Book Ratings

Book ratings explained:

* I didn't like it | ** It was OK | *** I liked it | **** I really liked it | ***** I loved it

Monday, July 19, 2004

King Arthur

King Arthur movie posterI saw this film on Saturday right after I watched I, Robot. Given the horror of what went on the first time I saw King Arthur, I had to see it again just to see whether I liked it or not.

And I did like it although it is a flawed film. One reviewer I read, cited Clive Owen (Arthur), Mads Mikkelsen (Tristan), and Stellan Skarsgård (Cerdic) as the actors in the film while the rest of the cast "mistake facial hair for acting." This gave me a chuckle because I found Clive Owen to be rather wooden in the part. He was the least expressive of any of the actors including the ones with beards.

Photo of the seven knights from the film King ArthurI honestly think the film has been done a disservice by the publicists handling it. It is not a summer blockbuster. It is a much smaller, more intimate film. It is gritty and lacks the overdone special effects of a blockbuster. The movie also lacks the star power of a summer blockbuster. All the actors, with the possible exception of Keira Knightley, are virtually unknown to most of the American movie going public. Those of us who watch BBC America or A&E may be familiar with Clive Owen and Ioan Gruffudd, but I couldn't put a name to any of the other actors. Phot of Lancelot, Guinevere, and Arthur from the movie King Arthur I also think that publicizing it as the "true" story of King Arthur is a further disservice. Actually, I think it would have been better for the film if it had been called Artorius Rex instead of King Arthur since the film does not address any of the passion and conflict between love and duty that the "not true" story of Arthur does. A lot of the angst that makes the Arthur legend what it is is missing from this film. So is the romance.

But despite all these flaws, I truly did enjoy the film. It will definitely find its way into my DVD collection.

No comments: