Is this the best King Arthur adaption?
It’s my favorite, what say you?
shareDuh.
share
MovieChat Forums > Excalibur (1981) Discussion > Is this the best King Arthur adaption?
I would have to say, yes it is. Second place is probably First Knight (1995) but FK actually kinda sucks when compared to Excalibur.
Excalibur is one of the best movies ever.
First Knight is good, but as it strips away all the magical elements of the story it's hard for me to really accept it as an Arthurian movie. But I do think it's a solidly entertaining film that now seems to be largely forgotten, unfortunately.
shareIt's ok but Arthur is an old man in First Knight. In the books and in Excalibur he's a boy king. So, it really got that wrong. And Gere is okay in the film, he's kind of an awkward Lancelot. Connery is always good no matter what he's in but still, old guy playing Arthur is a disappointment in my view.
But overall, it's not a terrible film. It does have one great battle scene. I'd probably give it about a 6.0 out of 10. Which is a solid rating, it's just not as good as Excalibur.
I think we have to accept it as only loosely based on the Arthur legend. It runs with the the love triangle and the knights of the round table, but throws out everything else. For me at least, if I accept the film for what it is (and not as a faithful adaptation of the Arthurian mythos), then it's a pretty well-made, entertaining film. I'd probably give it a 7.5/10.
I actually really loved the movie when I was in my teens. I revisited it a few years ago and did not like it quite as much as I did when I was younger, but it was still an enjoyable watch.
1) Excalibur
2) First Knight
3) King Arthur (2004) Director's Cut
To my kowledge, the competition is weak.
shareI might prefer Merlin - the TV miniseries - and The Green Knight, although the latter isn't really "King Arthur", it's focused on Gawain. It's also really, really different.
Excalibur looks better than Merlin - it's shot better - but something about the Merlin storyline feels more satisfying to me.
I also think I need to re-watch Excalibur.
I'll honourable-mention Monty Python and the Holy Grail, too; it's not the same thing at all given its comedic nature, but it's awesome.
It's kinda strange to me that there is such richness to the Arthurian legends, yet there are so few excellent adaptations. I think a lot of it is to do with the mythic/epic nature of the stories. Hollywood doesn't do those much anymore.
I agree on Merlin. I saw it way back in the day when it first aired on TV and then I revisited it just a few years ago. While it does feel like a television production of its time, for me that is part of the charm, and I found it altogether to be a lot of fun to watch. In fact, after intending to do so for a long time, I finally bought it on DVD just a few days ago.
I also agree with your last statement. I was watching a YouTube video the other day where the host was talking about the history of films based on the Arthurian and Robin Hood legends, and it was mentioned that there has not been a successful Arthurian theatrical film since Excalibur in '81 (and not a successful Robin Hood film since 1991's Prince of Thieves). He attributes this reality to the fact that, for whatever reason, filmmakers have eschewed just telling these stories straight, according to the source material, and instead want to innovate and give us "new, fresh takes" that bear little resemblance to the stories that we know.
Here's that video, if you're interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdR_GU3Hi9U
I don't mind the "made for TV" look, either. There were a bunch of miniseries released around that time - the 1990s - that obviously benefitted from a tonne of love and talent, if not budgets. I think of them as being the precursors to "prestige TV," in many respects. Merlin is maybe the finest of these, and you're right: the low budget has a charm to it that I think works because of the clear investment of care and effort from the creatives involved.
Definitely interested in watching that Youtube video, and I will check it out. Thanks for passing it along!
That is an accurate assessment: Hollywood started trying to deconstruct everything and the problem is that some stories work best when they are just treated without ironic detachment or a post-structuralist approach. I won't say that it's impossible to rework Robin Hood or King Arthur into something different, yet still amazing, but it's hard to do with those tales. Hollywood is afraid, I think, of being called "cheesy," so they avoid Errol Flynn swinging on vines through Sherwood forest, his smile and eyes twinkling with joy and mischief. They cannot help but look at Camelot - a shining paragon of unity and virtue - and want to show us some kind of twisted underbelly or why King Arthur is really just a corrupt politician or some other such postmodernist approach.
Sometimes, I just want to watch myths and legends live on a screen made of silver.
I do recall that being a kind of golden age for mini-series, especially for classic stories. I know that in addition to Merlin, there were also adaptations of The Odyssey, Alice in Wonderland, Moby Dick and Gulliver's Travels (though Merlin was the only one that I actually saw). Also, there was the Joan of Arc mini-series with Leelee Sobieski, which was great, as well as Stephen King's Storm of the Century. And while they were not mini-series, it was also around this time that TNT made Pirates of Silicon Valley and their rendition of A Christmas Carol, and I liked both of those as well.
And yes, I for one have grown weary of all the cynical, "edgy" takes on classic tales. Just give it to me straight. Show me King Arthur as a man of honor, with his valiant roundtable of knights. Give me Robin Hood and his merry men in a movie that makes me walk away with a smile on my face and feeling like I had fun.
I didn't see Moby Dick, but I saw the others. Alice in Wonderland is, I think, the best adaptation of Carrol's books that I've seen. I liked the other two, as well.
The Joan of Arc series was really incredible. Sobieski's performance is really amazing in that; I still am a little surprised she didn't get to be a bigger name, but I think it was all project selection/availability. Very few roles she took on gave her the same depth to play. Although, she is also fantastic in My First Mister.
I didn't see either of the TNT series.
I wouldn't mind King Arthur or Robin Hood with a little grit on them, but yes, for the most part, I want to see them for who they are. Arthur in-particular has enough screw-ups that there's no reason to go real grimy with it. Fun is sorely lacking. I saw the Russel Crowe Robin Hood and in many ways, it's well-made, but it is no fun at all.
I have tried to watch Moby Dick twice but I haven't gotten more than about 15 minutes into it. I'll probably try again eventually. It stars Patrick Stewart, who I've always enjoyed as a performer.
I agree on Joan of Arc. It's fantastic. I have it on DVD and it's so good that, when I first saw it, it inspired an interest in Joan of Arc for me that remains to this day. I've long wanted to know what the REAL STORY is behind the Maid of Lorraine and what the truth is behind her visions.
Regarding Leelee, she had a period in the late-90s and early-00s where she gained notoriety and seemed to be getting a push from the studios but then she just . . . disappeared. It's like the studios just lost all faith in her and she went into semi-retirement, only popping up occasionally in films that came and went.
Pirates of Silicon Valley wasn't a series but a TV movie that TNT made. It's really quite good and it tells the story of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs up until the turn of the millennium. If you can find it, you should check it out.
As for the Russell Crowe Robin Hood, I saw it in the theater and now couldn't tell you a thing about it. But what I do recall is that it didn't really tell the story of Robin Hood and was more Robin Hood-in-name-only and, like you said, wasn't very fun.
I've seen the DVD case for the Patrick Stewart Moby Dick, I just haven't watched it. Yes, he is always fun.
Some actors get that lucky bolt that propels them into stardom, and others just flounder and fade. I think it's mostly just random chance.
I'll check out Pirates if I get the chance.
The most memorable part about Robin Hood, for me, was the stuff about the Magna Carta that was in the movie. I found myself far more interested in the history of that world-shifting document than any of the Crowe Robin Hood stuff, which I can't really recall, either. I vaguely remember Cate Blanchett...? When I first heard about the project, I heard of it as being from the Sheriff of Nottingham's perspective, and I thought that sounded way more interesting than what they wound up making.
Great video, and it does a great explanation for why these repeated "gritty" takes on Robin Hood and King Arthur flail and die vs. adaptations of public domain characters that succeed.
I'd throw in an argument for the artistic and cultural merit of not deconstructing everything, too. Watchmen is fun, but sometimes you want Superman. American Gods is a good show, better novel, but it can be fun to just hear the old myths, too.
And there is something to be said for sincerity and hopefulness. Not everything needs to be "gritty" and realistic.
Additionally, I'd say that this cynicism is what keeps people from loving Superman movies. Christopher Reeves remains the gold standard because he had the spirit of Superman right. Even with a built-in fanbase, Superman movies don't become cultural phenomena like Batman or Avengers, and I think it's because they are often fighting who Superman is. It's the opposite problem: they have the fanbase, but the iconography isn't right, so the deconstruction or "alternate take" still doesn't work.
I'm glad you enjoyed the video!
Going back to what we were talking about previously, with the Merlin mini-series, everyone that I've seen comment on it had good things to say. It seems that almost always when King Arthur movies and shows are brought up in a video or article, if there's a comments section, someone in the comments will mention how Merlin is a good take on the story. And I think that's because it was a fairly straightforward adaptation of the legendary tale that delivers something that is fun and earnest and respectful of the source material.
And I think that you're right regarding Superman. I've seen a lot of people say that they felt that Zack Snyder's take on the character was just too dark and cynical, with some seeming to think that it is ultimately even a betrayal of the character. Snyder did not give us a hopeful and joyful Superman who is out for "truth, justice and the American way"--apparently even the comics have dropped "the American way" from Superman's motto--but rather a Superman who is complicated, morose and brooding. All of this may work for Batman but it does not work for Superman. I understand that a new Superman movie is on the way, Superman: Legacy, and I believe James Gunn is supposed to be correcting this and taking the character back to basics. I hope that's true.
But back to Arthur and Robin Hood. I really like both stories and I would love to see new, well-made adaptations that play it straight and just give us the traditional tale told in a classical way. I really think that it's time for that and, if it actually happens at some point, I hope that audiences turn out to support it. The story of King Arthur, especially, is inherently cinematic and we really should have more good movies based on the story than we actually have.
I've never known anyone to dislike the Merlin series. It's also a great blueprint for how to investigate a known story (King Arthur) with a unique take (Merlin's perspective) and still hew closely to the original material. While it invents the struggle between Merlin and Mab, it doesn't alter the main myth in any critical manner.
Snyder's DC films have recently received a bit of a bump in terms of fan love, but whenever they came out I remember mixed reviews from fans and critics alike. The general consensus was that the films were "okay". I think the recent spike is due partly to fans deciding to dislike Whedon's Justice League, so they tore down Joss Whedon and lionized Snyder. I think they also wanted to scapegoat somebody with why Justice League was not receiving the same clout that The Avengers did when it came out. Some of this - maybe a lot - is due to Marvel vs. DC stuff. Also, Henry Cavill has become nerd-beloved, and so people are rose-tinting any projects with his involvement.
I felt Man of Steel was trying to impose that "grittiness" where it just didn't work. I did enjoy Cavill's performance, and I think Amy Adams did a really terrific job with Lois, but the film was, overall, fairly middling to poor.
I am optimistic about Gunn's upcoming film. I enjoyed the first Guardians of the Galaxy and the others have received good notices - again, also from fans and critics. He got that tone right. Now, as long as he doesn't try to imprint Superman with the same tone, we'll be good. To my thinking, the best director for a Superman movie would be Steven Spielberg. The man knows how to mix in gravitas and pathos with homespun fun and optimism. Plus, it would only make sense to recycle the Superman Theme by John Williams, which - let's face it - is perfect.
I'd love to see another swashbuckling, glint-eyed Robin Hood. My personal favourite version is the Errol Flynn one, and I have a feeling that the polls in the video was just because most people hadn't seen it.
As for Arthur, I think that one's tricky, because doing the Arthurian legends justice almost demands more than one film. If you tried to go from the sword in the stone through to Avalon, you'd eat up four or five hours, and that's with tremendous cuts. I'd almost like a brighter Game of Thrones-type series, or a LOTR-style trilogy of films. The problem being, of course, that Arthur would be a big financial risk, so they'd be wary of green-lighting anything of that scope. They might start with a film that has Arthur go from boy to king, uniting the Britons under his banner, hinting at things to come, but actually delivering a complete story in the first installment. This would be most likely, in my opinion, to bring people in and get enough money for a sequel.
Regarding Snyder's DC films, I do think that Batman v Superman is underrated. I have the Ultimate Edition on 4K Blu-Ray and I think it's a pretty good film. I remain shocked that it didn't cross the $1 billion mark. The premise alone should've been enough to guarantee that.
Overall, however, I am not super happy with what Snyder did with the DCEU. Then again, as a filmmaker he has always seemed very uneven to me, and incapable of making a film that I outright love. I remember the hype around 300 when it first came out and how nearly everyone was over the moon about it, and then I went and saw it and just didn't really like it.
As for Spielberg, I don't know, man. Maybe he would've been the right guy at an early stage of his life and career, but he really seems to have lost a step to me. While he's certainly still making pretty good movies, nothing that he has done recently can compare with the run he had from Jaws to Catch Me If You Can, where he made several genuinely great films and multiple stone cold classics. The last film he made that I have really high regard for was Lincoln in 2012 and the last one before that was Munich in 2005. Movies like Bridge of Spies, The BFG, The Post, Ready Player One and The Fabelmans just aren't on the same level as much of his earlier work.
I actually saw the Errol Flynn Robin Hood for the first time just a few years ago. While it's pretty good, my favorite remains 1991's Prince of Thieves. I loved that film when I saw it in the theater as a kid and now as an adult I still greatly enjoy it. While I understand the criticism of Costner failing to use a British accent, I think that overall it's a very well-made film that's a lot of fun.
(continued below)
Well, I can only actually speak for Man of Steel. I haven't seen any of the other films and know them by reputation alone. In a twist here, I prefer 300 to Man of Steel. 300 knows what it is. No, it isn't terribly deep. Yes, it's historically inaccurate. But I didn't really go to see a documentary on the Battle of Thermopylae or a philosophical consideration on valour and the futility of war.
You're right about Spielberg not hitting his earlier level. But I do think Bridge of Spies is underrated. I don't *know* that Spielberg has a perfect Superman movie in him. But if not him, somebody like him, or at least Spielberg in his prime. I'm not sure we have that guy anymore...
I like Prince of Thieves, I just don't love it. Honestly, Costner's lack of accent isn't a really big problem for me (although it's not nothing). It is one of a few elements that make the film seem a little too "modern." Christian Slater feels out of place to me. You're right, though: it's well made and it is fun. I don't want to be too down on it, because I do enjoy it.
You really should check out BvS at some point, but be sure to watch the Ultimate Edition. It has about 30 minutes of extra footage and that makes the film more comprehensive than the chopped up theatrical cut.
As for 300, I know a lot of people loved the visual style, but I never did. It's obvious artificiality and stylization just didn't work for me.
I'll try to check out the Ultimate Edition sometime.
If you didn't dig on the style, yeah, 300 would be a slog. I enjoyed the kind of odd, hyper-reality Snyder created, so it worked for me.
I agree that Arthur would be best as a trilogy or big-budget mini-series. I know that Guy Ritchie's utter abomination was supposed to be the first of six films but we know what happened there. (And it deserved its fate. That film truly sucks.) My primary criticism of Excalibur, a film that overall I have a lot of appreciation for, is that it really rushes through its story. It's 140 minutes long and still feels like it is just zipping through events and plot points at a breakneck pace. I have heard that Boorman's original cut was three hours long and I'd love to see it because the film does feel like something got left on the cutting room floor. So yes, a well-made, straightforward and faithful adaptation of the Arthurian legend, where the story is really given time to breathe, would be great.
shareHm. That makes sense with Excalibur. I seem to recall feeling the same way when I saw it: that it seemed rushed. I still haven't seen Guy Ritchie's. Despite its reputation, I think I'd like to see it, if only to see what went utterly wrong. If there was a director's cut out there somewhere, for Excalibur, I'd certainly watch it. Sometimes I get frustrated that there are movies like Excalibur which have a vault's worth of footage that might be out there but there isn't quite enough interest to go looking and restore it before it gets eaten by rats. We're up to what? Four or five versions of Blade Runner. Can't we get a second Excalibur?
shareBy all means, do give Guy Ritchie's King Arthur film a look. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about it. But I found it a painful film to watch. Ritchie's style and vision, while okay when applied to something like Sherlock Holmes, just don't work for King Arthur. And furthermore the film is ugly, with it's largely colorless world, and a narrative train wreck.
If the studio was going to go and blow $175 million on a King Arthur film, I sure wish they had put it into a rich and lavish traditional take on the story rather than giving it to Guy Ritchie to completely waste. In fact, we were just talking about Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. That film was directed by Kevin Reynolds, who also made The Count if Monte Cristo (2000). I'd much rather them have given that money to him because I feel confident he could've made a much better King Arthur movie than Ritchie is apparently capable of.
I'll probably get around to viewing it eventually, but for obvious reasons, I haven't been really gung-ho about tracking it down. Colourless world is almost certainly a bad decision for Arthurian myth. I think I want to watch it partly because I want to see if it's an okay Guy Ritchie movie even if it's a bad King Arthur film.
It sounds like Reynolds knows his way around swashbuckling. So, yes, he'd probably be a good choice.
But I think if I was going to give Arthur to somebody right now, top of my head, it'd be Dennis Villeneuve. That dude understands epic and I think he'd deliver us a phenomenal-looking King Arthur, if nothing else. As long as he didn't cast Timothee Chalomet as Arthur...
I feel like Ridley Scott *could* do it, but wouldn't, if you know what I mean.
Part of the problem is that the only thing I can think of that's on a King Arthur scale in recent fantasy film is Lord of the Rings, but I'd be worried we'd get more of a "The Hobbit Trilogy" phoned-in Arthur.
Regarding the "colorless world," if you watch Ritchie's film you'll notice that is is full of blacks and grays, with what colors that do exist being toned down. It's the exact opposite visual approach from what should be taken in an Arthur film. But do check it out and decide for yourself what you think of it.
I do not think that I would pick Villeneuve for a King Arthur film. I feel like if he did it, the result would be a rather emotionally cold and joyless movie. Or to put it another way, I think it would feel like an Arthur film made by Chris Nolan.
Since you bring up LOTR, Peter Jackson would be a great choice now that I think about it, though we would definitely need him to bring his A-game and to bring all his passion for the art of storytelling to the project.
I'll agree that Villeneuve would run the risk of an emotionally-distant film, but I think he would capture the grandeur. If the actors brought a sense of Shakespearean drama to their performances, they'd probably override any emotionally-sterile problems. However, I also don't think that it would be guaranteed cold. If he took on the project, presumably he'd know to deal with things like Lancelot and Gueneviere in such a way that it would work.
Jackson is, for me, like Ridley Scott here. I believe he could do a great film, but wouldn't. I don't know what exactly is going on with Jackson, but LOTR was fantastic and since then, I haven't been impressed. He's brought us King Kong and Hobbit movies and he produced Mortal Engines. He's almost going into a bit of a George Lucas realm where he's more interested in producing and creating workshops and tech (or restoring old Beatles footage) than he is in storytelling.
James Cameron could probably do a great King Arthur movie. If he was supplied with a script that had great dialogue, he'd do it well. Avatar's problem was shallow characters and a derivative hum-drum story, but if we're talking about a straightforward Arthur adaptation, Shayamalan-esque plot twists isn't what we're looking for and the characters come pre-built. Cameron's sense of style, pacing, action, and epic narrative would bring it all together. Plus, his water fixation would undoubtedly bring along some really cool Lady of the Lake stuff.
For Robin Hood, I know he's persona non grata right now, but I bet Joss Whedon would do it perfectly. He knows how to write witty rogues and do swashbuckling fun. Plus, I bet Alan Tudyk would get involved somehow, and that'd be a treat.
Here's my problem with Ridley Scott: Especially if you're going to include the grail lore and place the story in the Middle Ages, which is how I think it works best, then the King Arthur legend is an inherently Christian story. And Ridley Scott simply cannot make a movie that involves biblical faith where he doesn't snipe at it and add in his criticisms--just look at 1492, Kingdom of Heaven or Exodus: Gods and Kings--and doing that simply won't work for King Arthur. Since I don't think he could restrain himself from taking further jabs at Christianity, my guess is that, for me at least, a Scott-directed King Arthur film would end up being an intensely frustrating experience to watch.
As for Jackson, it does seem like, at least for the moment, that he has lost interest in making narrative films and seems focused on making documentaries. However, while I was quite disappointed in the Hobbit trilogy, I loved LOTR and I also enjoyed his King Kong film, the latter of which I think is underrated today. So while I don't think it would be guaranteed that he'd produce a winner, I have enough faith in him that I'd like to see what he'd come up if given a big budget to make an Arthur film. I know that if he brings the same level of passion and vision to it that he brought to LOTR, it would be great.
A James Cameron King Arthur could be awesome, but like Jackson these days, he seems totally disinterested in doing anything other than his pet projects, which in Cameron's case is Avatar and documentaries about the ocean. I would be interested in seeing what he'd do with the story, however, if he wanted to, though I have to point out that he never has made a film with a story that is set before the 20th century.
Lastly, in regard to Joss Whedon making a Robin Hood film, you're on your own with that one. The man hasn't made even one movie that I've liked.
That's a good point about Scott. Yeah, I don't mind if a theoretical Arthur movie isn't "rah, rah, Christianity!" but if it decided to critique the modern church using Arthur, it would get preachy. I didn't mind it in Kingdom of Heaven, because at least that film is investigating the Crusades, although I did find it to be a bit weighted towards anti-Christian sentiments without really considering Islamic or Jewish problems in the Middle East, too (or as much).
I think if Jackson decided to do an Arthur film, it would be pretty good. I think if he was asked to do one, or was hired to do one, it would turn out very humdrum.
Yes, Cameron would be hard to coax into making it in the first place. However, if he could be pulled away from the sea, he'd make it rock. I'm fairly confident of this because he has a reputation as being very obsessive and demanding, which probably isn't always fun to work with, but it means he always brings his A-game. Of the films of his I've seen - Avatar, The Abyss, Terminator, T2, Aliens... I might have forgotten some - I can't think of any where he wasn't fully committed. He clearly put a TONNE of work into these movies. The flaws in Avatar are at a script level, not execution. So, if he was handed a beautiful script, and convinced to take it on, he'd do it right.
Whedon does good work. Also apparently not fun to work with. But I love Serenity and The Avengers, so... Oh, I liked his Much Ado About Nothing, too, so he can handle older dialogue and themes, too.
As someone who thinks that Jesus spoke accurately when he said that he is the way, the truth and the life, I certainly can't claim to be impartial on this subject, but being that I am a Christian, Scott's obvious anti-Christian bias in many of his films is incredibly annoying. Just recently I picked up Kingdom of Heaven on Blu-Ray after having not seen it since its theatrical release and I was shocked by how blatantly anti-Christian and pro-Muslim it was. I was perhaps too young to pick up on that back when it first came out but as an adult it was obvious. I didn't even finish the film.
And I certainly don't want that in an Arthur film. Arthur is a Christian king and his knights are Christian knights. This aspect of the story needs to be delivered straight, sincerely and unironically.
If Cameron made a King Arthur film I would certainly watch it, though of course we will never see such a thing. The man is obviously a very good filmmaker, which makes it all the more a shame that he has chosen to spend the last 30 years of his career on nothing but Avatar and ocean docs. (Can you believe that the last non-Avatar narrative film that he directed was Titanic in 1997?)
I have not seen Serenity or Much Ado About Nothing, but I've seen Avengers, Avengers 2, and his edition of Justice League and I thought they all sucked. (To be fair, Justice League was only partially his fault. But it was still a bad film.)
I remember Kingdom of Heaven being slanted, but not so much that I turned off the movie. I mean, it's Hollywood, so I sorta expect it to a greater or lesser degree. It's always a pleasant surprise these days when a priest isn't a horrible person in a mainstream film or television show.
Yeah, I agree. The Grail Quest gets muddy if diluted. I would be okay with some theological debate, as long as it was pertinent to the story and not just preachy, but I agree that Arthur and his knights are best presented as principally Christian.
It is weird to think that Cameron just stopped making narrative films. I even suspect that Avatar's sequels are just so he can get oceanography money. Heck, I think I heard that he only agreed to film Titanic so that he could make his Titanic documentary. I could be misremembering that, of course...
Well, I haven't seen Justice League from Snyder or Whedon, but I'm pretty happy with his Avengers film. The second one was more of the first and not very special - that's when my "superhero fatigue" started setting in (waaaay before it was an everyday phrase). But, yeah, I loved Serenity and Much Ado as well.
What I would actually like to see is a movie that presents the Crusades in a balanced light and that doesn't just paint the Crusaders as one-dimensional villains. It was in reality a complex religio-political situation. But I doubt we'll ever get that movie, at least not in the 21st century.
It does seem like Cameron just kind of lost interest in actually making films. During the 80s and early 90s it was important to him to be a filmmaker and then it just wasn't anymore. I also remember reading that he didn't make Titanic because he really wanted to make the movie-there was some ulterior motive--but I can't remember the specifics.
Lastly, I want to mention one more thing regarding movies related to Arthur and Robin Hood. One thing we haven't mentioned is that, with these characters being public domain, it naturally results in a lot of low-budget direct-to-video films. So while we have a dearth of actually good movies that are built on these narratives, there's no end to shit like this (and this is a film that I actually saw on the DVD shelf of my local library just yesterday):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPTVmWrYLZg
Yes, but if people drawing only black-white distinctions with the recent carnage in Israel is any indication, we don't seem to view conflict in nuanced terms - certainly not in the Middle East.
Getting that movie would be tricky. I feel like, in Hollywood, they'd only green-light anything that was vigorously anti-Crusader. However... if you'd like to try it on a TV show level, I found that Knightfall presented the Knights Templar without deciding that the whole organisation was evil to the core. It's not at an Aaron Sorkin level political sophistication, but I really enjoyed it. Of course, it's mostly focused on the Templars after the Crusades - there are only a couple of scenes outside of Europe - but it might be something you'd enjoy.
Wikipedia gave me this: When an IMAX film, Titanica, was made from footage shot of the Titanic wreck, Cameron decided to seek Hollywood funding for his own expedition. It was "not because I particularly wanted to make the movie," Cameron said. "I wanted to dive to the shipwreck."
Low-budget and direct-to-video don't have to be bad, but yes, public domain does mean that people without passion, skill, talent, or even much funding can get together a bunch of awful films using these characters. That trailer looked like one of the blandest movies I can imagine. It didn't even look like they had no budget - there was some production value, anyway - it just looked so run-of-the-mill. There was nothing to hook me or really grab me. No panache. Nothing original.
I remember hearing something about Knightfall years ago but never really looked into it. I suppose I should check it out. I know Mark Hamill joined the cast at one point, and I thought that was very strange when I heard it. Seems a strange fit for a show like that.
That's an odd attitude for Cameron to have, and yet, even apparently without an excessive amount of enthusiasm, he turned in the highest-grossing film of all time up to that point and a movie that, love it or hate it, is truly an epic piece of filmmaking.
Yes, that trailer looked bad, and I've seen a lot of other Robin Hood and Arthur projects that look just as bad. And then when I go to see what their ratings are on IMDB, almost without fail they are sub-5.0, which I take as confirmation that they are indeed as bad as they look. I agree with you though that a low-budget or direct-to-video film doesn't NECESSARILY have to suck. There have been a handful over the years that have surprised me.
Hamill is in Season 2 of Knightfall and turns in a fantastic performance as a Templar who's a bit of a fanatic. Hamill's acting is really great in it. He fits in nicely.
I actually haven't even seen it. I have yet to watch Titanic. I feel like, when I finally get around to seeing it, that I'll enjoy it. I'm guessing that it was, at the time of its release, over-hyped, but that it's actually a pretty decent film. And, yes, it's weird that Cameron was so apathetic towards the narrative part of his project but still made a great movie. It's one of the reasons I think he'd do well with King Arthur. I think Cameron's a bit of an obsessive and a workaholic and I don't think he *can* turn it off. He can't phone it in. His psyche would gnaw at him until he just did his best. And, as his filmography proves, his best is entertaining at the very least.
Sub-5.0 is rarely good in any way. I've seen a lot of great/underrated 6.0 range, but under 5.0 is a bad, bad sign. With that said, I have seen the occasional film that I think is okay while everybody else seems to just hate. Ultraviolet, for instance. I'm not saying it was brilliant cinema of the highest order, but it's got a 4.3 that I don't think is "fair".
Yeah, direct-to-video doesn't have to suck same as made-for-TV gave us Merlin. But it's usually a harbinger of lower quality. I also think that quality matters a little bit with something like Arthur. I've seen low-budget movies that clearly had no money to spend, but it's okay 'cause they're character-driven comedies or single-room dramas or something like that. Arthur needs a reasonable budget to get some good looking weapons and armour and to supply the occasional magic spell from Merlin. Although, even those can be wrought relatively cheaply. While a mid-sized budget is needed, I doubt it would be necessary to have over $100 mil.
Yes. I was hopeful when read they were going to do a version set in an actual 5th/6th century British setting, rather than the fantasy high Middle Ages setting of this, and most Arthurian adaptations -- this was the movie with Clive Owen Keira Knightly. Unfortunately, that movie was not very good. I've always wanted a version of the Arthurian tale set in the correct period, because my favorite Arthurian tale of all time is "The Sword at Sunset," the fantastic 1963 novel by Rosemary Sutcliffe, and I've always been more interested in accurate depictions of history than fantasized ones. (Sutcliffe's novel would need a miniseries to do it justice though, and I wish Netflix or HBO would pick it up and take a look at it.)
Of all the existing film adaptations, this one is easily the best. And Nicol Williamson is brilliant as Merlin. None of the Arthurian movies made before this are as good, and the two other fantasy-medieval setting adaptions of Arthurian legend that have come along since Excalibur was made (First Knight, with Sean Connery, and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, in 2017) have been utterly forgettable.
It’s the best dramatic adaption I’ve come across. Monty Python’s Holy Grail is the best comedic adaption and Camelot the best musical adaption. Like Excalibur, I found Camelot sumptuous to behold, but disappointing in other respects. King Arthur (2004) with Clive Owen isn’t a great movie but was entertaining. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword was terrible, despite expensive special effects.
shareBy a country mile.
share