Fri, Jul 09, 2004

: King Arthur

A slight disappointment, mainly because it doesn’t really achieve the levels it aims at. It’s good. The cinematography is amazing, the acting is excellent, the story’s not bad: but the whole doesn’t add up to a great film. I did like that the creators came up with new perspectives on the King Arthur myth: this is different from the stories you’ve heard before. In this version, Arthur’s a Roman who’s stationed in far-away Britain, leading a troup of knights who’ve been conscripted to serve Rome for 15 years. He and his knights fight against the native Britons, blue-painted savages who live in the forest and are led by a mystic named Merlin. But when the Romans decide to leave Briton, abandonning it to the vicious Saxons of the north, the Britons need a leader, and Arthur ends up becoming that man. (Yes, he’s leading the people he used to fight against.) Interesting twist, though I have no idea if it’s actually based on any real evidence. It’s an epic film with some good battles. The most spectacular scene is the battle on the ice where we have awesome shots from below the ice of soldiers marching across the frozen top. Overall it’s an excellent film, but somehow feels empty and lacking by the finish. There’s a spark missing. Everything’s too pat, too polished, the grand speeches too obvious. Trimming it would have helped (it’s much too long at 2:10). And the luminous Kierra Knightly doesn’t show up until an hour in, another mistake (the story is much more interesting with her in it). I liked it, but I wouldn’t bother watching it again, if that tells you anything. There’s just not enough depth.

Topic: [/movie]

Link