I Feel Like I’ve Caught Up With Things

Finally saw the Star Trek reboot, finally saw Inglourious Basterds.

The movie that opened this summer alongside the film that closed this summer, seen in one weekend. Both are excellent films, but for extraordinarily different reasons.

Inglourious Basterds will be the classic, while Star Trek will probably become the next dull movie franchise  in the coming summers. But as summer movies, these both succeeded at what the movie market needs right now, which is damn good entertainment.

On Star Trek:

Art by my Friend Natalia! You should check out here gallery!

(Um… in case the link with the picture doesn’t work, http://theartslave.deviantart.com )

1) Has anyone else noticed that we can’t have straight-up action movies anymore? It’s all action movies-cum comedies. Of course, I couldn’t figure out if we were laughing because it was funny or we were laughing because it was Star Trek.  The thing is, this is happening in a lot of movie franchises, such as Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, and, well, Star Trek.

2)The Fandom, She Grows. From my own reaction, but also from my friends, the Reboot has created so many new trekkies. It helps that the Original Series is now on Youtube and SyFy has been showing some of the various series as well. I can’t speak for what the fandom was like before, because I never had personal friends who were trekkies, but it seems to have grown a little.  Who knows, maybe I’m just seeing people who have always liked Star Trek before really freaking out over this?  But I think not, or at least, not entirely.

Is this important? It depends on who you are. Obviously to my Trekkie friends, yes, it’s all really important. To me? It’s interesting, but because the end of the reboot is entirely cruxed on the belief that we’ll be getting a sequel, this isn’t going to be a classic. Outside of the new trekkies, there will be those who will love it now, hate it six months from now. That’s sad because it’s excellent, but movies don’t have as much staying power in the public psyche as much as we might like.

Inglourious Basterds

From http://www.screenhead.com/reviews/tag/inglorious-bastards/

1) It flails around and screams “TARANTINO!” from the top of its lungs. But it works, because that’s how Tarantino movies work. I really liked it. I feel like it’s one of his strongest films to date. Everything ties up in a very bloody, historically inaccurate way, but it has that possibility of existing in the future as a classic.

2) Staying power: Not a movie you forget easily.  Again, pretty much a trademark of Tarantino projects.  The staying power reflects with, a) me waking up this morning and remembering some Brad Pitt’s dialogue from the last scene, but also b) this is a movie that can have people still talking about it ten years from now.

3) It’s shot beautifully.  There were a few great scenes where I was dragged out of the story going “That looks really cool. Most of the time I don’t notice these mise-en-scenes unless they are really eye-catching, so worthy of note.

4) Yes, I am a language nerd: When the characters were French, they spoke French!  The German soldiers spoke German!  The English and Americans… well, so it follows.  I love that the languages were matched for once.  It was important to the plot and it worked and damn it, things like having people speak their own language makes me happy!  Word to those with bad-eyesight though: because of this, it’s very subtitle heavy.

5) Why I liked it: It’s fun.  It’s World War II, but it’s a revenge story– unlikely, coincidence prone, but good to watch.  Funny in parts, an example of shock-value in others.

So the door opener and door closer for summer movies are worth a watch if you haven’t seen them, especially if you feel like autumn has come too soon.

Independence Day (Movies from my childhood)

Getting home from work today, I just wanted to take a nice long shower and watch whatever action movie happened to be on TV. For some reason, TNT wasn’t showing Air Force One, so I had to settle for Independence Day.

It’s weird to think that I saw this movie when I was five. My brother and I were eating cherries, making jokey kid-comments about the special effects and being sooo happy that the dog survives. I’m kind of surprised that my parents let us watch this, but they’ve always been fairly liberal with movies. Didn’t really care as long what we watched as long as there wasn’t Tarantino-levels of blood or language.

It’s weird to watch it now. I can’t take it seriously on one level, but there’s still this interest in it. It is what it is, nothing more or less: A melodramatic alien action-adventure flick, but it’s a strong movie-memory for me, so I end up watching it whenever… well, whenever there’s nothing better on.  It’s a bit of my childhood, wrapped up in a neat little package.

It helps that I own Movies in 15 Minutes that contains the Independence Day parody. Keeps me on my toes and interested in the plot after I’ve seen it a million and a half times.  Hell, if you have an inkling to buy Miss Cleo’s book, the Independence Day parody is worth the price by itself.

The movie, itt’s not bad, really, it’s just not great. Not a lot of people will be talking about it in a generation or two. Perhaps 90s “vintage” t-shirts will take advantage of it and its quotes in five or ten years, much as the movies of the 80s have been mined for dusty pop culture references.  But it’s a handful of melodrama, an action  movie that hints at the possibility of apocalypse.  We’ve got a lot of these movies now that are about life, post-apocalypse.  Is there still a need for an action movie that just hints at it?

The Musketeer

What’s this? Why I do believe it is a stupid action movie that has wormed its way into my heart.

“The Musketeer” (2001)
Directed by Peter Hyams
Starring: Justin Chambers, Catherine Deneuve, Mena Suvari, Stephen Rea, Tim Roth

My dang DVD-buying addiction struck up again the other day after Second Job (I’m a hostess at an Asian restaurant two nights out of the week) when I went to drop off the car at my brother’s work.

What can I say about “The Musketeer” and not sound horribly snarky about it?
…
Ah well. Long live the snark. It really is a stupid action movie and should be taken as such. It was not designed to be the next Cannes winner, but I still feel like they could have worked a little harder producing a decent script.

Or have different actors deliver the lines– this criticism is directed mainly at Justin Chambers (Our D’Artagnan, messieurs and mesdames) and Mena Suvari (the Love Interest. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that her performance wasn’t her fault, but rather the poorly written quality of her character).

There are a literal shitload of movies out there based on “The Three Musketeers” by Alexandre Dumas, so what makes this one special? Kick ass fight scenes. They were choreographed by Xin-Xin Xiong of the Wire Fu style, which is damn entertaining to watch in 17th century costumes. Other than that, it’s a loose interpretation of the novel. Very loose. So loose that I could suggest that Dumas-pere was rolling in his grave while they were filming it, but that seems rude.

Let’s say, for a second, that this movie is like a new boyfriend. I’ve just been introduced to this movie, we’ve only just made it through the first date. Now, while I feel like he’s a fun guy, he’s a little dim around the edges, but still manages to get to my heart in a clumsy-cute sort of way.

You know, women out there, what kind of guy I’m talking about.

That’s what this movie was like. While there were scenes that made me cringe or laugh, I felt like the movie was almost laughing at itself. It knew it wasn’t the grandest of historical pieces or the most accurate of film adaptations. It was just fun, enjoying the ride while it could.
…
(Oh this is kind of lulzy, I just realized that all of the blurbs they used on the DVD case are about the action sequences. Well, they are the highlight of the movie).

I just want to say: Catherine Deneuve and Tim Roth. YOU COULD HAVE TRIED HARDER! I get the sinking suspicion that Mr. Roth was having fun being a cartoon crazy villain in this role, but Ms. Deneuve, you were the frickin’ Queen of France. You could have DONE something with that!

For a good bitch whine moan, just focus on the script.  Oh Lord, that script.  I don’t think there was any once of logic inserted into that thing.  For example, D’Artagnan and Love Interest decide to do the Sex about an hour after they narrowly avoided Supervillain Le Febre (Roth).  There’s… really no reason for it plotwise, other than for Le Febre to find them unarmed.  Just clumsy scenes like that take me out of the story.  It wouldn’t be that big of a problem if it was the one scene, but half of “The Musketeer” feels like that.  Everything is roughly shod together, from the tenous relationship between D’Artagnan and the musketeers to the scenes that are supposed to drive the plot.

Clumsy, Lazy, but dammit, it was fun.  A cheer goes up for crazy fight scenes everywhere.

The Last Reservoir Dogs Virgin…

… Loses it!
(the whole ResDogs Virginity, that is).

On the whole, I really liked the film. I have a greater feeling towards Tarantino now, one that is neither apathy nor “…what?” It’s more of a curiousity thingummer. I now want to go through IMDb now and look through his works, finding things to either love or hate, or learn from (at least, a little bit at a time).

There’s really nothing I can say here that hasn’t been said before about the film. That’s why I always hesitate for posting about big films like these: What more can I add? It’s not like this is one of those smallish indie films that always gets a blank look when I mention it.

I will say that I needed a bit of digesting time afterwards. There was a lot that I didn’t understand immediately (or maybe not as much? I watched it about two weeks ago ago), but it’s one of those movies that sticks. I’ll be at work or at school, and all of a sudden my mind connects something entirely random with Reservoir Dogs.  For instance:

I smiled a lot while reading an article about the new tipping etiquette laws.

Had a rather fun conversation about it with people at work over birthday cake.

And bought a t-shirt: http://www.threadless.com/product/983/Color_Coded_Criminals

So, like I said, nothing much left to say.

Distopic America: Soylent Green and Fight Club

I’m saying this right now: Watching these movies is not a good way for ending a year. But watch them I did. Soylent Green was on Turner Classic Movies December 28th, and I fell asleep afterwards. I woke up just in time to catch Fight Club on G4.

And then I was in A Mood.

To Start, Soylent Green frightens me, because I can easily see it occuring. “Make Room, Make Room” on an already overpopulated planet. Or we’re getting to overpopulation or we are already sweltering underneath the strain. In my film class last year, we talked about this film, but never watched it. The majority of my class decided that it wasn’t immoral to eat dead bodies in such a situation, and I stand by that. When life is a battle to survive, we end up doing anything that is within our power to go on.

It would have been better to know, though. The ignorance of the future scared me, such as with the Furniture when they are dehumanized or this grabbing for Soylent Green, a product with no past, but a strong future in the arms of many. How we died, too, is a frightening experience, with its strong regimentation, although I get the feeling that if I ever approach death I would much rather die in a room like that than in some cold hospital bed.

Ah me… it frightened me, because the ghosts of the present haunted the shadows of this film.

FIGHT CLUB

Hello Edward Norton. What can I do for you today?

I think his character needs a hug, and a really well made dinner. Then sent to a great psychiatrist. I’m glad that the ending wasn’t predictable, with a fantastic shot of these two silhouettes against the destruction of office buildings.

There’s also, and I love it, the house where most of the action takes place. It’s such an old and grimy house, but inside it’s still a mansion. A dirty, disgusting mansion, but there are charms.  It reflects the entire movie well, anyway.  What creeped me out was this break away from the average that turned into a complete, faceless organiztion.  There’s that cyclic event that we face in life, especially with the new Outliers of society, when they finally become the norm.  It’s scary, to wake up and have no face.

(Ho hum, ignore that if it doesn’t make sense.  I think I’ve just rambled my way, trying to explain what the theme is of Fight Club, when I can’t.  Not right now, anyway). 

Basically, I love and hate this movie on an even keel. It moves me to the emotions and thoughts that the film draws out, but then I have to live with them. These views on the waste of modern life and hateful office jobs.

Two really fabulous, well done movies, that tell and keep secrets and have the wonderful ability of motion.

A Delicious Metaphor

My mom took me out to this Asian Fusion restaurant over the weekend, and I realized that the menu serves as a pretty good guide to the movies I’ve watched recently.

 

Chicken Won-Tons: The Navigator: A Mediaeval Odyessy (1988)

            A little, unexpected Indie film (much like our won-tons, which didn’t have anything in them besides dry chicken.  Dry chicken does not a won-ton make).  Apparently, this was the Indie Darling of the ‘80s: it won Fantafestival, Fantasporto, a whole string of Australian Film Institute awards, and was nominated for a Golden Palm at Cannes.

            At a small Scottish village in 1347, there lives Griffon, a boy who can see into the future.  His brother, Connor, has recently returned and informs the town council equivalent that the plague has arrived, and Griffon has a vision about their solution: They must tunnel through the earth to arrive at a great city and place a cross on the highest cathedral’s spire.  Seems feasible when you live in a mining town.

            About six of them go into the mine and start tunneling with their mediaeval “drill” and when they see light, they have arrived at Twentieth Century New Zealand.  Which would confuse anyone, I’m sure, but they handle it marvelously.

            I love seeing the characters react to modern day events, like crossing a highway.  Everything is related back to their quest or to religion.  There’s a great scene when Griffon breaks into an appliance shop and he’s staring at a wall of televisions, all showing these truly bizarre images that keep switching every few seconds.  It’s a fun watch when the night is waning and you can’t get to sleep.  Like watching a fairy tale with some modern depth.

Manchurian Shrimp: The Host (2006)

            This was my mom’s dish.  I tried some, but didn’t like it.  There was this really complicated mixture of flavors in it and it was really spicy.  In this sense, it was a lot like The Host, a Korean Horror-Family Drama.  (To be honest, at first thought I figured these go together because the shrimp were butterflied and looked like the monster).

            The full amalgamation of the movie baffles at first.  It seems like too much to include, but c’est la vie.  It opens up by introducing the monster’s origins (stupid decisions with formaldehyde at an American military base), but cuts to the family, a man (Gang-du) with his daughter (Hyun-seo) living with his father (Papa Park) and helping to run the family snack shack.  The family comes together through the illegitimate daughter, who is adored on all sides by her father, grandfather, uncle (drunk, unemployed college graduate, Nam-il), and aunt (National archery competitor, Nam-joo).  Their drama escalates with the first of the monster attacks, which drags Hyun-seo into the river after gobbling up a few dozen other people.

            Sometimes the family interactions feel like I’m watching a dark comedy.  They weep pathetically for the lost Hyun-seo, then fall down with journalists taking their picture in some comedic pose.  They can’t help but bicker and fight while their being quarantined at the hospital (the greatest concern after the attack was the potential ‘virus’ spread by contact with the creature).  Late at night in quarantine, Gang-du gets a phone call from his daughter.  She’s alive!  But trapped in the sewer by the monster.  And thus begins phase two: the rescue.

            There’s social commentary in this, on the relationship between family members and America’s involvement with other countries (after deciding that the Korean government wasn’t handling the situation, they come in with “Agent Yellow”).  The combination of seeing the characters in a larger than life problem, combined with a sweeping score that emphasizes the emotional tension perfectly, The Host is an extremely powerful film.

Deep Fried Lamb Peking: Captain from Castile (1947)

            I was surprised in the flavor and texture that I had with my Lamb, but I was also surprised by this movie.  It is a stepping stone from the old epics to modern cinema, even back in 1947.

            It’s a very involved storyline, from the opening to the conflict that leads our hero Pedro de Vargas to the New World, under the command of Cortez.  I watched it day-by-day style, so for awhile I felt like they were just throwing together plot points so that Hollywood could produce another swashbuckling adventure flick.

            That’s not the case.  Remove one character flaw, it destroys the plot.  Change one moment in time, the ending wouldn’t make sense.  There’s still this 1940s feel to it, either coming from the costumes, sets, or style of acting, but there is that script with the modern feel to it. 

Mongolian Beef: Mongol (2007)

            Mongol.  The dish I never had (but I greatly enjoyed the film).  This is the story of Genghis Khan, first emperor of the largest land empire ever in existence.  According to The Industry Rumors, there are two more sequels to follow, in order to span his entire life.  So far, this was the beginning.

            Temudjin, son of a rather powerful Khan, is taken by his father to pick out his bride (family bonding abounds in this menu, it would seem).  His choice is the best Mongolian bride ever, apparently.  More importantly, she picked him.  That equality follows them through their whole relationship.

            When Temudjin’s father dies, his family is thrown out of their clan while the powers that be fight over the vacuum left in the death’s wake.  There, Temudjin starts to be filled with righteous fury and makes a blood brother in Jamukha, who is also looking towards becoming a great khan.

            The story goes on like this: Temudjin grows up, marries his girl, and jumps through hoops in order to become the hero-leader that he lives up to.  The filmmakers felt it necessary to include his family life a great deal in this opening and the violence takes a step down.  Overall, it is very engaging, both as an action movie and as a biopic.  The culture is well explained visually and through voiceover, mostly by watching Temudjin go through religious rituals and laying out his plans of government. 

            Everyone I talk to always likes to mention how international the cast and crew are, or they criticize it.  I think they’re missing the point: yeah, it’s fun to notice stuff like that, but it’s more important to acknowledge the film separate.  It is supposed to stand as a whole when we watch it, as a work of art or a person.  It’s not supposed to be analyzed for where it came from, but then again, we do that with people and art a lot too.

Fortune Cookie: The Duchess (2008)

            The Duchess is fun to watch while watching, but once the credits roll my mind went to “What?  I just watched a movie?  But… what happened?”  The plot is so slow and languidly formed that I felt more like I was watching a fashion show than an actual movie.  And I had such high hopes… ah, well.  The costumes were pretty, expectantly, and I have greater respect for Keira Knightly as an actress.  She had to really stretch her emotions for this one.

            I feel now that I should have gotten more from watching the film—there are these high-strung emotional moments when you’re horrified or at least sympathetic to her situation.  The problem was that I wasn’t all that sympathetic:  I was horrified from my own perspective first, but I was never really rooting for her to conquer her husband or escape from that lifestyle. 

            I discussed this movie with my friend who saw it with me, and she got the same opinion out of it: A lot happened, but it doesn’t feel like much at all.  I’ve seen this story before, I’ve heard it in history class every year since sixth grade.  A woman is only as good as the children she bears, and in that society she didn’t have the capacity to rebel.

            Well, whatever.  Rebel away, or at least make the attempt.  Please, just do something so that I don’t forget you after the credits roll and the taste of crispy cookie has left my mouth.

Memories of Van Helsing

For some strange reason, I love this movie.  I hate it and love it, in that I recognize that it is a bad movie. 

I have good memories associated with it though.  I saw it in theaters with best bud Natelie, and we adored it.  I think we were about thirteen and edging our way into the weary world of film at this point.  Also: Anything with vampires, we latched onto.  Particularly, Dracula (this might be around the same time I watched Bram Stoker’s Dracula for the first time, too, now that I think on it).

Anyway, I caught the last thirty minutes or so of Van Helsing while I was channel surfing and realized that this is further proof that I will watch anything with vampires or Hugh Jackman in it (and I didn’t even know that I liked him that much).  And yet, it follows.

This movie makes me want to go to Transylvania in the 19th century.  Everything looks rather weird and creepy, which is what I expect from movies with some sort of gothic aspect about it.  Scenery must follow suit, and it does.  I don’t know if Transylvania actually looks like this.  Because I haven’t watching the Anthony Bourdain Romania episode yet.  Somehow, I doubt that it does.

But oh, that crazy Action Flick, Poorly Thought Out Plot of it all…  It reeks of wanting a sequel or prequel, doesn’t it?  What with that possibility of Van Helsing, going out to fight evil in other areas of the world (or at the very least, Europe).

So, my first memory of seeing Van Helsing:  As I said before, I was maybe thirteen at the time.  My friend calls me up, randomly and out of the blue because that is her style, in order to see Van Helsing and I jump on it.  We are Action Movie Hors at his moment, going to see movies because the trailer looks cool.  No other reason is good enough.  My mother gives me a brief look when I mention what we’re going to see. 

“I heard it was bad.”

“I do not care.”

And then, we’re off, and only slightly late for previews.  The seats we snag in the crammed theater are close to the front, nay, the only two seats we could find in the dark comfortably.  Around us are guys and their girlfriends or best friends, and maybe some other shady characters of the preteen sort.  And then the movie rolls, and we are reminded what made that trailer look good.

To this day, I can’t remember.

Occasionally, Natelie and I will look at each other and whisper things like “So cool!”, etc etc.  And the lights come on, and we have come to the agreement that it was a Very Good Movie and that we will buy it ASAP.  Maybe a year or two later, I go to Suncoast and pick it up because it occurs to me to do so.

Moving on, my Van Helsing DVD does not go to waste.  Instead, it is used at many sleepovers for late night fodder, whereupon I promptly fall asleep because I’ve seen it too many times already for it to keep me awake.  My friends and I discover Van Helsing in 15 Minutes and come to our senses, a little, over how bad a movie can be. 

A few months ago I thought that I might as well try selling my DVD, or give it away to someone who would make better use of it.  Then I see a clip on TV, and I remember how much cracky Goth-Action fun is in Van Helsing.

Mock, if you will, but this movie somehow became important to me, in a very weird way.

Hero

This reminded me greatly of The Fall, but I also have a feeling that if I had seen Hero first, the situation would have been reversed.

This was another Movie Class film.  So far, the only good movies I’ve seen this school year have been in my HIstory through Film class, more out of my busy life (etc etc blahdiblah) than the fact that currently, I haven’t been able to figure out how the DVD player works anymore.  This will be remedied in haste.

Digression over!  Hero blew me away visually, but over a three day period, I wasn’t really interested in it until the end of the second day.  It starts out with Nameless (Jet Li) coming for an audience with Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi (Daoming Chen) because he defeated the three greatest assassins of the land- Sky, Flying Snow, and Broken Sword- and the emperor wants to hear the story.

The use of color and the scenery of China astonds me when I watched it, but this is a Wuxia movie.  Rather, it is a kungfu movie with lots of dialogue about honor, emotions, the way of the sword, etc.  For a movie so indepth about emotions, the first third or so is very cold.  I recognize that it is, at this point, Nameless talking to the Emperor followed by a flashback of Nameless’s fight with Sky, but it still struck me.  Later on, there’s greater use of the emotional palate as it were, through the relationship of Broken Sword and Flying Snow.

There are various stories told in Hero, which is another comparison I notice with it and The Fall.  Both films look at stories, their motivations and their consequences.  In The Fall, the motive is to use a child, but the story ends up reflecting the lives of the main characters and the people who surround them.  In Hero, it is more the abuse of story-telling.  Well, alright, not so much an abuse.  Rather, how a character can manipulate a story (Nameless’s original story), how this manipulation is found out, the assumption of the real story that follows (The Emperor creates his own idea of the truth), then the Truth itself (where Nameless reveals the actual plot, mostly with aid from Broken Sword’s personal story interlaced).

I get the feeling that this is the kind of film you either love or hate, and I’m rather neutral.  Now that I know that it is not just a kung fu movie, but a Wuxia story, I have respect for it.  I just don’t think it’s my thing.  Costumes and scenery aside, for once, while I think on this topic of actually liking this movie.

…

Bah.  Meanwhile, I shall analyze the title: Once can assume that the “Hero” is Nameless, because, as the ending credits informs us “He was buried as a hero,” but there are other characters who are put in a rather heroic light.  Firstly, the Emperor himself, who I’m sure we all learned about as a tyrant of Ancient China.  This is how he first appears in the film, then later revealed to be a complicated man with a strong goal of uniting China and making it into a great empire, no matter the consequences. 

Secondly, there is Broken Sword, who is shown to be a rather Zen character who understands the Emperor’s goals.  This is symbolically reflected through his sacrifice of his relationship with Flying Snow, then visually with a very large piece of calligraphy for the twentieth variation of the character “Sword.”  Actually, while analyzing the character in a way that would make English teachers across the country swoon, the emperor gives a rather beautiful solioquy about the Zen of the ideals expressed in Broken Sword’s character. 

Broken Sword is, I think, the ideal character in this movie.  His character changes through relationships and his motivations for his actions change from hate and anger to love, which makes him a rather likeable guy in my book.  This ideal affects Nameless and the Emperor, and that is vocally expressed and expressed in actions.  It’s not just some symbol to ponder forever and ever, which I think works better in this situation.

…

I do like this film, I’ve decided.  I respect it’s artistic qualities and the Honor Code means of expressing them.  This didn’t blow me away like other films have, maybe because it’s more distant.  This film takes place in an era I can hardly relate too and in a country who is more driven towards community relationships than to the relationships of the individual.  In which case, I call Culture Clash.

King Arthur: Sorta Historically Accurate

King Arthur (2004)

Director: Antoine Fuqua

This movie was really fun to watch, which surprised me.  On principle, I hate most movies that have Keira Knightly running around being waifish in them, but this is one of the few exceptions. (Pirates I, by the way, is the other).  She’s really just that one character that could make a good movie sour, but in this one, she worked.  The other characters, who were much more fun to watch on screen include the Knights!:

More than that, the Knights of the Round Table were perfectly picked, in my opinion. (brief note: I do not own any of these pictures, but I got most of them from the Guardian.co.uk film website.)

There’s Lancelot, the Pretty, Skeezy Playboy of the group:

Galahad, the youngest:

Gawain, the Hairiest:

Bors, the One with a Lot of Bastard Children:

Dagonet, the One Who is Secretly a Softie:

Tristan, the one who is Clearly NOT a Softie:

All Led by Clive Own Arturius Catus/ Arthur:

 And oh, were their Ninja- Knight Movies to die for… What with their inability to Die for the first half of the movie. 

The Basic premise is that Arthur is a half-Roman, half-Briton commander of the troops at this base in Hadrian’s Wall.  His troops are made up of Sarmatians who fight for the Romans for 15 years before being allowed to go home, and this is their last mission. 

Until party-pooper Bishop Germanius comes by and tells them that they have to go out and save some Roman Family in the North (where they shouldn’t even be, because the point of Hadrian’s wall was that the Roman’s couldn’t deal with the Scottish and decided to just block them off from the rest of Britain).

So off they go, because the knights follow Arthur relentlessly.  Somewhere along the line, the enemy changes from the Woads (native Britons/Scots) to the invading Saxons, who are led by what looks like the ex-Lead Guitarist in a metal band and his skin head son.

There’s a lot of “Freedom!” in here, which reminds me too much of Braveheart and… really, a lot of the movies I’ve been watching.  And in this case it’s really sad because this is at the brink of the Dark Ages– there is not going to be much freedom going around in these parts for over a thousands years.

It makes for a good historical action movie, and I like seeing how someone imagines how a legend starts out.  Clive Owen… is Clive Owen, and right now I can’t really say anymore on that subject.  He made a good, yet angsty, King Arthur.  His relationship with Lancelot is even angstier, it would seem, than how he reacts to his past.  What I thought was nice, and this is probably just a personal thing, was that even though he was an Extreme Christian, he never makes any move or mention to convert the Knights because… that was important, in some way, to their Sarmatian- Horse Warrior heritage.

And the knights?  Are freakin’ ninjas, without being ninjas.  Which I like.   There’s also some (albeit, some) character developpment, and humor, which is nice to see in intense action films.  It wasn’t overdone, the humor, it was just placed at the right moment when you need someone to say something, and it might as well be funny.

I wouldn’t recommend this to someone looking for some serious romance.  Between Arthur and Guinevere, it looks really tacked on.  I seriously debated whether she was having sex with Arthur or Lancelot in that one sex scene, because it seems like she hung around Lancelot more anyway.  Watch it if you like gritty, historical battle scenes, says me.  The joys of those is that it’s a lot more sensitized to what you’re doing to the guy– it’s all hand to hand combat really, whereas watching a war movie that takes place now or in the 20th century, you’re just watching people shoot or bomb eachother to bits and it’s a lot less effective.

This was also another History Through Film movies, so we discussed why it’s historically accurate/inaccurate and learned about the Picts/Woads, Romans, and Saxons.  Mostly it’s inaccurate because they just smushed a bunch of events happening to England in the sixth century into a one week period of time… then some of the weapons (this is all rather boring unless you’re a history nut, sorry).  Such as, the crossbow would not be used at that period of time nor by the English (it was a French invention).  Then Tristan’s and Lancelot’s swords are inaccurate, but for different reasons.  There’s some other stuff, and I either mentioned it earlier or just don’t care at this point to look it up again.

The point is: I do like this movie.  It’s amusing and intense and I don’t really give a damn about the historical debates surrounding it because yeah, it’s pseudo-accurate.  I don’t care.  I like watching the blood splatter the camera while Lancelot uses his two swords as scissors to behead Some Pict and Tristan arrowing a dude five miles away in a tree that wouldn’t have lived in England at that period.  It’s just a fun, bloody, period piece, and I respect it as such.