But when discussing good and bad and the gray that is between, there comes to mind the expectation that went along with it. Is it better to watch a horrible movie you KNEW was bad before you sat through it than watch something with high hopes to learn, sometimes painfully, that it's the cinematic equivalent of a jelly donut filled with ants? I think it is. In our media saturated world it's hard to go into a film without some kind of idea of what to expect, and in some cases the media campaign for a film has left us with not one single surprise. Too many times have I wanted to look away from a movie trailer knowing they were pureeing an entire film down to 2 minutes for the sake of an audience that needs to be spoon-fed.
This brings us to this past year, this rapidly fading 2004. There were films I really hoped would be good, even though I expected them to be awful, which turned out to be more putrid than I could have expected. "The Stepford Wives" comes to mind. I hoped against all odds that it would be better than it looked, and of course it ended up being 90 of the longest minutes of the past year. Still, it wasn't any kind of surprise, and I should have known better.
So it seems appropriate that the very LAST film I watch in the year 2004 should be the biggest surprise of the year, and certainly the most under-rated film I have seen in the past 365 days. Most critics bashed it, the box office numbers were awful, and to be honest I hadn't heard a single good thing about it. What a surprise that it should end up being an ambitious and entertaining film.
And the winner is……..
“King Arthur”.
Don't listen to the critics, and don't listen to the ninnies who condemned it without ever seeing it, King Arthur is a fine piece of cinema.
It's dirty. It's gritty. It takes that infamous Battle of Badon Hill (where Monty Python's "Sir Robin" once personally wet himself) and the Arthurian Legend, removes any myth and magic that might have been added to the history for fantastic stories to tell future generations, and anchors the story heavily in historical reality.
It's also written by the dude who wrote “Gladiator”, which shows in every frame.
It's all there, all of it. Arthur. Guenivere. Lancelot. Excalibur. The taco eating contest. Merlin. The Round Table.
Ok, I made up the part about the tacos.
Still, sometimes watching it I got the feeling I was watching something from a parallel universe. A “bizarro” world where up is down and black is white and Pauly Shore is so funny that I pee myself just to hear his voice. Merlin has no magical powers; he's simply a pagan in a time when Roman oppression was the iron rule of the land. Excalibur has no mystical powers, and while it is drawn by a boy who would eventually be a King, there is again, no magic involved. Guenivere, portrayed nicely by Keira Knightley, goes through a nice character progression that is both eye-opening and unique. Let's just say that it would be easy to watch Keira Knightley. Pun intended.
Yet all of the subtexts of the Arthurian legend remain intact, despite the radical twist on the story. These knights of the round table do not shine in the sunlight in gleaming armor, they come across more like a band of rogues, scarred and somewhat unsavory at times, wearing the pain of previous battles on their faces, yet holding onto the truest kind of honor. At times they seem like roadies… with swords. If the filmmakers set out to make the characters of the Arthurian legend as real as possible, they have succeeded. “King Arthur” comes across like a medieval version of “The Dirty Dozen”.
I don't pretend to know much of the Arthurian legend beyond what previous cinematic efforts have taught me, so I must compare it to what I already know. Will “King Arthur” find a place on my DVD shelf along side John Boorman's classic take on the legend that is 1981's “Excalibur”? Probably not. Still, it's a darn good movie that caught me completely by surprise. Fifteen minutes into the film it seemed like it was going to follow a very well worn Hollywood formula, and before I knew it I was involved in the characters and truly amazed at the unique direction the film had taken. By the time Keira showed up in her leather outfit and body paint, I didn't NEED it to become engrossed in the film.
Still, nice touch.
And so, with a certain satisfaction of ending on a high note, I say goodbye to 2004 and I think ahead to the promise of the films of 2005. May many more films thrill and surprise me the way “King Arthur” certainly did, and may I owe Disney studios an apology when they prove me wrong with their upcoming film adaptation of Douglas Adams's “Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy”. Mos Def as Ford Prefect? Maybe they know something I don't.
Until next year, the balcony is condemned. (And dusty too…… I need to get up here more often)