Nitwits
Robin Rowland takes movie critics to task for getting their shorts in a wad about the historical inaccuracies in King Arthur because it would appear that the director and screenwriter actually did do their homework. I've already decided that I shall see it, although I did say that about Troy too and I have yet to make it to the movie theatre. Anyway, I'm going to see King Arthur not for the historical accuracy, the logic, or the "artfulness" of it, but for the following reasons: 1. Clive Owen - hot, 2. Ioan Gruffud - hot, 3. Keira Knightley - hot, 4. Stellan Skarsgard - cool, and 5. Eisenstein reference that doesn't involve a baby carriage. -Zh.
2 Comments:
Egads! Hot as he may be, I just can't see Clive Owen as King Arthur. Ditto Keira Knightley (plus, she can't really "act"). I'm bypassing this movie for Shrek 2.
Mwah!
Ratch
I'm not going for the acting. I'm going for the eye candy, because I'm a sucker for historical crap like this, and I'd like to see how the director reshapes the legend. I read somewhere that it's a post-colonial reading of King Arthur. While I wouldn't go that far, it's always interesting to see which contemporary sensibilities influence interpretations of older texts. Next point, I can't really defend Kiera Knightley's acting, but in defence of Clive, I think that he'll make a fine Arthur. He's got the gravitas. I'll wait for Shrek 2 to come out on DVD.
Post a Comment
<< Home