|
King Arthur - the critics say "nay"
"...a really, really cheap knockoff of Gladiator." "...departs so radically from what most of us accept as the basics...that the movie qualifies as a whole new myth." "...strips most of the magic and fantasy out of the tale." "Luckily there is an element of broad, brawny camp that prevents King Arthur from being a complete drag." "...too long and too full of itself to offer more than a few fleeting moments of entertainment."
Was it the best movie I've ever seen? No Did I find it entertaining? Yes I am not a big fan of war movies when people haphazardly kill each other and characters are soaked in blood simply because they can be. King Arthur takes the audience a step further, a step beyond watching characters slaughtering each other; the film gives the knights an opinion, a relationship as well as highlighting their fears. The knights fought side by side for over 15 years, which in turn made them closer to each other than to their families. For example, one of the knights was married and had a handful of children, but he didn't know their names because he was never home. He referred to them as #1, #2, #3, #4. With his fellow knights, they knew each other so well, they were able to finish each other's sentences. My favorite aspect of the film is how personally relevant it is to the current crises overseas. In the movie, the knights did not want to fight because they knew the "government" didn't care whether they were dead or alive. They were only fighting because it was an obligation, and at the same time they were looking forward to the end of their term. They were talking about their future, about settling down and moving on. Their conversations seemed common for all soldiers, and I have no doubt that the U.S. troops overseas are exchanging the same dialogue. I recommend King Arthur.
Directored by Antoine Fuqua
Posted to movies by thereelroundtable at 12:28PM on Jul 13, 2004
Comments
One question...why bother calling the movie King Arthur when they have changed the legend so as to make parts of it unrecognizable? Granted, I haven't seen it, but I have heard how the story was changed and things were omitted. I mean, this is a legend that has endured for 1,500 years for a reason. Like I said, I haven't seen the film (nor am I likely to, at least not for $10) but I do know the legend. Posted by Mark at 12:28PM on Jul 13, 2004
|





