Snowy and cold...
Dec. 26th, 2004 02:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWell, finished all the DVD's finally by watching King Arthur this morning. Sigh. It probably did not help that I'd watched parts of Doctor Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia recently. Two superb action epics. But King Arthur is a bad movie. Really bad. Not even laughably bad like Day After Tomorrow...just well sadly so. Course this may be purely subjective - but, what I felt was lacking in the tale was the same thing lacking in Day After Tomorrow - rich character development. And no this was not the fault of the actors, who did their best to bring something to a underwritten, poorly developed role - it was the fault of the screen-writer and director. Proving once again that like it or not, film is a "director's" medium, not an actors. Good acting can't save a bad movie. It can occassionally save a bad play, but not a movie.
Most of the negative reviews I'd read about King Arthur spent a lot of time mentioning how the story bore no resemblance to the legend. I didn't really mind that so much. I've read the King Arthur tales, studied them, but
to be honest? I can take or leave them. Also I did not go into this movie with high expectations - I did not expect it to be a great twist on an old tale, all I expected was to be reasonably entertained. And hey, I happen to adore Clive Owen, Stellan Starksgard (sp?) and Ion Gruffyd(sp?). But this story was just boring. It drug. Lots and lots of gory battle sequences. Lots of sappy dialogue here and there. But I didn't care who died. Because I didn't know them. The information I'm given - is given either too late to build my sympathy or is shown in a fleeting manner. We never quite understand Lancelot's relationship with Arthur or Gwuinvere. From the film, I was under the impression that Lance and Gwuin were fighting for Arthur's attention, not Lance and Arthur were fighting over Gwuin. Yet, when I saw the DVD extra - where the actors and writers and directors discuss the film - they clearly intended the opposite. Odd. In fact the actor playing Lance mentions how much he liked the subtle references to Lance's interest and love for Gwuin but realization he would never have her because her heart belonged to Arthur. I wondered if I saw the same movie he was working on. The version I saw had no subtle references outside of Lance peeking in on her bathing once and another point where he tells her he'd have let her and the boy die. And stalks after Arthur. There's another point in the film - where he glares at her for attempting to get Arthur to fight for Britain and not go back with him and the other soliders. If anything these three scenes suggest Lance was into Arthur not Gwuin. In fact, I didn't really understand why he got so upset she was in danger and went to save her.
They have an alternate ending on the DVD, which I watched and the filmmakers preferred to the original. Is it better than the wedding sequence? Well it makes more sense then the wedding sequence did, but not a lot. Both endings suffer from the same problem - they are built around Lance, Guin, and Arthur and this kid. In order for them to work- the audience has to be invested in those characters - I wasn't. I was just bored.
The story doesn't really track - it skips and jags all over the place, and it's a simple story, not complicated like Delovely or even the Day After Tomorrow. Yet somehow the filmmakers lose the emotional resonance...because they are more interested in duplicating very realistic and very gory battle sequences. And these battle sequences are realistic. Much time is spent researching and acting them out. I'm thinking from watching the Extras and the Film - all the time was spent on them. So if you are in to battle scenes, you know where you can *really* feel the violence, and could care less about character development - then this baby is for you. If however, you are like me and find long drawn-out gorey battle sequences somewhat dull and a little nauseating - skip it. Clive Owen is much more entertaining in Closer, possibly not the best movie in the world, but in comparison to King Arthur? Fantastic.
Was thinking about this last night - of the movies I've seen this year, and it hasn't been that many to be honest, only about five come to mind as being memorable:
1. Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind
2. Sideways
3. Spiderman2
4. The Incredibles
5. Hero
And maybe Bourne Supremacy. I must have seen more, I just can't remember them.
(As an aside - my mother is funny. She spent the last month gearing me up to visit them for these three days, telling me how great it would be. Now that I was *not* able to get down to Hilton Head for the holidays, and for the first time in 37 years, unable to be with my family, she's telling me that I'm not missing anything. It's gray and raining down there. And I'd only have gotten stuck and I'm much better where I am. Plus, just think - I can look forward to getting their gifts for the next two months. I do know two of the gifts they got me: Firefly DVDS (Mom wisely realized I'd want them more than the BTVS, because there's three episodes only available on the DVD's, plus the extras and commentary are better than on the BTVS DVD's. More energetic.)and
a sweater. So I got stuff coming in the mail - just have to worry about the delivery. Now that the initial shock and disappointment have worn off, I'm sort of okay with it. Not looking forward to spending New Year's alone too though - which I was prepared for prior to this, but now, ugh. What I wouldn't give for a significant other. Sometimes it just sucks to be single.)
Most of the negative reviews I'd read about King Arthur spent a lot of time mentioning how the story bore no resemblance to the legend. I didn't really mind that so much. I've read the King Arthur tales, studied them, but
to be honest? I can take or leave them. Also I did not go into this movie with high expectations - I did not expect it to be a great twist on an old tale, all I expected was to be reasonably entertained. And hey, I happen to adore Clive Owen, Stellan Starksgard (sp?) and Ion Gruffyd(sp?). But this story was just boring. It drug. Lots and lots of gory battle sequences. Lots of sappy dialogue here and there. But I didn't care who died. Because I didn't know them. The information I'm given - is given either too late to build my sympathy or is shown in a fleeting manner. We never quite understand Lancelot's relationship with Arthur or Gwuinvere. From the film, I was under the impression that Lance and Gwuin were fighting for Arthur's attention, not Lance and Arthur were fighting over Gwuin. Yet, when I saw the DVD extra - where the actors and writers and directors discuss the film - they clearly intended the opposite. Odd. In fact the actor playing Lance mentions how much he liked the subtle references to Lance's interest and love for Gwuin but realization he would never have her because her heart belonged to Arthur. I wondered if I saw the same movie he was working on. The version I saw had no subtle references outside of Lance peeking in on her bathing once and another point where he tells her he'd have let her and the boy die. And stalks after Arthur. There's another point in the film - where he glares at her for attempting to get Arthur to fight for Britain and not go back with him and the other soliders. If anything these three scenes suggest Lance was into Arthur not Gwuin. In fact, I didn't really understand why he got so upset she was in danger and went to save her.
They have an alternate ending on the DVD, which I watched and the filmmakers preferred to the original. Is it better than the wedding sequence? Well it makes more sense then the wedding sequence did, but not a lot. Both endings suffer from the same problem - they are built around Lance, Guin, and Arthur and this kid. In order for them to work- the audience has to be invested in those characters - I wasn't. I was just bored.
The story doesn't really track - it skips and jags all over the place, and it's a simple story, not complicated like Delovely or even the Day After Tomorrow. Yet somehow the filmmakers lose the emotional resonance...because they are more interested in duplicating very realistic and very gory battle sequences. And these battle sequences are realistic. Much time is spent researching and acting them out. I'm thinking from watching the Extras and the Film - all the time was spent on them. So if you are in to battle scenes, you know where you can *really* feel the violence, and could care less about character development - then this baby is for you. If however, you are like me and find long drawn-out gorey battle sequences somewhat dull and a little nauseating - skip it. Clive Owen is much more entertaining in Closer, possibly not the best movie in the world, but in comparison to King Arthur? Fantastic.
Was thinking about this last night - of the movies I've seen this year, and it hasn't been that many to be honest, only about five come to mind as being memorable:
1. Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind
2. Sideways
3. Spiderman2
4. The Incredibles
5. Hero
And maybe Bourne Supremacy. I must have seen more, I just can't remember them.
(As an aside - my mother is funny. She spent the last month gearing me up to visit them for these three days, telling me how great it would be. Now that I was *not* able to get down to Hilton Head for the holidays, and for the first time in 37 years, unable to be with my family, she's telling me that I'm not missing anything. It's gray and raining down there. And I'd only have gotten stuck and I'm much better where I am. Plus, just think - I can look forward to getting their gifts for the next two months. I do know two of the gifts they got me: Firefly DVDS (Mom wisely realized I'd want them more than the BTVS, because there's three episodes only available on the DVD's, plus the extras and commentary are better than on the BTVS DVD's. More energetic.)and
a sweater. So I got stuff coming in the mail - just have to worry about the delivery. Now that the initial shock and disappointment have worn off, I'm sort of okay with it. Not looking forward to spending New Year's alone too though - which I was prepared for prior to this, but now, ugh. What I wouldn't give for a significant other. Sometimes it just sucks to be single.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-26 05:18 pm (UTC)Actually I could have lived with that. I mean so many films take that tact - "this is *the* historical rendering of such and such event". That's just marketing. If they'd named the characters other names and not called it King Arthur - it would have still been a horrible movie.
What bugged me was they don't develop the characters.
Instead, they excise the Lance/Gwen romance, which is the most interesting part of either character's story, and instead have all the leads give simpering looks to each other, which are meant to convey...something, I'm sure, but the film really couldn't make me care less.
See - here's the main flaw. Not the excising of the romance, but the "simpering" looks that everyone gives one another - to the extent that you really have no clue who cares about whom. Does Arthur love Guin? Does Guin love Arthur? Does Arthur love Lance?
If so why?
The central conflict is Arthur's - should he be Roman or Britain?
Should he go off and live the mercernary free lifestyle with his men or help free Britain from invaders? And yes, I see the conflict, but I don't care. The writer doesn't give me much reason to care about Arthur. The rescue of Guin happens quickly and abruptly with no real build-up. No anticipation.
The flaw is the focus was more on "battle sequences" than on character. I wouldn't have minded if they excised the romance, as long as they gave me a reason to care about the characters.
Watching King Arthur makes me realize how hard it is to make a really good film and how much of a miracle it is to have one.
You have to get all the balls to fall into place: setting, casting, writing, cinematography, acting, direction, dialogue,
character - if you don't get all of them - you have the muddled mess that was this movie.