King Arthur review in Boston Globe

[Storm Raven]

While I agree with the idea that the "real Arthur" is a composite character, I must take very, very minor exception with Tristan and Isoulde -- Tristan is one of the few characters from the tales who we can actually place. There is a stone near Fowey, Cornwall, erected to Drustanus (Tristan), son of Cunomorus. It dates from the 6th century. Tracing back story elements, it appears that the Tristan story probably did originate in this area, albeit much embellished later on, especially by the German poets.

But the Tristan and Isoulde story (which was what I was trying to allude to) is almost certainly German in origin. It was simply grafted into the Arthur cycle by attaching it to a character that may or may not have already been part of the myths. This is actually exactly why arguing about the "historical" Arthur is silly: it is almost impossible to separate the parts of the myth that date from the 6th century from the parts of the myth that date from centuries before, and the parts of the myth that were grafted on centuries later.

 

[Abraxas]

Posted by Farganger
Actually, they did. There was a splash screen at the beginning of the film that said something along the lines of this being the "true" story based on recent archaeological finds. That said, I don't think the scriptwriter believed this: he mentioned in an interview that his script was just an interesting take on the Arthur story, inspired by seeing a graduate student's paper on Artorius Castus many years ago, and poking about doing a bit of his own research.

They don't claim it's historically accurate with that splash screen. They just say there is some archeological evidence that there was a real person a thousand years earlier than the legends that the legends could have been started with - not this is the true story of the person a thousand years earlier that the legend is based on. It sets up a time frame and they make up a story that could, not does, result in the legends of Arthur.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

This is a Jerry Bruckheimer movie right? Then terrible acting, pacing, storytelling, and writing are all a given. I heard about it a while back and thought it may be a cool idea until I saw who was doing it, I wrote it off then.

 

[storyguide3]

This is a Jerry Bruckheimer movie right? Then terrible acting, pacing, storytelling, and writing are all a given. I heard about it a while back and thought it may be a cool idea until I saw who was doing it, I wrote it off then.

So the fact that it was being directed by Antoine Fuqua gave you no hope?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

They don't claim it's historically accurate with that splash screen. They just say there is some archeological evidence that there was a real person a thousand years earlier than the legends that the legends could have been started with - not this is the true story of the person a thousand years earlier that the legend is based on. It sets up a time frame and they make up a story that could, not does, result in the legends of Arthur.

OK, that doesn't sound like something a splash screen would say, so can someone enlighten those of of who haven't seen it as to the actual phrasing of the "recent archeological evidence" blurb? Aside from that blurb of course, there was an ad campaign of several TV spots all ending with "The TRUE [or REAL, either way] story" So, yes, they claim its historicly accurate, and it set itself up for much well deserved mockery.

Anyway, I have no problem at all with a good reimagining of an old legend. Placing all the major characters in a different quasi-historical setting where anachronistic social ideals replace anachronistic armor is fine. Hey, we can have both, no biggie. Just don't pretend that sticking the entire legendary supporting cast, the legendary props and the condensed for shooting time plot in the "right" era of arms and armor makes it significantly closer to the truth.

More to the point are there any reviews that say "aside from the departures from traditional tellings, this is a wonderful film?" I don't think it was the historical pretensions alone that inspired the competitive dissing contest amoung reviewers.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

So the fact that it was being directed by Antoine Fuqua gave you no hope?

Never heard of him. And nobody can make a good movie if Bruckheimer is involved. Nobody.

 

[KenM]

Never heard of him. And nobody can make a good movie if Bruckheimer is involved. Nobody.

Sorry to get off topic, but you did not like Pirates of the Caribean?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Sorry to get off topic, but you did not like Pirates of the Caribean?

Haven't seen it. For a geek I see amazingly few movies and don't watch much TV so sorry. I hear Johnny Depp was good in it.

Bruckheimers movies are so forced, so unsubtle, so over top, such "check your brain at the door" crap that I cannot spend any time with one of his flicks. Armageddon & Pearl Harbor were enough to make me wish bad things on him. Ad in Con-Air and he's lucky we aren't in the same state.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Yes, because, like Arthur, they are set in a mythic background with no fixed relation to any "historical" period.

King Arthur was first identified in literature by Geoffrey of Monmouth, a Welsh monk. In his book Historia Regum Brittaniae ("History of the Kings of Britain"), which was completed in 1138 AD, Geoffrey places King Arthur's reign shortly after Britain's seperation from the Roman Empire, around the year 410 AD. That alone refutes your claim that the legend of King Arthur never takes place in any known historical period.

However, most people view Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur as the definitive book on King Arthur, in which he added to Geoffrey of Monmouth's tale by introducing concepts such as the sword in the stone, the Round Table, the quest for the Holy Grail, the affair between Lancelot and Guinevere, and the tale of Tristram and Iseult. At its core, however, Le Morte d'Arthur is a more in-depth retelling of the legend created by Geoffrey of Monmouth over three hundred years eariler.

I don't recall Excalibur (or really any other Arthur movie save this one) claiming to be set in the early dark ages. Mostly they seem to be set in "mythic England, or unnamed equivalent".

Now, I haven't watched Excalibur in a couple of months, but I believe that the movie opens with the text "The Dark Ages" on the screen.

 

[storyguide3]

Never heard of him. And nobody can make a good movie if Bruckheimer is involved. Nobody.

He directed, among other things, Training Day, Tears of the Sun and The Replacement Killers.

The closed-miondedness indicated by your comment is unfortunate, but to each his own.