I had hoped that it would be good... I'll sum it up like this: it had good scenes but wasn't all that great overal.
There were certain things that I thought extremely well done, for example Arthur's body language, use of the local scenery, the sounds of the drums, the way the themes of honesty and equality wove wonderfully through the film... And of course, the effects of the snow and ice, especially when the ice was breaking up. Yes, I'll admit I'm a horse lover but there was something entracing about the gracefulness of the horses... I think the director did a lot to make certain things visible yet still keep them subtle. Very nicely done, in my opinion.
However, and now comes the bad news: some things just weren't done as nicely as they could have been. For example, I knew that the movie was supposed to be a new take on Arthurian legend. However, by taking the road less traveled, the film makers took a larger chance: in my opinion they did not spend enough time on the Romans. For example, who built the great wall? What was the difference between the Saxtons and the Woads? Why did the Woads have purple skin? Why did the bishop have to go to Britian - just to give the release papers? Who was the Roman traitor? As you can see, there were an unfortunate number of plotholes.
I enjoyed the film, though had expected more and was rather confused at times. It's worth seeing for the themes, the acting, cinametogeaphy...The general feeling of the film - yet don't expect too much. The movie had excellent scenes but ddn't quite come together as a whole.
There were certain things that I thought extremely well done, for example Arthur's body language, use of the local scenery, the sounds of the drums, the way the themes of honesty and equality wove wonderfully through the film... And of course, the effects of the snow and ice, especially when the ice was breaking up. Yes, I'll admit I'm a horse lover but there was something entracing about the gracefulness of the horses... I think the director did a lot to make certain things visible yet still keep them subtle. Very nicely done, in my opinion.
However, and now comes the bad news: some things just weren't done as nicely as they could have been. For example, I knew that the movie was supposed to be a new take on Arthurian legend. However, by taking the road less traveled, the film makers took a larger chance: in my opinion they did not spend enough time on the Romans. For example, who built the great wall? What was the difference between the Saxtons and the Woads? Why did the Woads have purple skin? Why did the bishop have to go to Britian - just to give the release papers? Who was the Roman traitor? As you can see, there were an unfortunate number of plotholes.
I enjoyed the film, though had expected more and was rather confused at times. It's worth seeing for the themes, the acting, cinametogeaphy...The general feeling of the film - yet don't expect too much. The movie had excellent scenes but ddn't quite come together as a whole.