“Ahhh, finally, a man worth killing.”

Well this is going to be weird. Its definitely high time for another King Arthur movie. Yay! Except this time around its one from the 2000s that purports to demystify the myths from the facts. Boo! Well, regardless, since I’ve got a mania where I end up buying Arthurian films regardless of their overall quality, we might as well sit down with 2004’s King Arthur, the Director’s Cut!

Plot
We start off with blah blah blah Roman Britain, blah blah blah, Sarmatian cavalry stationed in Britain even though Rome itself is really half-assing its support of the floundering colony. Turns out the Romans there are having trouble with the Saxons as well as the Woads…waitaminute. The Romano-British are having trouble with a flowering plant most famous for the indigo dyes it can be used to make? True story of King Arthur my ass. If you want to have local tribes that don’t bow to the Romans, you can call them Celts, or more accurately Picts. Well, anyway its 467 AD and Rome needs to consolidate its…Wait. Rome withdrew from Britain around 410 AD. You know what, fuck you movie for insulting my intelligence. Okay, so its neither a fantastical take on the legend or a historical take. Good to know. Excuse me while I turn my medievalist’s brain off.

So the soldiers get sent on one last mission before being given their release papers. They have to go up into *shudder* “Woad” territory to evacuate a Roman Villa because-- Wait. That makes no fucking sense. WHY WOULD YOU BUILD A ROMAN VILLA OUTSIDE OF ROMAN TERRITORY???

Anyway, we get some blah blah blah about how Arthur is a Romano-Britain (which is actually rather likely) who’s commander of a group of Sarmatian cavalrymen (look, the term “Knight” didn’t come about until later if we’re playing the historicity card) who are generally grumpy since their term of service is ending and most want to go home. And then there’s fighting. Yay, swords! And Keira Knightly in little more than leather straps. Yay T&A!

Characters
Arthur/Artorius: Clive Owen is a Roman Britain who was a big fan of Pelagius, a fairly obscure 5th century ascetic and heretic who died around 440 (not necessarily under shadowy circumstances), a full ten years before Arthur was to have met him. Anyway…., Owen’s Arthur is actually pretty cool, stupid plot notwithstanding. He’s an idealist, and merciful in his command who has the absolute loyalty of his men (no matter how much the movie makes them bitch about it). He believes in Rome the ideal, but he’s also got the stones to back up his vision but he‘s also conflicted. And you know, Owen makes a pretty damn good Arthur, so there you go: badass of the film.

Lancelot: Ioan Gruffudd is Arthur’s number 2, a Sarmatian who’s extremely grumpy. I mean, that’s his dominant character trait. He’s grumpy about everything. Oh, and he’s vaguely pagan, which I suppose would be acceptable since he’s supposed to be from a tribe of steppe horsemen. Oh, and he fights with two swords, because that’s a practical fighting style for a horseman.

Tristram: Mads Mikkelsen is the most “barbarian” looking of the horsemen. He’s actually really good in the role, just underutilized a lot and with not a whole lot of characterization. He’s a falconer, is apparently the scout of the squad, seems to sort of, kind of have a death wish and fights with a curved blade which gives him a cool looking two handed “katana-esque” fighting style but isn’t all that practical for a horseman. Also, there is no Isolde, so that’s automatic points off.

Gawain: Joel Edgerton (who was the young Uncle Owen in the Star Wars prequels though I can’t blame you for forgetting). Gawain’s all right. He’s got long hair, seems pretty laid back about most everything and is a trooper who’s got Arthur’s back. He’s not Arthur’s cousin, which sucks, but its clear the writer had a cursory knowledge of Gawain and the Green Knight because he’s got green-ish armor and uses a handaxe, which…is actually a very practical weapon for a horseman.

Galahad: Hugh Dancy is probably the least defined member of the team. He’s the young one who doesn’t like fighting. And that’s about it. And he’s sort of an archer. Definitely not the “Warrior of Justice and Purity” that Galahad is synonymous with.

Bors: Ray Winstone is actually pretty damn awesome here as one of the team’s “big guys.” He’s an old soldier and pretty much planning on settling down with his woman and 11 or so illegitimate children. Big, boisterous and jolly, he also happens to fight with two funky daggers because THAT’S a practical weapon for a horseman.

Dagonet: Ray Stevenson is the other big guy on the team. Doesn’t talk much, always has Arthur’s back and is treated like Bors’ little brother. He’s also the first one to die in the film, but he does get a pretty badass death scene. He uses a very big axe because that’s a practical for a-- You know what, never mind.

Guinevere: Keira Knightley is a Pictish woman rescued by Arthur during the “last mission.” She’s okay, I guess, despite being yet another preachy action girl shoehorned into a historical movie. I guess I’d complain more, but she just looks so damn good doing it.

Merlin: Stephen Dillane is the creepy Celtic mystic who more or less rules the “Woads.” Arthur hates him because years ago his mother was killed in a raid led by Merlin. Merlin’s is not actually a wizard in this movie, so all the crazy looks he gives here are, well, just crazy looks that make him simply a creepy dude in the woods.

Cerdic: Stellan Skarsgård is our Saxon villain. A very, very, very obvious villain. Murderous, psychotic and racist against the Britons (which is hilarious, since the Saxons settled permanently in Britain and forever changed both the language and demography), he’d be on the level of moustache-twirling cartoon if it weren’t for just how laid back he is about it. He’s a barbarian warlord who’s possessed by ennui, which is both hilarious and awesome, and Skarsgård seems to be having a lot of fun with it.

Cynric: Til Schweiger is Cerdic’s son and second in command. He’s there to get yelled at a lot by dad and glower.

Bishop Germannus: Ivano Marescotti is the Roman bishop sent to the island to serve Arthur & his men their discharge papers (which…why would the Empire send a bishop to do such a menial task??). He’s just kind of a jerk.

Visuals/Effects
Antoine Fuqua (who directed Training Day, which I’ve heard good things about) brings some interesting things to the table. The movie is certainly well shot and the battle scenes are legitimately interesting to watch. It definitely looks good. Pacing is a definite issue though, and I don’t just mean that as a comment on the director’s cut (never seen the theatrical version and from what I’ve read, that’s for the best).

Writing
David Franzoni (who worked on the entertaining but historical clusterfuck Gladiator) is the sole scripter here and… there’s a lot wrong with it. I mean, why do these “Sarmatian knights” have names like Lancelot (French in origin) or Gawain (which is British)? Why do the Saxons have crossbows? Trebuchets? “WOADS?” Why is the Pope considered the highest authority in the Western Roman Empire? The Senate and the Emperor (however useless he may have been) were still the authorities. The Pope was still only considered Bishop of Rome. And speaking of Rome, it was sacked in 410 by the Goths and the capital of the Western Empire (and the Emperor) moved to the more defensible Ravenna. I mean, is it really all that hard to check this stuff in Wikipedia? Or a book? I mean…FUCK! So much of this story doesn’t make any goddamn sense. And if it sounds like I’m being overly critical of the script when I might let other movies slide, well, I am. You can’t have the marketing campaign be all like “based on the TRUE story of King Arthur” and have so many goddamn glaring GLARBHHHGUYAJGHKJHASFKJHKLJHASFDLK:LIUO*&

About the only really interesting thing done with the characters is that the Lancelot/Arthur/Guinevere love triangle is downplayed.

Sound
Hans Zimmer’s music is a totally serviceable score for the film that rises to very solid percussive beats during the action scenes. Its solid, but not something that really can stand alongside the true greats of film music.

Conclusion
Right, so I’ve really ragged on King Arthur here quite a bit. Do I hate it? Surprisingly no. Franzoni’s script is pretty damn bad, but the movie looks good, the battles entertain and the cast largely manages to elevate the mediocre material they’re dealing with. I mean, its way more entertaining than First Knight. I just kind of wish every single period film like this of the last ten years didn’t try to ape Braveheart so much.

And by no means is this the worst Arthurian movie I’ve seen…

“When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.”

Now, First Knight was a terrible, terrible movie. We’ve established this in no uncertain terms. But, you may ask, what then is the measure of a good Arthurian film? Holy Grail is a comedy, so it doesn’t really count if you want to get nitpicky. So what then does count? Ah, to understand the proper way to tell an Arthurian movie, we must look at 1981’s Excalibur by John Boorman. It is a film long held up as a definitive Arthurian movie and subsequent films have all tried to do something radically different from it, like telling “the true story” of King Arthur. Well, let’s see what’s so special about this long, magic-infused epic that subsequent moviemakers haven’t even bothered trying to imitate it.

Plot
Whoo-boy. This could get long. Let’s just say that the focus of the story is a man and a sword, their fates entwined. Merlin arranges for the sword Excalibur to be given to King Uther Pendragon for the purposes of uniting England, but Uther gets blinded by lust and alienates the lords by betraying the Duke of Cornwall and sleeping with his wife (with some help from Merlin). A son is born from the union and given to Merlin. Uther is killed soon after. The son grows up into Arthur, recovers the sword and becomes King of England, uniting the land under his idealistic rule. He marries the lovely Guenevere, befriends the mighty Lancelot, but even then, forces are at work at the Court of Camelot that seek to destroy what he’s built. You know, pretty much the standard Arthurian story that follows his birth all the way to his climactic death. It’s a long movie at 140 minutes, but it covers a lot of ground.

Characters
King Uther: Gabriel Byrne in his big-screen debut. Uther is an ambitious man, eager to unify England under one banner; his. With Merlin’s help he gets Excalibur, a sword that can help forge that kingdom. Unfortunately, after settling peace with the Duke of Cornwall, Uther falls violently in love with Cornwall’s wife, Igrayne, and the two lords go to war. Merlin pulls some magic and Uther is able to ride into Cornwall’s court disguised as him and bed Igrayne (in a rather awkward love scene because he’s still wearing his armor). Merlin’s price for helping Uther in this is the child born of this union. Uther’s not in the film all that much, but he leaves a strong impression. He’s basically like Arthur but without the self-restraint.

Merlin: Nicol Williamson is this film’s glorious badass. Merlin is younger than one would normally expect. His beard is neither gray nor very long. But Williamson brings an incredibly over-the-top delivery with a peculiar accent that just makes him fun as all hell to watch. His delivery takes a witty stance when he needs to and completely deadpan when delivering his grim portents and prophesies. He’s an absolute scene stealer and a character that really gets a lot done.

Arthur: Nigel Terry has a lot to do in this film, basically playing Arthur from a young man all the way to old age. He does an all right job, delivering everything with a straight face, and he looks appropriate in the armor as a leader of men, but there’s just something missing from the character that I can’t place. There’s a fire that’s missing from Arthur for a lot of scenes.

Lancelot: Nicholas Clay is Lancelot, a knight bold and true and undefeatable in combat. Until Arthur pushes Excalibur over the limit to beat him (breaking the sword in the process: don’t worry, it gets fixed). Lancelot is Arthur’s greatest knight, but of course he falls in love with Guenevere and that whole situation comes up. Its handled much better here than in *shudder* First Knight. They know their attraction is wrong and Lancelot does everything in his power to keep away from her, but it just doesn’t work and the two do eventually do the deed (yielding quite a bit more naked Lancelot than is bargained for).

Guenevere: Cheri Lunghi rounds out the love triangle. She’s all right as the Queen of Camelot, and the movie does give her and Arthur’s romance time to grow before the marriage, which works in their favor when it comes time for the affair. Still, Arthur, Lancelot and Guenevere all feel like weaker links in this film, especially compared to the Merlin subplot.

Leodegrance: Patrick Stewart (yes, that one) plays the smaller role of Guenevere’s father. A veteran warrior who sides with Arthur soon after the lad draws the sword from the stone, he’s a loyal member of the court and in Arthur’s riding to his aid, the king meets Guenevere. Sadly, Leodegrance disappears from the movie after the wedding.

Gawain: Liam Neeson in one of his earliest roles. He plays Gawain as a fairly simple big guy with an odd haircut (seriously, I don’t get why they did that). His major part is in challenging Guenevere’s fidelity to Arthur. After that, he fades into the background.

Perceval: Paul Geoffrey plays a plucky lad who wants to become a knight, eventually convincing Lancelot to take him to Camelot where he can become a squire. He gets knighted in order to help defend Guenevere’s honor. After that, he becomes the central figure of the grail quest, where he practically goes through hell to find the cup.

Uryens: Keith Buckley plays a lord that is most resistant to Arthur ascending the throne. After a battle, Uryens finally comes round and joins the court. He’s a minor character, but the fact that he keeps showing up consistently through the movie makes him worth mentioning, particularly for his part in the grail quest with Perceval.

Morgana: Helen Mirren (yes, that one) plays the scheming magician that’s Arthur’s half sister. She plays Morgana up as a vamp, sidling up to male characters like Arthur and Merlin to get them to do what she wants. She really hams it up, particularly in her mental duel with Merlin as she tries to seduce him in order to learn all his secrets.

Mordred: Robert Addie plays the unholy spawn of Morgana’s deceptive union with Arthur, the arrogant, ambitious, cruel Mordred. He makes a striking appearance with his gold armor and a helmet that basically serves as a mask (with golden hair and open for his mouth so that it looks like a corrupted face). The armor is ten times as creepy on the boy Mordred, played by Charley Boorman (the director’s son). Man those scenes with boy Mordred were creepy. That laugh alone can cause nightmares.

Visuals/Effects
John Boorman, who directed Deliverance, Exorcist: II and the, er... "legendary" Zardoz, went full out with the look of the film. Completely throwing historicity out the window in favor of myth, his knights spend all their time running, lounging, playing and fornicating in armor, if for no other reason than it looks mythical. Filmed in Ireland, the movie has a wet, lush and very green feel to it that helps with the atmosphere. The movie definitely goes for the magical route of Arthurian legend, but does so more subtly than with puppets or guys in rubber dragon costumes, and I think that’s really for the best. Here, the magical stuff is shadowy, mysterious and you can’t really be sure its all on the level with the heroes, not even with Merlin. Also, the color green (usually reflected or lit up in an unearthly way) is a nice way of saying “magical stuff here” without being too obvious about it. The visual pacing is nice, with scenes moving along, but the movie does feel long, just by the sheer amount of stuff it piles on. The fight scenes on the other hand, well, they’re pretty clunky and slow moving, though not without entertainment.

Writing
Thomas Malory gets credited for Le Morte D’Arthur, which tells you how historically accurate this film’s going to be. (The answer is not at all.) John Boorman and Rospo Pallenberg adapted the mammoth book into a big film, and generally do a good job of telling the Arthur story and hitting the major beats. The Merlin/Morgana interplay is mostly new though, and that’s also the part of the film that really stands out. I definitely have to give credit to a movie that manages to add some interesting new elements to the Arthurian Romance while still being a thematically faithful telling of the legend.

Sound
Trevor Jones wrote original music for the film, which works great, but the most memorable musical cues come from the use of some Richard Wagner and some Carl Orff. Orff’s O Fortuna from Carmina Burana being a signature sound for the film as it accompanies Arthur and his knights riding to battle. Good stuff.

Conclusion
Excalibur is actually a very fine film if you can get over the camp elements (like the constant wearing of armor for leisure and whatnot). The movie achieves an epic feel and really does succeed in bringing a mythological take on King Arthur. Its really more of a cult film now because some of the look hasn’t aged well, but for what it is, its probably the best straight faced telling of Arthur that uses all of the magical elements in the story. Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn’t seem to want to try and surpass it on that front, instead going for “the true history of Arthur” movies that pile on the grime and filth and try to deconstruct the characters into the dust and owe more visually to Gladiator than to Excalibur. It’s a shame, but rumors are circulating that Bryan Singer is planning some kind of remake, which makes me cautiously hopeful for a mystical, thoroughly “Arthurian” telling of the tale.



And just to give you an idea of Merlin in this:

“This is what’s called an oubliette. That’s French for “a place of forgetting.” Your quarters, my lady.”

Sometimes…

Sometimes onomatopoeia is the only way to express an intro for a movie. Thus, it is with a resounding SIGH that my obsession with Arthurian Legend brings me to 1995, and a Jerry Zucker film called…First Knight.

I hope you appreciate this.

Plot
So, in the waning days of Camelot, border troubles in England-land by a would-be bandit king cause a young noblewoman to marry King Arthur while a creepy stalker falls in lust with her, eventually toppling a mighty kingdom in the process. And then there’s like two, maybe three fight scenes in 134 very, very long minutes.

Characters
Guinevere: Julia Ormond plays the female lead character. Guinevere is just so wonderful. Her father died, leaving the town/community/land/place of Lyonesse for her to run. It is a place of happy peasants who will happily play kickball with their lady and who will happily be scammed by wandering swordsmen. When the Bad Guy threatens her land, she readily accepts a wedding proposal from King Arthur. A proposal given before the beginning of the movie, that’s how wonderful Guinevere is. Anyway, she jumps into a carriage escorted by Arthur’s troops and travels to Camelot when wouldn’t you know that the Bad Guy’s goons ambush them. Anyway, the carriage goes out of control and she eventually gets rescued by Lancelot, who was just passing through. She gets to Camelot and gets kidnapped by the Bad Guy’s men because she was so considerate of her peasants that she never bothered to check if the hooded fellow in the boat claiming to be from her village actually WAS from her village. Seriously, she deserved to be kidnapped for that. Anyway, the whole “adultery” angle with Lancelot is played pretty badly, with other characters repeatedly saying that Guinevere is innocent in the matter, taking the blame off of her, even though the whole situation where Arthur finds her sucking face with Lancelot is entirely her fault. The audience is being told its not her fault, even though the actions seen say differently, and that we should still like her. And I realize I’ve written a lot about her here, but honestly, she’s at the core of my problems with this film. I realize its not a 1:1 ratio, but she’s pretty damn high on my Mary Sue scale.

Lancelot: Richard Gere is the other character that ruined the movie. The Lancelot he’s given is a traveling sellsword, a commoner who goes from town to town making money off of villagers who aren’t as good at sword fighting as him, jaded fellow that he is. Which isn’t all that bad of a place to start a character at. Sure, its not the actual Lancelot from Malory and other sources, but whatever. That’s not the greatest offence. He first meets Guinevere when he rescues her from the Bad Guys and immediately starts hitting on her, and continues to do so after she tells him she’s going to be married to Arthur. Obviously as a commoner he’s not bound by rules of honor and whatever, but at that point he’s really no better than the Bad Guys aside from not actually tearing her clothes off; the innuendo and the leering looks are still there. He talks about being in love and everything, but he continues to know nothing about her as a person. When she gets to Camelot, he follows, eventually navigating a really stupid device called the “Gauntlet” to get an audience with the King (and with the future Queen, obviously). Arthur takes him under his wing, and when Guinevere gets herself kidnapped through her own stupidity, obviously Lancelot chases after her, not out of any loyalty or friendship to Arthur, but because he’s simply obsessed with the woman. There’s a sloppy rescue, and the two finally start asking the important questions of a budding relationship like “So where are you from? What are your hobbies?” but its well over an hour into the film at that point. Anyway, they do the whole “I love you but I can’t” spiel, and she marries Arthur. There’s a battle against the Bad Guys and Lancelot proves his battle worthiness and finally, FINALLY gets some character development in seeing that yes, Arthur is indeed one of the good guys helping to fight the good fight against injustice, and he decides to do the noble thing and leave Camelot because he doesn’t want to hurt Arthur, but the two DO hurt Arthur by smooching when he walks in, so there’s the trial and the bad guys bust in and mortally wound the King because this asshole had to be a creepy stalker who was more interested in getting into Guinevere’s pants than either working for a greater good or getting to know her until its too late. Now the reason why this character section is so damn long is because this IS OUR HERO, THE GUY WE’RE SUPPOSED TO BE ROOTING FOR. THROUGH THE ACTIONS OF A CREEPY STALKER, CAMELOT FALLS AND DARKNESS DESCENDS UPON THE LAND, AND HE’S STILL SUPPOSED TO BE THE HERO OF THE MOVIE. THIS IS HOW YOU DON’T WRITE LANCELOT!

King Arthur: Sean Connery received top billing, but he’s really a secondary character, reacting to the two “heroes” of the film. He shows up fairly well into the film, and sure, he throws a pretty fair performance, but its all reactionary. There’s the whole December-May Romance thing thrown in, but Arthur’s shown as a hero in decline, and, well, he’s ultimately too good for the Guinevere of the movie. When he’s finally betrayed, there’s a lot of pain there, and it actually does hurt, so he does a decent job of that. Its just that he gets marginalized in the love story so much, and that the whole “Lancelot & Guinevere are good and belong together” thing gets shoved down the audience’s throat when anybody who knows even the faintest about the Arthurian cycle knows that when Arthur died, England went to shit. So yeah, I really felt bad for Connery having a weak character to work with who died a punk-ass death at the end of the movie (like it’s a spoiler for a thousand year old legend).

Prince Malagant: Ben Cross is the Villain, the rebel lord who doesn’t want to drink Arthur’s Kool-Aid and tow the line. Apparently he was once a member of the Round Table, but left under unhappy circumstances and has been a thorn in the king’s side. He’s the Bad Guy, and ultimately responsible for Arthur’s death. Not Mordred. Not Morgan le Fay or any of the established legitimate threats for the canonical Arthur’s fall, but Malagant. I will admit that Malagant is the most interesting character, since he’s got the most depth. He’s an asshole who’s ultimately in it for himself, he’s disillusioned with Arthur’s dream, and he’s nihilistic about Arthur’s God & Law & everything. He makes his living as a border raider, leading an army of like minded individuals who manage a surprising number of odd feats for the period, like elaborate traps to catch Guinevere, a distant, slightly soggy hideout that’s pretty well fortified, and hand crossbows suitable for cavalry use, which didn’t become popular in Europe until at least the 1200s. Seriously, these guys are fucking resourceful and why the movie isn’t about them is beyond me. When Malagant isn’t on screen, the movie suffers from his lack of glowering and scene chewing. Sure he’s officially the Bad Guy, but damn it if I wouldn’t rather watch him than the idiots we’re saddled with for the actual movie.

The Round Table Knights: I lump them in together because while each one has a name of an actual Arthurian Knight (like Agravaine or Gaheris or whatever) each one is as interchangeable and as lacking in any personality as the next. Being blonde or having a beard are not valid characterizations. They’re just there to be there and are completely wasted in the story.

Now, we need a badass, and none has presented himself. There is one guy in Malagant’s army that, during the runaway carriage scene, chases the carriage down on his horse, leaps up onto it, climbs to the roof, hacks his way into the passenger compartment with an axe and leaps into it. Sadly, he’s knocked out of the moving vehicle by Guinevere and crashes into a tree, but do you know how hard it is for a horseman to actually do that? That anonymous henchman had a pair of brass ones, was just trying to do his job of capturing the lady, and for that brief moment of screen time, he almost got shit done. The movie suffered so much without him as a recurring character, and he was the only character I felt real sympathy for.

Visuals/Effects
Jerry Zucker. This is the same man who co-directed Airplane! Feel free to sigh as a tiny part of you dies. I don’t want to say that there’s nothing of merit here visually, because its generally very well shot. There are some great visual scenes, particularly the torch-lit nocturnal arrival at Camelot and the overhead shots of the Round Table, but the overall pacing of the movie is, well, glacial. Worse is the costuming. I’m willing to let a lot of ahistorical bullshit slide when it comes to movies, but this movie doesn’t even try. Crossbows?? Uniforms for KNIGHTS?? Half-plate armor?? Crossbows?? Everything in Camelot is BLUE? Everything for Malagant is BROWN? CROSSBOWS!? Any one of those elements might be forgivable. Hell, if it was a pure fantasy movie made for the Sci-Fi channel, set in a I-just-made-it-up-right-now kingdom called Terania, I’d be willing to let all of them slide, but this is a KING ARTHUR MOVIE. That kind of shit will NOT fly here at RMWC.

Action scenes. Yeah, there are some of those, but only two of note. The night battle outside of Lyonesse is actually sorta, kinda cool, but over really quickly. The final battle inside Camelot during the day, while a legitimate fight scene that’s given time and spotlight, just comes way, way to late into the movie for me to care. By the time the climactic fight scene came up, I was over at my movie shelf organizing things and scouting out films for later viewing, that’s how much this movie drew me in (hint: not a lot). By the end, I simply Did. Not. Care.

Writing
Lorne Cameron and David Hoselton wrote this movie, and I lay most of the blame squarely on them. The Lancelot/Guinevere dialog is just painfully bad, and that’s what most of the movie is. Character development is minimal at best and there are only like four characters that get any spotlight in a 134 minute movie. Arthur & Malagant get some interesting stuff, but neither get a lion’s share of screen time. Pacing is pretty terrible, and the ahistorical nature of the movie is laughably bad. I hate to say this, but the writing is so bad all around for this movie without any redeeming qualities. They don’t even use an oubliette right.

Sound
Oh, Jerry Goldsmith, this terrible movie does not deserve your awesome musical score. The soundtrack for this movie is entirely appropriate to Arthurian legend, with equal parts Epic and ADVENTURE! If you absolutely must subject yourself to this movie, do so only through the soundtrack, which actually kicks all kinds of ass.

Conclusion
When I first saw this movie in high school, I thought it was long and boring. When I gave it a chance recently with my “grown-up” sophistication, I thought it was long and boring and terribly written. Really, the writing is the ultimate bearer of guilt in this movie, with unlikable heroes, terrible dialog and terrible pacing. It fails as an action movie, and it fails as a Romance (both the magic & mystery kind from Medieval times featuring courtly love and the modern kissy-face kind), both of which are pillars of Arthurian cinema. There are really only two reasons for seeing this movie. First, you might be under duress. Second, you might be like me and willingly subject yourself to Arthurian films whether they be good or bad. Otherwise, AVOID THIS MOVIE. Gnaw your arm off if you have to! Divorce your wife of fifteen years and abandon your children to a step-dad named Otis if you have to! Convert to Scientology if you have to! Just don’t subject yourself to this film!

However, this is NOT the worst King Arthur movie I’ve ever seen, but that little turd will be saved for another soul-crushing time.

Geez, even the trailer's boring.

“…and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.”

And now, to pop the proverbial cherry of Arthurian films (Dragonheart was just foreplay) we come to the inimitable, indomitable, incorrigible Monty Python and the Holy Grail (or Mønti Pythøn ik den Høli Gräilen) from 1975.

Plot
Well, there’s this king in England in 932 AD, and he’s riding around the countryside, seeking knights for his court. When he finds them, the heavens open up and God tells him to look for the Holy Grail. The knights split up, have some ADVENTURES!, reconvene, have more ADVENTURES! and hilarity ensues for 91 or so minutes.

The plot is deceptively simple.

Characters

King Arthur: Graham Chapman is our Hero, King Arthur. He plays the character pretty straightforwardly, actually. He seeks the Holy Grail for the glory of god & country. Something like the only sane man in a mad world, and it works well. The only real quirk they give him is his constant confusing of the numbers three and five.

Patsy: Terry Gilliam (the silent Python) plays Arthur’s squire, baggage handler and cocoanut clapping “horse.” Always by Arthur’s side, the character has one line. (Which isn’t to say that Gilliam doesn’t do more stuff in the film: he’s also the Old Man from Scene 24)

Sir Bedevere: Terry Jones is Arthur’s first recruit, the scientifically inclined thinker with an impractical helmet, Bedevere. He also has difficulty saying “aghhh”

Sir Lancelot: John Cleese plays the homicidally brave Lancelot, who on his solo adventure, storms a castle and slaughters some wedding guests.

Sir Galahad: Michael Palin is the chaste Galahad and becomes imperiled by a castle full of virgins. Isn’t sure about his favorite color.

Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot: Eric Idle as the coward Robin, who carries a huge shield with a chicken on it and is followed by minstrels.

The Killer Rabbit: The film’s badass is a fluffy white stuffed animal that is also a merciless killing machine that kills several knights.

Now, there are loads of other characters in the film, most played by the Pythons themselves, and they’re all comedic, insane and only around for a scene or two each. Its not practical to go into them, but Cleese’s Tim the Enchanter, a wizard with a thick Scottish brogue stands out as exceptionally hammy. Also, Connie Booth & Carol Cleveland (veterans of Monty Python’s Flying Circus and Fawlty Towers) make brief appearances.

Visuals/Effects
Directed by Terries Jones & Gilliam, the film balances between a kind of gritty realism (armor is done fairly historically accurate with chain mail, tunics, etc. - Jones himself is a bit of a medievalist) and absurd visuals. The visuals themselves were done partially as a stylistic choice, but also heavily influenced by time and budget (they had precious little of either) and the cocoanuts instead of horses, Gilliam’s animations, and even the sudden ending of the movie are all iconic parts of the movie. Which isn’t to say that it looks bad. It’s a fine looking movie, but it also has that low budget, indie film feel.

Writing
All six Pythons wrote the script, as is their wont, and its very difficult going into how insane it all is. Told more or less episodically (they were a sketch comedy troupe) the form works here, since Arthurian legends themselves are generally episodic in nature. A lot of thought is given to even the most incidental characters, and the dialog is sharp enough to cut yourself with. There’s a reason why people can quote the movie from beginning to end.

Sound
The score was worked on by a number of people, and the “Holy Grail/Main Theme” is fantastically epic. The songs by the Pythons, well, the only full song is “Knights of the Round Table,” but the Pythons’ lyrics are as gloriously insane as their dialog.

Conclusion
Its rather difficult to write up this movie for people who’ve never seen it before. It is gloriously insane, brilliantly written, endlessly quotable and all that other stuff. The humor is very British, and some people are off-put by that. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is easily one of the best comedies out there, even if it has been quoted to death and turned into a musical.