Just saw the somewhat revisionist, yet supposedly fact-based, film about the historical Arthur today. Now of course I was put-off right from the get-go because, yes, I’ve long known that historians suspect a Roman warrior, one “Arturus,” to be the basis for the Arthur legends. But I also know that Lancelot didn’t enter the mythos until about six centuries later, when the French crowbarred him in. I mean, naturally: He’s better and stronger than any other knight, he’s so irresistable that the queen cuckolds her husband for him, and of course he’s French. He’s like a medieval Lieutenant Mary Sue. So don’t go telling me you’re making a movie steeped in historical theory and then toss in a latter-day Gaullic addendum ’cause it’s just pìššìņg me off.
That said, I liked it a hëll of a lot better than I thought I would. Considering I know that they edited the crap out of it and inserted an uplifting ending, I’d be intrigued to see the R-rated director’s cut which I understand will be released on DVD. The absolutely stand-out is Bors, a growling monster-bear of a man who has so many bášŧárd children that he can’t be bothered to name them, only number them. Although I have to say that the mother of his kids (a dozen of them) should looked a lot less haggard than any such woman would realistically have the right to be. Kind of typical of these sorts of films: The men looked grizzled and wartorn and the women look like Hollywood actresses. The last time I saw a period film set in a poor area where the women looked right for the time and place, it was “Fiddler on the Roof.”
It’s certainly a refreshing take on Arthur once you get past the whole out-of-place Lancelot thing, and it certainly beats the hëll out of the ghastly “First Knight.”
PAD
• 
The “Entertainment Weekly” article did explain some things. The movie definitely feels like there are things cut out and there are some plot or story problems. It will inevitably be compared to “Pirates of the Caribbean” because of the Bruckheimer and Knightley connections and I think Pirates was simply better written. I have some hope for the dvd release being a great deal better.
I saw part of the special on E and was immediately distrustful of the “historic” basis when I saw that the historian being quoted was John Matthews. I’ve known his name for years as an author who pops up as an expert on the hot movement of the moment mostly in New Age.
I don’t claim any particular expertise, but this is the first time I’ve ever heard of the Sarmations. I might have liked Dagonet the best of the knights.
I watched it today, too. (looks at clock) Well, yesterday. And right after the beginning crawl about historians thinking there was a historical basis for Arthur I turned to my friend and said “And this movie pays no attention to any of that.”
Overall, it wasn’t bad, and I’d definately like to get a peek at a more uncut version.
But I don’t consider it any more historically accurate than, well, any other movie.
– Chris
Barb and I just got back from the late screening which was enjoyable not only for the film itself, but for the fact that this late on a Saturday the theater is much less crowded and so the viewing is much more relaxed.
Insofar as the “legend” came out of the 15th Century and the actual events purport to be of the “Dark Ages”, who knows? It is after all just another turn on a possible set of occurences. Them Dark Ages were dark because there wasn’t much history recorded.
So if you can divorce yourself from the shoudlabeen’s of the later legend and just take it at face value it comes off as a thoroughly entertaining piece.
But I do agree that somewhere it was cut a bit (still ran almost two hours), and that DVD will certainly be of interest.
The film was pretty good. It was kinda like…………well, it was sorta like………………it was like a baby’s arm holding an apple. 🙂
Btw, why is Michael Moore using the image of a burning U.S. flag on the European posters for Fahrenheit 9/11? Doesn’t he think this will fuel critics’ charges that he’s anti-American? You can see two of the posters at: http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/803/
Drat. My mother and I were looking forward to this, because we have a thing for King Arthur adaptions with interesting Guiniveres–or at *least* Guiniveres who do more than stand around, look pretty and childless, and periodically narrowly avoid getting burned at the stake–but I keep running across reviews saying it’s not *bad*, but it’s not what it could have been, either. Oh well; it’s good in a way because it makes my mother less dissapointed she can’t get into the theater to see it.
Oddly enough, I think it’s gotten to the point where my favorite King Arthur adaptation is Jo Walton’s stuff, which doesn’t even pretend to be in the same universe as us. Perhaps that helps.
Ya know, i *still* think that the best use of the Arthur legends in a film is in Romero’s “Knightriders”, which came out, as i recall, about the same time as “Excalibur”.
(Those who know the film will doubtless either have agreed or be telling me i haven’t the slightest idea what i’m talking about. Those who haven’t ought to rent the DVD immediately…)
Slightly off-topic, but relevant to current films:
NPR did a story this morning on Weekend Edition about “I, Robot” — not just the Will Smith vehicle, but Harlan Ellison’s ill-fated screenplay as well. The radio story itself was interesting, but there are a couple of web-only additions that include lots of Harlan pontificating. Fun, fun stuff.
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_3444025.html?place=home02
TWL
I think my favourite quote about King Arthur comes from the film’s swordmaster Mark Ryan (who some may remember from Robin of Sherwood). I interviewed him for Impact magazine a few weeks ago and he said the following…
– “I read someone’s post on the ‘Net saying: ‘How can this possibly be any good? With Jerry Bruckheimer as a producer, every time a horse falls over it’ll probably explode!’ ” –
I saw the film this last week and it’s nowehere near as bad as I’d been led to believe by other critics and nowhere near as epic as I’d been led to believe by the trailers.
It has good non-CGI’d battle-scenes and some decent performances, but nothing special. It’s basically Braveheart-lite.
John M.
Check it out; Hans Zimmer, who did the music for King Arthur, must be a fan. Track #2 on the soundtrack is called “Woad to Ruin.”
http://www.hans-zimmer.com/fr/disco_detail.php?id=440
Looking forward to seeing it…Oh and I thought “First Knight” stunk too…course I think most of Gere’s movies are stinkers.
What I’m really looking forward to is “The Village” coming out nest week.
A Hollywood production promising to deliver the “true” story, and then coloring and bending history?
I am shocked, shocked to find that sort of behavior is going on in Hollywood!
My wife plans to go see King Arthur tomorrow night. I am still undecided as to whether I’ll go.
The whole ‘Guinevere, Warrior Princess’ alone really puts me off.
I really like Gruffudd, and now word has it that he’s been cast as Reed Richards for the FF movie (another role he doesn’t fit very well, imo), and Knightley does have some talent, but what looks like crap looks like crap. 🙂
I LIKED First Knight!
j/k