I think it is. It's certainly a fantasy Arthurian tale, but then the whole Arthurian mythos is fantasy. Most of the traditional stories transplant Arthur and his court from the sub-Roman or early Dark Ages period when the "real" (if there ever even was a real) Arthur existed, to a high middle ages setting. This telling of the story borrows the trappings of the late 15th/early 16th century era to tell a story set in the 6th. But it does a better job of being a compelling story, and of conveying the magic and mystery of the Arthurian tales than any other movie version.
That said... I've always preferred realistic, history-based period films to fantasy ones. The best written version of the Arthurian story I've ever encountered is a novel called "Sword at Sunset," by Rosemary Sutcliffe. It's set in the correct 6th century period. There are no knights in shining armor. There is no Camelot, and no round table. There is no Merlin, for this is not the mythical, magical Arthurian story. There is no Grail Quest. And there is no Lancelot du Lac (who, after all, wasn't introduced until the 12th century by French writer Chrétien de Troyes). This is the story of Artos, a Romano-British war leader. His men, called "the companions" or "the brotherhood," not "knights" as that term would be anachronistic in early 6th century Britain, are basically late Roman cavalry troopers fighting the invading Anglo-Saxon barbarians.
This version of the story succeeds in what the 2004 Clive Owen King Arthur failed to do: telling the story of a realistic, history-based version of the Arthur legend truly well. I'd love to see it adapted for film, though it would probably be better as a streaming series of 10 or 12 episodes, rather than as a mere 2-hour film.
reply
share
PrimeMinisterX (8707)
10 months ago
Personally, I'd rather have the escapist epic fantasy of legend than a gritty and realistic take. I turn to movies--especially movies with adventure elements--primarily to leave the real world behind for a while and to have a good time getting lost in an imaginative and fun tale.
That said, while it's still set in the Middle Ages, I feel like if you want a realistic Arthurian movie then you would want to go to First Knight. There is no Merlin and no magic to found anywhere in the film. While it seems to be largely forgotten now and thought of as mediocre by those who do remember it, I liked First Knight a lot when I was in my teens. I should revisit it.
reply
share