King Arthur

Movie arrived in a good time and was well packaged.

I never heard of this before it was recommended. It isn't your typical King Arthur movie, but it included all of the well known characters, and of course, Excalibur.I really enjoyed it.

SPOILERS BELOW!I've commented on this movie before: the cinematic PG-13 version. This is what I wrote in Auagust 2004:Saw it twice. Liked it even better the second time around. I know a lot of folks had their problems with it, especially those who wanted either a rehash of exisiting 'Arthur' tales, or alternatively expected a 'historically accurate' account.Get a life, people. It's a MOVIE. A STORY. And it's well-told, with the mystical mumbo-jumbo removed and the French soap opera elements rinsed away, so that just the names are recognizable. Despite that-and that's one of the things I really liked about it-the movie managed to retain the flair of (demythologized) 'legend'. It was an uabashed story about a hero, and there's nothing wrong with that.Another nice tweak: Arthur making the transition from trying to serve a 'higher purpose' to humanization, when he realizes that the 'higher purpose' is probably well and truly corrupted, and that if any purpose in life is to be found it lies in the service of one's people. A good and noble soldier's creed. The stuff indeed, of heroic legend, well told, and with a kick-ass cast.---- Now, finally, I got the DVD, so here goes... ----There's been a lot of complaining about the de-mythologizing of the legend. Mostly that means the removal of the French soap-opera component and the pretense that anybody really believes in magical swords, witches and spirits living in lakes. Is that a loss? I suppose it depends on who's talking. A review in the Guardian (complete with the inevitable political anti-American end-commentary) moans that 'Britain's national myth has suffered its own catastrophe' and that KA is 'one of the worst historical, or history-esque, films ever made'. Complaints also abound about its historical inaccuracies, and Keira Knightley's battle dress continues to draw major vitriol. Well, if you look at the latest research by people like John Matthews and Linda Malcor you may find that the inaccuracies may not be and that Keira, like her male comrades, should have been fighting in the buff, their bodies painted head-to-toe. That would have been a sight, would it not?Of course, there's an argument for 'preserving' legends, and I think KA did that well. It just twisted it into a different direction. The DVD also contains an alternate, darker ending, without the PG-13 feel-good wedding. This had been Fuqua's choice, but apparently the money-men walked over him and Bruckheimer and what was intended to be an R-rated movie became a PG-13 nice-kiddy flick in the editing room: sanitized and dumbed down.Fuqua's commentary is very revealing and shows up not only his disenchantment with studio politics, but also reveals his personal philosophy, which I've always liked, ever since listening to him comment on Tears of the Sun. Above all, he makes the interesting observation (one I happen to completely agree with) that, in particular, the adultery soap-opera element in the traditional versions of the legend actually makes no sense. It may be perfectly in line with what we expect from daily TV soap fare and Reality TV, but between comrades-in-arms there is a kind of ethics that folks living within the comfortable and boring confines of refined civilization may well find incomprehensible.To those who wish to advance the virtues of the 'noble' and 'clean' traditional versions: it occurs to me that the very _ignoble_ soap-operatic characters, whose 'courtly' nobility appears to be more one of declaration and general pomposity, can only cower in shame before the much less sophisticated but honest nobility of the Arthur and knights depicted in this movie. Surely, if we look for heros of the Campbellian kind, this is where we find them, not in the classical bedroom dramas centering around the betrayal of Arthur by Guinevere and Lancelo, or people's obsession with that ultimate of social taboos, incest.Watching KA again after listening to Fuqua's commentary gives the movie additional depth and reveals dimensions one might easily have missed before. All in all a worthy and important addition to the cinema release version. So many things I initially missed suddenly became clear, such the obvious parallels to such classics as 'Seven Samurai' and 'Magnificent Seven', and the even closer kinship between this movie and 'Tears of the Sun', another classic Campbellian hero tale.Another nice touch (I keep discovering things about this movie!) was pointed out to me by a lady who truly loves horses. When the knights, together with the Roman garrison and a bunch of refugees, leave Hadrian's Wall and the Saxon drums of war start rolling, the horses bolt, prompting the knights to reflect on their decisions to leave. I thought it was a good scene, but it becomes even better when we remember that, as we're told early on in the movie, slain warriors return as horses. So it wasn't just that the knights had a sudden and not easily understood change of heart: it was their horses, the souls of the dead warriors, that reminded them who they were, and who refused to continue avoiding their destiny-albeit a destiny which, as Arthur reminded his knights later, they chose as free men, rather than indentured soldiers for the Romans.Till NoeverAuthor: KEAEN, SELADIENNA, CONTINUITY SLIPowlglass.com

King Arthur is definitely an action film. An action film with a bit of romance, a smattering of comedy, and a whole lot of drama, yes, but an action film nonetheless. I wasn't quite expecting that, but came out liking it: from the moment the movie starts until the credit rolls, there is barely a break in the battle scenes or the intense moments where characters are running or fighting for their lives and their respective countries. Reminiscent of Braveheart in many ways, this film is worth the watch if only to consider the story of King Arthur from a new angle: with a realistic slant rather than as a mystical fairy tale legend.In the early Dark Ages, a band of Sarmatian knights led by half British, half Roman Lucius Artorius Castus or Arthur (Clive Owen) meet with Roman Bishop Germanius to receive their release papers after 15 years of forced service in the Roman army. They are (understandably) upset to discover that they must forego their freedom awhile longer: Rome has decided to pull out of defeating/defending the island, leaving the country and its natives vulnerable to an invasion by the Saxons. Arthur and his knights are sent on one last most dangerous of all suicide mission: to rescue a Roman family from the bloodthirsty Saxons by crossing through the perilous Woads territory (enemy natives led by mystical woodsman Merlin) and bringing them back to safety. Only when they succeed in this trial will Arthur and his knights be given their papers and allowed to return home as free men.The honorable Arthur must do a little convincing to get his knights to agree to this last most perilous mission: after all, this band of real men is weary of fighting and ready to return home. Soon his loyal yet rough-and-tumble knights agree, and Arthur and his band (including Lancelot played by Ioan Gruffud and Galahad played by Hugh Dancy) begin their perilous journey across Britain. Along the way they encounter Merlin and his crew, who for some unknown reason let them live and pass through the haunted forest alive. After rescuing the Roman family (along with some natives in dire need), Arthur and his knights are forced to turn and fight the Saxons (who outnumber them by the handful!).They are helped by a native warrior woman Guinevere (Kiera Knightley), who ends up forcing a confrontation between Merlin and Arthur. Arthur is finally faced with the choice to return to Rome or stay and fight for Britain alongside Merlin and the lovely Guinevere.The overall tone and feel of this film is dark, with lots of smoke and fog used in the battle scenes: although this film centers around battles and fight scenes, there is an underlying storyline that makes it entrancing and interesting.The knights are not larger-than-life heroes, chivalrous and pure legend not reality: they are real men. You cant help but cheer for Arthur and his knights as they fight against the odds to defeat the enemies of Britain and gain their own release: but when the time comes for this band of men to go home, will they go or will they stay?For me, the new setting for the King Arthur story and the realism made for a great story. Clive Owen did a phenomenal job as King Arthur and has gained respect in my eyes: Kiera Knightley was great, as always, as the Britain-warrior-woman Guinevere (although a completely different aspect of this legendary character, it never was so over the top as to annoy me), and Ioan Gruffud as Lancelot and Hugh Dancy as Galahad were wonderful as well: in fact, I think all the actors did a good job. If you like the story of King Arthur, you will like this: from the beginning to the end, you are taken on a real-life adventure with King Arthur and the knights of the round table.