King John
Lackland lays siege to a castle.
This should
have been so much fun. A siege movie based on a real historical event, but then
they took so many liberties with the original that they should have simply set
it on Camelot and be done with it.
Historical
inaccuracies aside for a moment I can admit that this movie deliver on the
rated violence. Heads are chopped and blood is spilled aplenty. It’s just not
very interesting.
There is an
art in cinematic violence, an art that writer director Jonathan English still
has to master.
The plot
also has problems. Historical inaccuracies aside, in the movie they are
practically fighting for democracy in a period when the word doesn’t really
makes sense, it’s all so very Die Hard. The villain is so bad that we are only
waiting for him to start twirling is mustache, the heroes so noble, the fair
maiden so fair.
Its missing
subtlety, it’s missing all the subtle nuances that makes characters come alive
without obtaining the epicness and majesty that made 300 and Conan so
unforgettable.
And it’s
still really a shame because they got some really good actors here.
James
Purefoy got charisma in spades, Paul Giamatti idem but even them can’t manage
to enliven a lifeless script.
Conclusion:
Genre fans will still enjoy it but if you don’t like your sword with your chain
mail this is not the movie to start with.
No comments:
Post a Comment