King Arthur

I thought Arthurian legend received fairly decent treatment in First Knight, and even in the TV series Merlin. I thought I would find it interesting to see how this movie measured up. I just hoped Keira Knightley's great big chin wouldn't annoy me all they way through.

OK, so after watching. Note #1: I've done it again. I've already seen this movie and didn't remember. As soon as one of Arthur's men uttered the word "Woads," (or is it Wodes?) I remembered I'd seen it.
Note #2: that is OK, because this is an excellent movie! How I can both forget that I've watched it AND that it was great is beyond me. But since I would put this up there with movies like Braveheart, I'm not complaining.

I never was one for enjoying medieval battle scenes, what with all the swords and battleaxes spattering blood and gore everywhere. So the fact that I can still give this movie two thumbs up is quite a tribute. And it really had nothing to do with Tattooed Blue Guinevere doing battle in her loincloth and various strategically placed straps (which I found quite odd, because I always thought of her as a ladylike girl who would have been hiding safely in the castle during all the battles).

Speaking of which, this movie seemed to turn everything I remember about Arthurian legend on its head. It wasn't until the very last scene that I realized it was in some ways a prequel. The end is when Arthur becomes king and Merlin becomes his guide and ally. It basically ignores Guinevere's betrayal with Lancelot, although they do trade a few lustful looks. There is no Lady of the Lake, and really no magic evident. And Tristan must have had his day with Isolde before this movie started, since he dies before it's over.

I spent an hour and a half of the movie trying to figure out where else I'd seen the actor who played Lancelot, before I remembered he was in the Fantastic Four. And Keira Knightley's chin probably gets its own trailer for all her movies. But all in all--good flick!