The Guardian
07-30-2004, 09:00 PM
My buddy and I went and saw King Arthur tonight. First...get this out of the way at the very front...if you are expecting the classic legend out of "LE MORTE D'ARTHUR"...forget it right now.
This movie actually tackles the Arthur legend more from a historical perspective; e.g. how the myth of Arthur and his knights actually may have evolved. Our story takes place as Rome is pulling out of Britannia. Artorius is the local commander of some heavy cavalry which was recruited into Rome's armies via the spoils of conquest in the East. These are the knights of legend...Lancelot, Galahad, et al.
The story is that these knights were sworn to 15 years service...but before they can get their freedom, they have to perform one final mission for Rome. This mission is to go North of Hadrian's Wall and escort a favorite son of the church to safety. The environment is anything but safe...wild men (referred to as "Woads"; actually Picts) roam the woods and the Saxons, seeing Roman weakness, are invading (again). Merlin is the leader of the Picts and is not presented as a magician at all; merely the tribal elder.
Arthur is portraited by Clive Owen, who I thought did one heck of a job. He managed to portray everything of the Arthur of legend; legendary warrior, fearless leader, and a fighter for all good causes.
Arthur is nothing like some of the Romans, who are shown as arrogant, tyrannical masters. This is most telling when Arthur and his men arrive at the estate of the prelate and his son they are to save. This prelate is the "classic" decadant Roman; arrogant, tyrannical, greedy. I will also warn the Christians that this film pulls no punches with what was going on in the church at the time; historically this is the genesis of the Dark Ages and it shows.
As Arthur is evacuating the compound, he breaks into a dungeon that is essentially the torture room of the Inquisitors. Here, he rescues Guenevere, who is portraited as a Pict. (In that culture, everything fought...men, woman, children.)
Of course the Saxons arrive and mess things up and we are treated to some pretty nifty battle scenes (worth the price of the theater admission alone).
The Romans withdraw, leaving Arthur, his few knights, and the Picts to face the Saxons. (Who of course they beat...but not without loss.)
King Arthur is rated PG-13 and the intense battle scenes (similar to LOTR:ROTK) warrant the rating. Most critics have given this movie a thumbs-down (Tomatometer of 30%), but I feel this movie is far better than that. Many critics were expecting Camelot, Lady Guenevere (not a Pict warrior), the love affair...and they just did NOT get it.
I also felt the producer (Jerry Bruckheimer) did a good job of getting most of the history reasonable right. The look was authentic and most importantly, Artorius (Arthur) was convincing as a noble leader. I also liked the music for the movie.
I will admit, the Arthur legend is one of my favorites as a student of history. I will watch almost any Arthur movie just to see the different takes. This movie is refreshingly different from the traditional Arthur and is also far more likely to be closer to what really happened.
If I had to rate this movie, I would give it at least an 8.5, probably closer to an 8.75 on a 10 scale. I also will probably purchase the DVD as it is a worthwhile diversion on "what might have been".
This movie actually tackles the Arthur legend more from a historical perspective; e.g. how the myth of Arthur and his knights actually may have evolved. Our story takes place as Rome is pulling out of Britannia. Artorius is the local commander of some heavy cavalry which was recruited into Rome's armies via the spoils of conquest in the East. These are the knights of legend...Lancelot, Galahad, et al.
The story is that these knights were sworn to 15 years service...but before they can get their freedom, they have to perform one final mission for Rome. This mission is to go North of Hadrian's Wall and escort a favorite son of the church to safety. The environment is anything but safe...wild men (referred to as "Woads"; actually Picts) roam the woods and the Saxons, seeing Roman weakness, are invading (again). Merlin is the leader of the Picts and is not presented as a magician at all; merely the tribal elder.
Arthur is portraited by Clive Owen, who I thought did one heck of a job. He managed to portray everything of the Arthur of legend; legendary warrior, fearless leader, and a fighter for all good causes.
Arthur is nothing like some of the Romans, who are shown as arrogant, tyrannical masters. This is most telling when Arthur and his men arrive at the estate of the prelate and his son they are to save. This prelate is the "classic" decadant Roman; arrogant, tyrannical, greedy. I will also warn the Christians that this film pulls no punches with what was going on in the church at the time; historically this is the genesis of the Dark Ages and it shows.
As Arthur is evacuating the compound, he breaks into a dungeon that is essentially the torture room of the Inquisitors. Here, he rescues Guenevere, who is portraited as a Pict. (In that culture, everything fought...men, woman, children.)
Of course the Saxons arrive and mess things up and we are treated to some pretty nifty battle scenes (worth the price of the theater admission alone).
The Romans withdraw, leaving Arthur, his few knights, and the Picts to face the Saxons. (Who of course they beat...but not without loss.)
King Arthur is rated PG-13 and the intense battle scenes (similar to LOTR:ROTK) warrant the rating. Most critics have given this movie a thumbs-down (Tomatometer of 30%), but I feel this movie is far better than that. Many critics were expecting Camelot, Lady Guenevere (not a Pict warrior), the love affair...and they just did NOT get it.
I also felt the producer (Jerry Bruckheimer) did a good job of getting most of the history reasonable right. The look was authentic and most importantly, Artorius (Arthur) was convincing as a noble leader. I also liked the music for the movie.
I will admit, the Arthur legend is one of my favorites as a student of history. I will watch almost any Arthur movie just to see the different takes. This movie is refreshingly different from the traditional Arthur and is also far more likely to be closer to what really happened.
If I had to rate this movie, I would give it at least an 8.5, probably closer to an 8.75 on a 10 scale. I also will probably purchase the DVD as it is a worthwhile diversion on "what might have been".