Arthur - Kind of a Briton

[glenatron]

So I just watched King Arthur which was a Christmas present I hadn't had leisure to enjoy until now and I have to say, it was a truly remarkable film. There may be spoilers in the ensuing text, but given that the movie spoils itself at every opportunity I wouldn't worry too much about them if you haven't seen it.

I won't say it was the worst film ever made - that is clearly Tomb Raider - but when the best endorsement you can put on your packaging is "From the Producer of Pearl Harbour" things aren't looking good. Especially if your film has a historical setting. Pearl Harbour is in living memory - if you can make a complete hash up it's hard to imagine what you could do with a story set in the Dark Ages when there is almost no recorded history because it was the Dark Ages and no-one could see to write.

Fortunately, I don't have to imagine because I have just watched it. The good news is that our elite Sarmian cavalry were accurately portrayed, assuming the people of Sarmia all had names from the french arthurian romances and that they invented the stirrup 300 years before the chinese. They had also clearly made it over to America a thousand years before Columbus but only brought back a single Harris Hawk that one of the knights uses as a kind of flying scout, in spite of the fact there is no way for a human to communicate with a bird. I don't remember which knight it was, presumably Sir Dolittle.

Meanwhile the Saxons were also way ahead of their time with their use of Crossbows, which I don't recall being a saxon weapon at all, although they did have the good manners to have round shields, so fair play to the accuracy department there. The Saxons weren't that smart, though- instead of taking the convenient and short route to East Anglia they decided to sail all the way up to Scotland so that rather than the rich and easy pickings of southern britain they would find no more than a small roman villa and then Hadrian's wall. Their leader plods around the place like a melancholy hobo mumbling his lines to no-one in particular. I have never seen such a lazy performance in any film- he didn't even bother to finish plaiting his hair.

While I think of the dangerous Caledonian forest I can't help but wonder why, when the finest roman cavalry believe it would be suicide to go that far north of the wall, a small roman family have built a bungalow there. They have four lackadaisical guards to maintain their house and yet the thousands of wode-clad picts we hear so much about leave well alone. Dicks. And another thing; what causes the eerie green glow that emanates from any pit or dungeon likely to contain dead people? Is there a bioluminescent mould that attaches to any dingy stone surface near a corpse, or is it just a kind of building regulation? "Torture pit, eh? You'll need to fit green spotlights if you're going to get planning permission for that."

Why, when Guinevere (a good solid pictish name there) puts on her armour, does it consist of three belts to cover her tits and a pair of trousers? Correct me if I'm wrong, but to wear that kind of clothing on the battlefield would be total fucking suicide. Everyone else is wearing chainmail, you dozy cow, get with the program. Or better still, take your posh Basingstoke version of a pictish accent and fuck off.

Hadrians wall has huge metal and wood doors. With spikes on. The first time we see them opened they are creaking and dust is popping from the hinges as two large draft horses (which incidentally did not exist in the period) pull them open. And yet towards the end of the film armies are dashing through them left right and centre. Did the Roman Legion decide the last thing they were going to do was to oil the hinges on the door? Why?

When the romans have left, it only remains for the Britons to defend themselves. Lucky they have all got past the wall already and had time to build Trebuchets and load them with some petrol derivative ( the first people to exploit North Sea oil? ) in the ten minutes since the Romans left. And then get themselves and their trebuchets into hiding so they can shoot arrows into the blinding smoke and somehow hit only enemies.

As for the ending, don't even get me started. Suffice it to say that everything that is annoying about the film is summed up by how annoying and completely wrong and annoying the ending is and also how annoying it is. I even watched the alternative ending in the hope that would be slightly less annoying and indeed it was, but only less annoying in the sense that if the original ending was the most annoying thing ever then the alternative ending was the second most annoying thing ever.

Absolutely fucking dire but then what do you expect from a director with a surname that close to Fuckwad.

The really sad thing is that they had some great actors - I have respect for Clive Owen since I first played Privateer 2 and Ray Winstone gave Robin of Sherwood what edge it had - and there is a great film to be made in this type of setting. If you want to know what it could have been read The Shining Company for the ultimate Celts vs Saxons adventure or Sword At Sunset for a credible historical Arthur. If you click on those links ignore the gay covers- they are awesome books. If credible and historical aren't your bag then you will surely have read The Once And Future King for general high arthurian wonder. There is more emotion conveyed in the last paragraph of that book than the entirety of the film I have just endured. In fact, this set of arthurian endings never fails to bring a tear to my eye.

Comments

[life-of-tom.livejournal.com]

I concur.

[ciderclaus.livejournal.com]

Does lou normally keep you sedated, and forgotten aout recently?

[shiva-matimbres.livejournal.com]

you forget to point out how utterly boring the whole thing was too

we saw it at the cinema, not long after Van Helsing. We were having a bad run of film experiences

anyway, Hitchikers 29/4/5 - http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/main.html see the new trailer, the book one its much betterer

[spoon-doom.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on pretty much all of your points, and may I compliment you on some fine raging there.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_peter/]

In fairness, the film itself could have been quite good if they'd advetised it differently. i.e. ignore any reference to Arthur and change the title to something more apt, such as "Keira Knightly in wode"

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

That might have worked, as long as they had also taken out all the pieces of film that were in it and replaced them with some different pieces of film that were better.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_peter/]

But the wode... ;)

[flangebeast.livejournal.com]

I quite enjoyed it.
It had Keira Knightly in just trousers, blue paint and three leather belts to hide her tits. And smoke and fire and mud and blood and swords. And lots of larpers, by the looks of the kit.
Shame about the acting, the plot, the continuity, the SFX, the props and the accuracy, but hey, it had semi-naked Keira in it.

Not seen the film? Keira in not much and some paint

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

That actually does pretty much negate the need for the film...

[stu-the-elder.livejournal.com]

Let us not forget the fine acting performance of Ray Winston, playing the knight, Ray Winston in some armour. Or Sir Bores. He certainly bored me to tears. Bors. Bores. Whatever.

Every time the twat bellowed "RUUUUSSSS!" I half wanted Russ Abbot to pop up with a sniper rifle and blow his fucking stupid Mockney head off. The cunt.

I've got lots more rage where this came from. Don't get me started on von Shit-thing.

- Crumpwright (the rage, my friend, the RAGE)

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

Such terrible and justified rage.