Thursday July 08, 2004

King Arthur

Another rainy summer day in Boston, another movie. (It feels like maybe I caught the wrong connection out of O'Hare and wound up in Seattle by mistake.) This time, King Arthur, "The Untold True Story That Inspired The Legend", or so boasts the official website.

I think they're claiming it's the true story because it would be hard to prove either way. While it is not hard at all to prove that this is a pretty lame-o flick.

First, to the plot. Now, I'm a big fan of the Arthurian Legend in all its many forms. I have been for 30 years. New twists don't bother me; in fact, once you've read up on it a bit, you realize that you're dealing with a thousand year-old series of variations on a theme, rather than a "canonical" version with "heretical" offshoots, to borrow some church lingo. (Personal favorite: Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon.) So imagination and improvisation are fine by me. But where they came up with the legend of the Sarmatian Knights, I will never know. Perhaps the Mandingo Warriors were busy and and these guys were the B-Team.

Chronology-wise, I'm fine with the Dark Ages setting of the movie, and the idea of an alliance between Arthur and the Wolds (pagan tribesmen from the north of Britain). But other than one fleeting remark from Merlin -- who is, I swear, the spitting image of Saddam Hussein with his prison haircut -- there is no explanation of why these tribes are taking Arthur, until moments ago, their archenemy, as their war leader, much less their king. And somehow, unbeknownst to... anybody..., they've worked out this intricate co-op battle plan to whomp the Saxons, who are being led by some guy doing a very bad Nick-Nolte-imitating-Marlon-Brando-playing-Vito-Corleone accent.

I don't know when they could have had time to work it out. The only tribesperson Arthur converses with, apart from Merlin and one rather testy captive, is Keira Knightley. (I think it's because she's the only one of the actors he's ever heard of, and he wants to get her autograph or something.) And most of their talk is pillow talk, or whatever passed for a pillow back there in the dark ages. There is no hint of the tragic Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle that plays such a pivotal role in later versions of the legend. Lance checks her out through an open bathroom window, that's all. She doesn't even notice.

Second, to the battle sceneszzzzZZZ.... I'm sorry. After Braveheart, and the battles of Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith, watching this baker's dozen of Sarmatian Knights join forces with a pack of Wild Wolds (who look like the Blue Man Group after a pop-up rainstorm) to drive Hagar the Horrible and his butt-ugly kid out of Dodge City just doesn't cut it. I've seen hockey fights on a grander scale. (Between opposing parents, of course!)

Third, to the cast. Who are these people? I'm serious -- here's a list of them: Clive Owen (Arthur), Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot), Mads Mikkelsen (Tristan), Joel Edgerton (Gawain), Hugh Dancy (Galahad) -- have you heard of any of 'em? Keira Knightley is it, and she's either working under some old (unfortunate) contract she signed, looking for her big break, or she lost a bet. Actually, once you see her going into battle -- painted blue and wearing what looks like a pair of strategically-placed leather belts and not much more -- you'll go for the lost-a-bet angle. She doesn't even look good. How'd they screw that up?

I would have expected more from Jerry Bruckheimer, the producer of Pirates of the Caribbean and Black Hawk Down; he knows how to make fun movies and action movies, and in Armageddon, both. I'm not sure I would have from Antoine Fuqua, the director of Training Day. I hated that movie.

This one, I didn't hate -- I just didn't find it anywhere near as good most of the other ones out there.

[GET IT]

(2004-07-08 11:47:36.0) Permalink Comments [4]