Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
King Arthur (2004)
deary me ( as my nanny once said)
Oh dear, what a mess. I saw this film on the pretext of a good British movie with historic backing. the result? where shall I begin? The knights staggered around like they were on drugs half the time, Keria Knightly couldn't stop pouting and sounded too posh, Clive Owen just looked embarrassed, Lancelot died half way through and, worst of all, although the film claimed to be based on the 'true story behind the legend' they got it completely wrong. Yes, there was believed to be a real king Arthur but he was actually a Saxon! Yes, a Saxon! Not a half-witted roman, god fearing sissy! a Saxon! And that brings me neatly on to my next point. What possessed them to put merlin into the story. Oh god, the cheese factor was on overload.
The only person(s) who made it slightly watchable was the knights. Yes, I did criticised them but they brought a much needed comic relief to the whole sorry affair, especially Ray Whinstone with his bastards.
Overall, I recommend you see this film if you don't like strong violence, don't like sex scenes, don't like good acting and are under the age of 12.
Velvet Goldmine (1998)
A colourful masterpiece not a jumbled mess
I recently saw this film about a week ago and thought it was excellent. The soundtrack was amazing and the acting, beautiful. However it didn't really have much affect on me. Then one dull chemistry lesson, as my mind drifted,I suddenly began to realize what a masterpiece Velvet Goldmine actually was.
It portrays the whole era in a variety of clever and (according to my parents) accurate ways. The love scenes whether hetro or homo sexual where filmed almost lovingly and the speed of the film takes your on a magical journey through the glam-rock era.
I think that this film has been seriously under-appreciated, and i'm not saying this just because I'm a huge fan. Many seem to have problems with the fact that the film is not in chronological order, that it actually requires you to think. Because of this the film is described as a 'mess', when it is in fact just a swirl of memories and flashbacks painted in technicolor.
Also there are many complaints about the fact that Arthur sees Shannon with Tommy Slade, prompting him to realize the truth. Has it occurred to anyone that the flash back was purely for the audience not for authur? that the camera was focusing on her but Arthur was looking at Tommy? I don't think that Todd Haynes would create a plot hole like that without a reason behind it. I admit that many of the scenes are quite strange and random and need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but this just reflects the image of the era if anything.
basically this is an amazing film that needs to be seen because if it can awaken in others what it has in me then the world could be a better place, plus I desperately need people to talk about it with, at the moments it just my mum which isn't ideal!
please see it even if it is just for the truly awesome performances of both Ewan McGregor and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers or a bit of homosexuality and remember 'Man is least himself when he talks in his own person... Give him a mask and he'll tell you the truth.'