展开全部
"King Arthur" Movie Review--------A New Take On An Old Legend
My knowledge of the legendary King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table comes chiefly through watching movies based on the heroic figures. If asked prior to this film if King Arthur really existed, you’d probably have elicited an answer from me which amounted to a maybe. Now after seeing “King Arthur,” I’m relieved to find my ‘maybe’ answer would have been appropriate.
There isn’t a kindly Sean Connery figure in this 2004 version of “King Arthur.” No, this version takes viewers on a journey with the man who may have been the inspiration for the legend as he fights to serve and protect Rome and its interests. Wanting nothing more than to put down his sword after more than a decade of fighting and return to his life in his beloved Rome, Arthur (Clive Owen) and his Knights are forced to take on one final mission before being released from their commitment to serve Rome.
When their last task leads Arthur to the conclusion Rome as he knew it no longer exists, he comes to believe everything he stands for and all the battles he’s waged on behalf of his country and religion were for naught. Left to decide on his own who to fight and who to befriend, Arthur joins with his former enemies to save Britain from the invading Saxons, changing his destiny while changing the course of history.
Almost right off the bat, “King Arthur” had a major hurdle to overcome as the action on screen echoed the action in Disney’s disastrous “The Alamo” – the battles in both films are depicted as bloodless affairs. However at least in the case of “King Arthur,” the fight scenes themselves looked brutal. The stunts were choreographed so that while we didn’t see much blood flowing, the illusion of violence and death exists. Most of the violence is done while actors block the shots of their weapons penetrating flesh from the camera. Even when wounds are shown, they are shown without the gore. And while this might make the battle scenes easier on the eyes, it doesn’t lend itself to looking authentic. Audiences have grown accustomed to seeing blood on film, so it’s very obvious when there’s a lack of blood in fight scenes it is a choice made by the filmmakers/studio in order to get a gentler rating from the MPAA. Some say this is selling out, others contend it’s just a necessary evil in order to get to the largest audience. Whatever the thought process behind the decision was, the result is a film cleansed of its realistic brutality. And while that’s not always necessarily a bad thing, in a movie such as “King Arthur” where we’re told upfront the filmmakers are attempting to base their version on facts, then the decision to follow through and make the entire film realistic should have been given more weight than the decision to release a sterilized version of the film wiped free of blood.
This “King Arthur” does benefit from an impressive cast, headed up by Clive Owen (“Croupier”). As King Arthur, Owen – aside from being unarguably sexy – exudes a sense of righteousness onscreen. He becomes this leader men will give their lives to follow. And in this screen version, Guinevere is no shrinking violet. She’s not a woman to be loved and protected. She’s a fierce warrior capable of fighting alongside knights, standing up for herself and her people (while clad in thin leather straps), and is the one woman who can command the attention – and love – of Arthur. As Guinevere, Keira Knightley shows the spunk and physical strength needed to handle a tough role, while at the same time not distancing herself from her feminine wiles. It’s an interesting role for the young actress and one that expands on the role she had in “Pirates of the Caribbean.”
Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot, Hugh Dancy as Galahad, Mads Mikkelsen as Tristan, and Stellan Skarsgard as Cerdic are standouts among the ensemble. Their strong performances in supporting roles aid Owen and Knightley in making all the characters connect and come to life for the audience.
At 130 minutes, “King Arthur” wraps itself up nicely without becoming tedious as some ‘epic’-type stories are wont to do. The dialogue’s a little heavy and plodding, the lack of blood is something I had a tough time getting past, and during the film’s first ½ hour it’s hard to figure out the good guys from the bad (and I don’t believe that was the intention). But there’s enough to like about “King Arthur” – the acting, the cinematography, the grace of the fight scenes, the romance, the depth of the story – that the distractions can be overlooked or are at least balanced out by what’s worthwhile about the film.
My knowledge of the legendary King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table comes chiefly through watching movies based on the heroic figures. If asked prior to this film if King Arthur really existed, you’d probably have elicited an answer from me which amounted to a maybe. Now after seeing “King Arthur,” I’m relieved to find my ‘maybe’ answer would have been appropriate.
There isn’t a kindly Sean Connery figure in this 2004 version of “King Arthur.” No, this version takes viewers on a journey with the man who may have been the inspiration for the legend as he fights to serve and protect Rome and its interests. Wanting nothing more than to put down his sword after more than a decade of fighting and return to his life in his beloved Rome, Arthur (Clive Owen) and his Knights are forced to take on one final mission before being released from their commitment to serve Rome.
When their last task leads Arthur to the conclusion Rome as he knew it no longer exists, he comes to believe everything he stands for and all the battles he’s waged on behalf of his country and religion were for naught. Left to decide on his own who to fight and who to befriend, Arthur joins with his former enemies to save Britain from the invading Saxons, changing his destiny while changing the course of history.
Almost right off the bat, “King Arthur” had a major hurdle to overcome as the action on screen echoed the action in Disney’s disastrous “The Alamo” – the battles in both films are depicted as bloodless affairs. However at least in the case of “King Arthur,” the fight scenes themselves looked brutal. The stunts were choreographed so that while we didn’t see much blood flowing, the illusion of violence and death exists. Most of the violence is done while actors block the shots of their weapons penetrating flesh from the camera. Even when wounds are shown, they are shown without the gore. And while this might make the battle scenes easier on the eyes, it doesn’t lend itself to looking authentic. Audiences have grown accustomed to seeing blood on film, so it’s very obvious when there’s a lack of blood in fight scenes it is a choice made by the filmmakers/studio in order to get a gentler rating from the MPAA. Some say this is selling out, others contend it’s just a necessary evil in order to get to the largest audience. Whatever the thought process behind the decision was, the result is a film cleansed of its realistic brutality. And while that’s not always necessarily a bad thing, in a movie such as “King Arthur” where we’re told upfront the filmmakers are attempting to base their version on facts, then the decision to follow through and make the entire film realistic should have been given more weight than the decision to release a sterilized version of the film wiped free of blood.
This “King Arthur” does benefit from an impressive cast, headed up by Clive Owen (“Croupier”). As King Arthur, Owen – aside from being unarguably sexy – exudes a sense of righteousness onscreen. He becomes this leader men will give their lives to follow. And in this screen version, Guinevere is no shrinking violet. She’s not a woman to be loved and protected. She’s a fierce warrior capable of fighting alongside knights, standing up for herself and her people (while clad in thin leather straps), and is the one woman who can command the attention – and love – of Arthur. As Guinevere, Keira Knightley shows the spunk and physical strength needed to handle a tough role, while at the same time not distancing herself from her feminine wiles. It’s an interesting role for the young actress and one that expands on the role she had in “Pirates of the Caribbean.”
Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot, Hugh Dancy as Galahad, Mads Mikkelsen as Tristan, and Stellan Skarsgard as Cerdic are standouts among the ensemble. Their strong performances in supporting roles aid Owen and Knightley in making all the characters connect and come to life for the audience.
At 130 minutes, “King Arthur” wraps itself up nicely without becoming tedious as some ‘epic’-type stories are wont to do. The dialogue’s a little heavy and plodding, the lack of blood is something I had a tough time getting past, and during the film’s first ½ hour it’s hard to figure out the good guys from the bad (and I don’t believe that was the intention). But there’s enough to like about “King Arthur” – the acting, the cinematography, the grace of the fight scenes, the romance, the depth of the story – that the distractions can be overlooked or are at least balanced out by what’s worthwhile about the film.
本回答由提问者推荐
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
推荐律师服务：
若未解决您的问题，请您详细描述您的问题，通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询
