6/10
Made on the cheap, as lively as it is grimy, this little seen film is surprisingly effective
28 April 2005
Made on the cheap, as lively as it is grimy, this little-seen film is surprisingly effective...for once the most likely period of Arthur's legendary existence is portrayed in the gritty and grubby way it must surely have have been. If you're looking for a lovely and romantic Hollywood version with colorful costumes, plumes, armour and beautiful ladies (set in a never-was gallant and chivalrous century anywhere from the 12th to the 14th) this Arthur is not for you. There is no Round Table (only a daring plan to unite deadly, traditionally squabbling enemies.) There is also no Lanceclot and Guenivere. But there is an actually plausible contest to pull the sword from the stone which is crucial to Arthur's plan. Though this film is on a rather small scale and an all too apparent smaller budget, it succeeds where larger and more expensive efforts have failed. It gives a lot of down to earth character to these legendary men and makes them understandably human and believable. Tobias makes a great young Arthur, but Gothard should have been given more and Blessed a bit less. He tends to dominate the film in his crude portrayal of Mark of Cornwall. It is surprising that this film didn't spawn an immediate sequel. It would have been interesting to see this kind of earthy realistic treatment of some of the later events in Arthur's life.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed