the once and future king
Jul. 11th, 2004 05:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hafitalVery light spoilers, more for greater themes than specifics.
And thank God, really. I don't know why, but I was so fearful about this movie. Could be because after First Knight I don't trust Hollywood with anything Arthurian, or because I was so disappointed in Troy, I've been hesitant to get my hopes up too high only to be disappointed. But this movie was good. Really quite good, imo. I think I succesfully lowered my expectations enough. ;) Not perfect, but an interesting and occasionally moving version of events.
Yes, it's quite different from most takes on the legend, but only the details were different. The themes and the internal struggles that mark the legend are pretty much exactly the same. They were going for historical accuracy, which, you know, okay. :) They piece together an interesting story, and yet the Saxons are BAD, the Romans (aka the Church) are BAD, and the Britons are GOOD, so everything, although different, is pretty much the same.
I was enamored of everyone in this movie. *g* Ioan as Lancelot, was... he was great. I could go on and on about Ioan, literally. Guinevere was interesting and different and Keira was lovely. Also Clive Owens. *Where* has he been all my life? WHERE? His Arthur was wonderful, broody, tortured, disillusioned, conflicted, *and* a hero. I am sold, people. :) And everyone else, all the other knights were just yummy, and funny, and so brilliant and fun to watch, and also tragic. Tristan! He was my favorite.
And it's beautifully slashy, as well. And SAD. I left the theatre sad. I hate that. I'm all for angst, but sometimes I'm not. *sniff*
Anyway, I loved it.
For you history/linguistic types out there, some may be interested in this website about some of the Sarmatian theories, as well as a lot of other stuff. It pretty much supports the larger points of the movie, but goes much deeper into the linguistic connections between Eastern Europe/Celts/British Isles/and Rome. The essay repeats itself oddly, but its footnoted and has those fun linguistic charts that compare origins and things. *g*
And thank God, really. I don't know why, but I was so fearful about this movie. Could be because after First Knight I don't trust Hollywood with anything Arthurian, or because I was so disappointed in Troy, I've been hesitant to get my hopes up too high only to be disappointed. But this movie was good. Really quite good, imo. I think I succesfully lowered my expectations enough. ;) Not perfect, but an interesting and occasionally moving version of events.
Yes, it's quite different from most takes on the legend, but only the details were different. The themes and the internal struggles that mark the legend are pretty much exactly the same. They were going for historical accuracy, which, you know, okay. :) They piece together an interesting story, and yet the Saxons are BAD, the Romans (aka the Church) are BAD, and the Britons are GOOD, so everything, although different, is pretty much the same.
I was enamored of everyone in this movie. *g* Ioan as Lancelot, was... he was great. I could go on and on about Ioan, literally. Guinevere was interesting and different and Keira was lovely. Also Clive Owens. *Where* has he been all my life? WHERE? His Arthur was wonderful, broody, tortured, disillusioned, conflicted, *and* a hero. I am sold, people. :) And everyone else, all the other knights were just yummy, and funny, and so brilliant and fun to watch, and also tragic. Tristan! He was my favorite.
And it's beautifully slashy, as well. And SAD. I left the theatre sad. I hate that. I'm all for angst, but sometimes I'm not. *sniff*
Anyway, I loved it.
For you history/linguistic types out there, some may be interested in this website about some of the Sarmatian theories, as well as a lot of other stuff. It pretty much supports the larger points of the movie, but goes much deeper into the linguistic connections between Eastern Europe/Celts/British Isles/and Rome. The essay repeats itself oddly, but its footnoted and has those fun linguistic charts that compare origins and things. *g*
