Two movies

I saw two movies on DVD over the last few days--rentals, both--and feel compelled to share my thoughts on both The Village and King Arthur. I wanted to see both in theaters, but for one reason or another didn't get the opportunity.

M. Night Shyamalan's The Village is in many ways much like his other films. Very atmospheric. Suspenseful, stylish, moody and atmospheric. The actors' performances are outstanding. I guessed what the big "twist" was right off the bat, as I have with Shyamalan's other films. This movie was a bit more mature, in that the director/writer abandoned his "finale flashback" security blanket to explain things to the audience. I liked that, as it was tiresome by the time Signs rolled around. The premise of the village being isolated from contemporary life was silly to no end, and the pretentious, pseudo-Amish the villagers spoke was illogical. But all in all it was entertaining, and I liked it a lot more than I was prepared to, despite its flaws.

King Arthur, on the other hand, was the most ludicrous waste of time I'd seen in a long, long time. Hard to believe medieval swordfights and battles could be boring, but man, director Antoine Fuqua achieved the impossible. After 45 minutes of watching the stupid thing, I was still waiting for a plot to appear. Also waiting for Keira Knightley to show up in that skimpy leather bikini which apparently protects against the bitter winter chill. Every five minutes one character or other stops to climb upon a soap box and preach about freedom and free will. The knight Bors was the only person in the film with a semblance of character development. The great battles with the saxons were mind-numbingly idiotic (Hey, instead of actually defending Hadrian's Wall, let's open the gates so the enemy can waltz in unopposed!). Arthur wasn't a Sarmatian. Sarmatians were indeed in Roman Britain, but they were hired mercenaries, not conquered slaves. These historical inaccuracies (and there are many, many more that make Borman's Excalibur look like a Ken Burns documentary by comparison) could be forgiven if it weren't for the fact that the filmmakers marketed the movie as the historically accurate, "real" account of Arthur and his knights. It is nothing of the sort. And to make matters worse, it ignores pretty much all the Arthurian mythology, offering little more than a round table here and there as passing acknowledgement of some really interesting legends they don't bother telling. It's tedious. It's boring. It's badly acted, badly directed and badly written. If you want to watch a King Arthur film, go with anything else--they're all better than this turkey.

Now Playing: Syd Barrett Opel