Behold! Our totally historically accurate movie that will be ahistorical before the prologue ends!

[meganbmoore]

So, apparently, I own King Arthur. I discovered this while searching through some of my older DVDs. Given that I like swords, costume dramas, Keira Knightley, Clive Owen and Ioan Gruffudd, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. As I am apparently on a quest to watch as many Arthuriana movies as I can get my hands on, I naturally watched it. (I wanted my next one to be one I didn’t have to think about much.)

I now consider Tristan & Isolde to be a masterful work of brilliant cinema. In comparison.

I knew I was in for excellent…something…when the premovie script sad “Our movie is totally historically accurate and what really happened! Recent archeological evidence says so!” And then immediately had the Romans pulling out of Britain around 60 years after they really did, a Roman family safely ensconced on the side of Hadrian’s Wall that they really didn’t like, and Sarmatian knights named Lancelot, Gawain, Galahad, and Tristan. I’m pretty sure Arthur’s décor was a bit more modern than the 5th century, too. (And I suspect I could go on for a while if I were better at weapons.)

I may have giggled at inappropriate moments.

Really, I favor the Celtic/post-Roman Britain stuff myself, but this really doesn’t work, though it’s entertaining. And how many movies let you go “KEIRA KNIGHTLEY IN BLUE PAINT IS ACHIEVED!” in IMs?

Meanwhile, I wonder if a single one of these movies will have Elaine.

Comments

[elena]

My favourite moment in that movie was the burial mound/ funeral scene at the end that was lifted shamelessly from The Seven Samurai. ¬_¬

Just in case you didn't know them, the girls at history_spork also had a go at the movie (and Tristan & Isolde, and First Knight, and others): http://history-spork.livejournal.com/1813.html

[meganbmoore]

I shall have to check that out after reading more!