King Arthur | Gung-Ho Guinevere and No Lancelot Affair
Believe me, I would never pass up anything vaguely related to Arthurian lore, be it Excalibur, The Mists of Avalon, or The Magic Sword: Quest for Camelot. Heck, I used to watch that Young Knights of the Round Table cartoon when I was a kid. It was with a little bit of trepidation, though, that I convinced myself to watch King Arthur. One, Keira Knightley plays Guinevere. Two, Guinevere is shooting arrows ala-Legolas. Three, she's in the center of the billboard and not King Arthur. However, upon watching the feature, it was a relief to see that the movie was not centered on Guinevere, but rather on Arthur and the six knights under his charge, especially his right hand, Lancelot. The relief, apparently, ends there.
The story is told from Lancelot's point of view, from his conscription as a Sarmatian teenager to the coronation of Arthur by, well, around a couple of villages' worth of people. At least we know that per History According to Jerry Bruckheimer (as the opening credits mention that this could be the most historically correct account of Arthur's rise to power)--at least we know that Arthur will become king of at least as many people as there are on one floor of SM at any given time of day. Huwaat? You spent all your CGI budget on the battle scenes? Shame, shame. Meanwhile, Arthur is a Roman captain who heads the Sarmatian conscripts--called knights, because there are no other knights thereabouts, none whatsoever. It is a battle-hardened bunch of soldiers, ranging from the feisty Gawain to brawny-yet-sweet Dagonet, whose name I have never encountered in Arthurian lore. Ever. Where was Percival? In fact, who is Bors (aside from the fact that he has eleven children)? Meanwhile, Artorius/Arthur and his gang of six make like a Dark Ages version of the Magnificent Seven or Seven Samurai.
To be freed from servitude, the knights need to undergo one last quest, to rescue a Roman family trapped deep in enemy Woad territory, caught between the Woads and the oncoming Saxons, who aim to burn and pillage and kill just for the fun of it, it seems. Never mind that the Woads could actually be the Picts (again, History According to Jerry Bruckheimer), or the seeming incongruity that a (rich) Roman family is deep in enemy territory, or that Excalibur was actually Arthur's Roman father's sword. Merlin is cast as a shaman, and not the wise wizard that we've all grown to admire. There is no Morgana le Fay, no Lady of the Lake, no Uther Pendragon. No Uther Pendragon! What is this person's claim to Britain's throne anyway? Snogging Keira Knightley? Sigh.
Not much acting chops were required for this movie, although I must admit that each of the actors seems to have gotten at least a 'signature' emotion down pat for the movie, like Clive Owen (Arthur) and his brooding righteousness, Ioan Gruffud's Lancelot and his foreboding, Mads Mikkelsen playing Tristan with a degree of animal appeal (now you know why the hawk is there), Ivano Marescotti's Bishop Germanius and his tempered arrogance, while Stellan Skarsgard as the Saxon leader Cerdic effectively conveys varying degrees of intimidation. And then there's Keira Knightley, looking every bit like Keira Knightley and not Guinevere, especially in v. skimpy war outfit. No one in particular shines in this movie, except maybe the little Woad boy who develops an affinity for Dagonet. Furthermore, there are instances that elicit snickers from the audience--made more worthy of derision because it is so darned serious! Antoine Fuqua (director of Training Day) stutters a little with this movie.
Need an Arthurian movie? Go rent/buy Excalibur. It's much better, you know. This is a particular rewriting of Arthurian lit that I feel nothing for. However, for the sheer entertainment value of a pseudo-historical action picture, not to mention the manly-man eye candy afforded by not-your-regular-American-studs Ioan Gruffud, Hugh Dancy (he could pass for American leading man though--and he has, in Ella Enchanted), and Mads Mikkelsen, it wasn't too much of a waste of a good two hours. But I'd take good old-fashioned R-rated blood and gore over this any time.
Well worth the ticket price at Power Plant, if only for Mads Mikkelsen in war paint and Last Samurai armor.
The story is told from Lancelot's point of view, from his conscription as a Sarmatian teenager to the coronation of Arthur by, well, around a couple of villages' worth of people. At least we know that per History According to Jerry Bruckheimer (as the opening credits mention that this could be the most historically correct account of Arthur's rise to power)--at least we know that Arthur will become king of at least as many people as there are on one floor of SM at any given time of day. Huwaat? You spent all your CGI budget on the battle scenes? Shame, shame. Meanwhile, Arthur is a Roman captain who heads the Sarmatian conscripts--called knights, because there are no other knights thereabouts, none whatsoever. It is a battle-hardened bunch of soldiers, ranging from the feisty Gawain to brawny-yet-sweet Dagonet, whose name I have never encountered in Arthurian lore. Ever. Where was Percival? In fact, who is Bors (aside from the fact that he has eleven children)? Meanwhile, Artorius/Arthur and his gang of six make like a Dark Ages version of the Magnificent Seven or Seven Samurai.
To be freed from servitude, the knights need to undergo one last quest, to rescue a Roman family trapped deep in enemy Woad territory, caught between the Woads and the oncoming Saxons, who aim to burn and pillage and kill just for the fun of it, it seems. Never mind that the Woads could actually be the Picts (again, History According to Jerry Bruckheimer), or the seeming incongruity that a (rich) Roman family is deep in enemy territory, or that Excalibur was actually Arthur's Roman father's sword. Merlin is cast as a shaman, and not the wise wizard that we've all grown to admire. There is no Morgana le Fay, no Lady of the Lake, no Uther Pendragon. No Uther Pendragon! What is this person's claim to Britain's throne anyway? Snogging Keira Knightley? Sigh.
Not much acting chops were required for this movie, although I must admit that each of the actors seems to have gotten at least a 'signature' emotion down pat for the movie, like Clive Owen (Arthur) and his brooding righteousness, Ioan Gruffud's Lancelot and his foreboding, Mads Mikkelsen playing Tristan with a degree of animal appeal (now you know why the hawk is there), Ivano Marescotti's Bishop Germanius and his tempered arrogance, while Stellan Skarsgard as the Saxon leader Cerdic effectively conveys varying degrees of intimidation. And then there's Keira Knightley, looking every bit like Keira Knightley and not Guinevere, especially in v. skimpy war outfit. No one in particular shines in this movie, except maybe the little Woad boy who develops an affinity for Dagonet. Furthermore, there are instances that elicit snickers from the audience--made more worthy of derision because it is so darned serious! Antoine Fuqua (director of Training Day) stutters a little with this movie.
Need an Arthurian movie? Go rent/buy Excalibur. It's much better, you know. This is a particular rewriting of Arthurian lit that I feel nothing for. However, for the sheer entertainment value of a pseudo-historical action picture, not to mention the manly-man eye candy afforded by not-your-regular-American-studs Ioan Gruffud, Hugh Dancy (he could pass for American leading man though--and he has, in Ella Enchanted), and Mads Mikkelsen, it wasn't too much of a waste of a good two hours. But I'd take good old-fashioned R-rated blood and gore over this any time.
Well worth the ticket price at Power Plant, if only for Mads Mikkelsen in war paint and Last Samurai armor.