![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Movie revue: Arthur
Jul. 30th, 2004 01:30 pmWe did see King Arthur at the earliest possible moment without leaving Oxford--and we enjoyed it enormously, despite some obvious flaws. Particularly once we stopped poking each other and giggling.
This review contains spoilers, which is a rather odd concept in a King Arthur movie. But the script does change the story around a bit, and the surprises made my enjoyment greater. So if you haven't seen the movie, I'd recommend not reading this review, unless you like spoilers.
( it really was an anarcho-syndicalist collective, after all )
All in all, I'd say that it was definitely better than Troy, because at certain points one could enjoy it as a movie, rather than enjoying it because it was so much fun to mock.
On a slightly related note, on the way home we were discussing the sub-Roman version of the Arthur story, and the B.H. proved yet again why he's a brilliant historian. He pointed out that to the best of his knowledge the sub-Roman version is a twentieth century development, and suggested that this ought to be related to the dismemberment of the British Empire--that the Arthur story we see here, for example, of isolated troops just clinging to the edges of an empire about to pull them out, keeping their order because it's what they do, even in the face of complete futility, should be read in the light of the experience of the armed forces in the twentieth century. I thought it was interesting, but it isn't my field--it this already a well-known theory?
This review contains spoilers, which is a rather odd concept in a King Arthur movie. But the script does change the story around a bit, and the surprises made my enjoyment greater. So if you haven't seen the movie, I'd recommend not reading this review, unless you like spoilers.
( it really was an anarcho-syndicalist collective, after all )
All in all, I'd say that it was definitely better than Troy, because at certain points one could enjoy it as a movie, rather than enjoying it because it was so much fun to mock.
On a slightly related note, on the way home we were discussing the sub-Roman version of the Arthur story, and the B.H. proved yet again why he's a brilliant historian. He pointed out that to the best of his knowledge the sub-Roman version is a twentieth century development, and suggested that this ought to be related to the dismemberment of the British Empire--that the Arthur story we see here, for example, of isolated troops just clinging to the edges of an empire about to pull them out, keeping their order because it's what they do, even in the face of complete futility, should be read in the light of the experience of the armed forces in the twentieth century. I thought it was interesting, but it isn't my field--it this already a well-known theory?
