King Arthur

Max Jacoby · August 4, 2004

At the end of that movie there was a 'Cameras by Panavision' credit, yet when I was at Arri Munich last October, they said that Slawomir Idziak didn't want to work with Panavision, but only with Arri. That's why Arri Rental send them some 15 35mm Arri cameras (and 3 Super16 cameras). Also on the credits there is someone credit as 'Arri Camera Technician'.

So what gives? Did they subrent their equipment to Panavision? Or did this Panavision credit get only on there because of the reshoot?

georg lamshöft · August 5, 2004

Look at the "featurette", avaiable on the official site. I've only seen Arricams!?

Max Jacoby · August 6, 2004

I was at Arri today for camera tests and I asked about that credit. They didn't know anything about that. Funnily enough they had a picture of the shoot where you can see 5 cameras: 5 Arricams and 1 Moviecam SL...

Christian Appelt · August 7, 2004

It has been years that you cannot be sure of the Panavision credit any more.

It used to be "Filmed in Panavision" for anamorphic films and "Lenses and cameras by panavision" or "Filmed with P. cameras and lenses" for spherical ones, but then the "Filmed in..." credit turned up on many spherical Super 35 productions. IIRC, for some time they tried another label for S35 spherical, was it "Super Panavision 35" or "Panavision Super 35" ? Whatever, these credits are not to be trusted any more.

Phil Rhodes · August 7, 2004

Hi,

I just spent 130 minutes of my life finding out what a rotten film this is. It seems as if Mr. Fuqua made the creditable decision to render a (slightly) more historically-accurate Arthur, but then realised it would make a rotten film and tried to make as many references to the more popular High Medieval legend as possible. The result is a hideous, unholy combination of both in which the occasional more overt references to Roman Britain stick out like Keira Knightley's Chelsea girl accent. It just doesn't work.

We'll overlook Mr. Owen's 2x4 performance and turn instead to on-topic matters. Frankly, I felt the entire thing was just slightly technically inept. I'm not sure if all the other problems might not have been caused in the edit, which was kind of... amateurish. Holds on the end of scenes were whole seconds too short. Shots were included on the basis of "it's a nice shot" rather than "it cuts well." Horrible inconsistencies in the equally horrible British weather were revealed in the final scenes - not only did overcast cut against broken cloud, but they actually inserted a CG sun into the overcast for one sword-brandishing shot! So, guys, d'you want sunlight or not? Either way, but choose!

On at least three occasions I saw either grad filters or incredibly ham-handed use of DI slide over people's faces during pans and tilts; same effect again, inexplicably using a tobacco coloured effect in a snow scene. Some very heavy-handed use of light through smoke, especially during the forest chase scene, which felt so unmotivated and inconsistent it really drew attention.

Apparently this was very nearly a Michael Bay film; if this is the best the UK can do with a production like that, then I will be the first to admit that we are not ready for prime time.

Phil

Matthew McDermott · August 8, 2004

Phil,

I whole heartedly agree. I really wanted to like this film but it's just bad on so many levels--story, cinematography, acting, costuming (what was up with the vaguely Asian knight?). If Mr. Fugua could personally give me back those two hours of my life, I might be satisfied. What made it all worse was when I found out in an Entertainment Weekly article that the awful quasi-Stonehenge wedding ending was added on after test sceenings and it was decided that a summer movie should have a happy ending. I guess I just wanted too much. What should we have expected from the Director of Tears of the Sun?

Phil Rhodes · August 8, 2004

Hi,

Quite. I was hoping for a Brit equivalent of one of those awful Jerry Bruckheimer "God Bless America" movies, which would have at least made money. This doesn't even deserve to do that.

I mean, c'mon, guys. Arthurian legend! It's an upper!

Phil

David Mullen ASC · August 8, 2004

Actually, Arthurian tales tend to be a downer - they usually end in the fall of Camelot, the death of Arthur, etc. And if they don't, that's what you think about anyway as the credits roll...

Sladomir Idziak is well-known for his heavy use of grad filters -- just look at "Double Life of Veronique." It might have been more acceptable here had the film decided to be a bit more fantastical, like "Excalibur", rather than gritty and realistic (sort of.) I kind of wish they had decided to be more one or the other -- if you're going to rip-off "Seven Samurai", then go for broke!

Max Jacoby · August 8, 2004

Yep, the whole film was an incredible bore. I also found the lighting and camera work uninspired. While watching the fightscenes, just like in 'Troy' I was constantly whishing that Ridley Scott had shot this.

In regards to accent, I found it very funny that on the Saxon side the father was Swedish (Stellan Skarsgard) but the son (Til Schweiger) German...

David Mullen ASC · August 8, 2004

Since the large region that the Vikings took over in England was eventually called Danelaw, centered at York, I always figured they were mostly from the region of Denmark, but Swedes and German actors playing Vikings works OK for me. More realistic than Kirk Douglas and Ernest Borgnine, although that's a film that I love ("The Vikings".)

The one line I liked in "King Arthur" was when the Saxon leader tells his men not to sleep with the Anglo women ("Can you imagine the type of people that would result?") Actually, I guess they'd be Britons -- I think the Angles were another invading tribe from Europe.

There was something about the film that felt slightly lower-budget, like some of the recent cable TV movies set in ancient times (and some of those were better). It should have either been more epic and realistic, like "Braveheart" or "Gladiator", or more fantastical and mythological like "Excalibur."

It's really hard not to compare these Arthur movies to "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" though... "King of the Britons? Who are the Britons? How'd you get to be king, eh? By exploiting the workers..."

Elhanan Matos · August 8, 2004

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Phil Rhodes · August 8, 2004

Hi,

Well, if I were to do an Arthurian legend movie I'd probably end it with Merlin interring the body of Arthur Pendragon on Avalon, which is clearly balls - but then [insert other Jerry Bruckheimer movie] was also balls, but would have been slightly less dismal and probably made for a better film - so long as you were happy to go with the High Medieval.

What depresses me about this more than anything else is that we now won't have a chance at a decent Arthur movie for another 15 years or so - and they pissed away the superb opportunity to have Keira Knightley do Guenevere (who was obviously a blonde, by the way!).

A friend of mine said "Hmm, more Keira, less clothes." I tend to agree.

Phil

Sivanesan · November 15, 2004

Hi all,

was there any article about this movie "King Arthur" in American Cinematograher magazine about this movie. I was unable to trace such an article in the magazine.

Regards

Sivanesan