so close...
Jul. 17th, 2004 10:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaydeefalls
I finally saw King Arthur. And, you know, I went into that movie wanting to love it, in spite of its very mixed reviews. And I almost did love it. Almost.
WHERE IN THE LEGEND DOES IT SAY THAT LANCELOT DIES BEFORE ARTHUR IS EVER EVEN CROWNED KING?!
Sorry, I had to get that out. Just. Um. WTF? I'm totally willing to accept every other change this movie made to the story, because I think it generally did an incredible job of creating a plausible "reality" from which the legends might have been born. But. LANCELOT, for chrissakes. Unless they're like, well, there was this dude Lancelot who was really close chums with Arthur, but then he died, but years later this OTHER dude named Lancelot showed up at the Round Table and Arthur was all like, "Hey! My best buddy was a Lancelot, too! You and I are gonna be really close now!" and THAT Lancelot is the one in all the legends who had a mad passionate affair with Guinevere. Right. This is like a version of LotR that kills off Sam, or a version of the Iliad that kills of Odysseus. Just. No.
My other gripe was Merlyn. Dude. I was FASCINATED by his character as Briton-shaman-dude. But he didn't DO anything. I really wanted to see more of him.
I've been reading other people's reviews, and a lot of 'em seem to be either bored or outraged. Well, I certainly wasn't bored -- the cameraderie of the knights was entertaining and really the heart of the film, and in this interpretation, that WORKED. The acting was all fantastic, although I could've used a little more character development all across the board. And, really, for the most part, I was intrigued by the divergence from the usual Arthurian legends. I seriously doubt that this was the "true story", but it's a fascinating new interpretation of it. (But they really, really shouldn't have killed off Lancelot. That just didn't make sense. I'll accept that this version is only the beginning of Arthur's reign, so we haven't gotten up to the whole lurve triangle thing, but Lancelot needs to live so that we can all IMAGINE the lurve triangle ten, twenty years down the road.)
So, I didn't quite love this movie. I had my gripes. But I still really liked it, and I don't understand why so many people are bashing it. Meh. Whatever. To each his own, and all that. I'd take this creative reinterpretation of legend over Troy any day.
(And it definitely brings Teh Hotass, at least.)
WHERE IN THE LEGEND DOES IT SAY THAT LANCELOT DIES BEFORE ARTHUR IS EVER EVEN CROWNED KING?!
Sorry, I had to get that out. Just. Um. WTF? I'm totally willing to accept every other change this movie made to the story, because I think it generally did an incredible job of creating a plausible "reality" from which the legends might have been born. But. LANCELOT, for chrissakes. Unless they're like, well, there was this dude Lancelot who was really close chums with Arthur, but then he died, but years later this OTHER dude named Lancelot showed up at the Round Table and Arthur was all like, "Hey! My best buddy was a Lancelot, too! You and I are gonna be really close now!" and THAT Lancelot is the one in all the legends who had a mad passionate affair with Guinevere. Right. This is like a version of LotR that kills off Sam, or a version of the Iliad that kills of Odysseus. Just. No.
My other gripe was Merlyn. Dude. I was FASCINATED by his character as Briton-shaman-dude. But he didn't DO anything. I really wanted to see more of him.
I've been reading other people's reviews, and a lot of 'em seem to be either bored or outraged. Well, I certainly wasn't bored -- the cameraderie of the knights was entertaining and really the heart of the film, and in this interpretation, that WORKED. The acting was all fantastic, although I could've used a little more character development all across the board. And, really, for the most part, I was intrigued by the divergence from the usual Arthurian legends. I seriously doubt that this was the "true story", but it's a fascinating new interpretation of it. (But they really, really shouldn't have killed off Lancelot. That just didn't make sense. I'll accept that this version is only the beginning of Arthur's reign, so we haven't gotten up to the whole lurve triangle thing, but Lancelot needs to live so that we can all IMAGINE the lurve triangle ten, twenty years down the road.)
So, I didn't quite love this movie. I had my gripes. But I still really liked it, and I don't understand why so many people are bashing it. Meh. Whatever. To each his own, and all that. I'd take this creative reinterpretation of legend over Troy any day.
(And it definitely brings Teh Hotass, at least.)
