom was a selling point for either Christian sect - this is about 14 centuries too soon. Which leads to...
3. The idiot Roman villa NORTH of Hadrian's wall?? In the 5th century? And the owner has an Italian accent?
4. Guenevere is certainly a dish in her peak-a-boo leather warrior outfit. I saw somthing like it in a shop in San Francisco on Duboce. Not exactly Sir Mallory here, that's for sure.
Unfortunately, too much of the movie consists of crowded battle scenes between the Mad-Max/Conan attired Saxons (grunt, kill), Arthur's soldiers, and the "Woads" whom I suspect are Picts. These battles are noisy and nothing special, but take up way too much of the movie, drowning out the few attempts to establish an alternative history.
This is realy quite harmless fun, as about as historically accurate as Monty Python's "Holy Grail", but it looks like Hollywood's brainwashing a la Mallory will remain. The most watchable Arthurian movie remains Boorman's "Excalibur", with a real Merlin instead of the nonentity in King Arthur. And Venessa Redgrave will always be Guinevere to me.
I do recommend Berkeley author Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Mists of Avalon" (not the silly made-for TV movie, but the book) for an alternative take on the Arthur legend.
Rating: 
Summary: Execrable Slop
Review: While I am tempted to believe that the release of "King Arthur" is somehow related to a Freemason plot, I suppose I should follow Ockham's razor and choose the simpler explanation that it was written and produced by bigoted morons.
At no point in the movie was any sort of historical consistency built. Right from the beginning, anachronisms and neopagan fantasies pervade the film. The writers pick and choose which aspects of the Arthurian legends fit their particular bigoted view of history. This is all well and good for a fantasy, but the creators of "King Arthur" are clearly pushing the idea that their version is accurate.
The work is overtly derivative of Braveheart - Arthur & his Knights use the word "Freedom" like they were speechwriters for George Bush. But the movie lacks Braveheart's appeal of being an interesting story, well acted, and hyperbolic from a basis in reality.
It was fascinating to see the bigotry of the authors displayed through their absurd, hamhanded and unrelenting attacks on Christianity. They extrapolate an enlightenment-era secular sensibility back onto the Sarmatian barbarians, and then feel that it's necessary to paint post-Constantinian Christianity as equivilent to the Inquisition.
For all the writers' handwaving about correcting the Arthurian legend back from a Christianized medieval fiction, their "improvement" is an Arthur who would be much more plausible in 1990's San Francisco.
But the above statements are just minor observations. The real problem with the movie is that it is simply goofy. The little fight on the frozen river, the Roman settlement north of Hadrian's wall, the walled-up torture chamber, Guenivere getting a sponge bath in a see-through litter in the snow, the salute of flaming arrows, and the whole climactic battle-scene at Hadrian's wall... all were sophomoric and trite.
In summary, "King Arthur" is a poorly executed neopagan fantasy, with virtually nothing to commend it.
|
