King Arthur–this sucks

Posted by on Saturday, April 2nd, 2005

I knew that King Arthur was going to be a bad movie. Even the previews oozed incompetence. I heard rumors of the script casting Lancelot and the other nights as Sarmatians, but I figured folks just messed up their geography. No. The idiots who made this film decided that a bunch of Welsh and French mythological figures with Welsh and French names were clearly Roman conscripts from Sarmatia who were sent to mind Hadrian’s wall. And that the people who lived north of Hadrian’s wall were called "woads," as opposed to Picts or, perhaps, Strathclyde Welsh. No joke. What idiots.

Clive Owen and Keira Knightley really should have read the script before accepting these roles. Ok, maybe neither has enough of a historical background to catch the gross mistakes that litter this entire film, but they should at least know terrible dialogue when they see it. The stilted, cheezy, treacle that oozed out of the mouths of these actors might well have choked them, it was so bad. The plot is a mess, the costumes are generally bad, and several of the Sarmatian/Welsh/Scot/Pictish/whatever-the-hell-they’re-supposed-to-be "knights" appeared to have trained in feudal Japan. No matter–history wasn’t invited to the party. Well, except that it was, the moment the director decided to add splash-text at the opening of the film claiming that recent archaeological evidence has told us something new about King Arthur. Note to directors–if you want to mangle mythology into bad fantasy, please don’t claim the crap has any connection to history. Lying is naughty, remember?

I feel like I was murdered a little bit watching this film.

Filed in Film | No responses yet

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply