media consumption

King Arthur

This film has been touted as the most historically accurate portrayal of King Arthur on film to date. There is some supporting evidence for this claim and it is indeed refreshing to see a gritty, more realistic portrayal of the man behind the legend, but that hasn't stopped critics from piling on the movie with, at best, a "so what?" response.

For my part, I enjoyed the movie, although I could see the evidence of the studio's tampering with the storyline all over the place. For one thing, Arthur's "every man has a right to be free" attitude smacks too much of Braveheart-itis, i.e., the anachronistic translplant of modern ideals and beliefs into a decidely barbaric and ruthless time. Oh yeah, speaking of Braveheart, the battle scenes are as impressively in-your-face as every battleground movie that has come out since Mel Gibson painted his face blue, except here with the convenient abscence of blood.

So anyway, I quibble. Sure, with the exception of Arthur, the character development is pretty thin. And the Saxon army is defeated maybe a little too easily. And Merlin is almost eager to foist his power onto Arthur, maybe because Arthur seems to be the only Briton in the movie who bathes.

So but okay, okay, at the very least, King Arthur is a breath of fresh air for the Arthurian legend. It's about time our modern myth-makers (i.e., film-directors) discarded the fanciful notions of Camelot and presented an Arthur that adheres to some historical truth (whether this is the actual truth is still up for debate, apparently). Plus, Kari attests to the fact that Clive Owen is a hottie. And Kiera Knightley looks pretty good painted blue in a leather bikini, too.

Other Entries for "On the Screen"