Countless less-than-complimentary reviews during the past week did not deter me from heading out to see this film today, opening day (which is unusual for me). I figured that at worst it would be a couple of hours of eye candy (and eye candy there was - nary a bad looking bloke at the round table).
Happily, there was far more going for the movie than the eye candy on show, in my opinion at least. Numerous reviews had commented that the movie was a bore, but I didn't find that the case at all. I actually wished it had been longer - the story could have used some padding, likewise character development. For the most part I couldn't fault the acting (although Clive Owen as Arthur seemed a tad deadpan in his line delivery at times) - even Keira Knightley didn't bug me as she has in other films. I very much enjoyed the jovial camaraderie between the knights, and Bors in particular is a source of light amusement. The cinematography is stunning, and the action set-pieces are impressive enough, though strangely bloodless. Now, I'm a bit of a sensitive gal when it comes to bloody battlescenes, but the almost complete lack of blood in the film (apart from the stuff smeared across the length of Arthur's sword!) was a bit odd. Apparently there was some serious editing to get this film a PG13 rating in the States, hence the lack of blood, but the DVD may change this and gorify (did I just invent a word?) the battlescenes. So I've heard anyway.
I will admit this film won't appeal to all, especially those misguided souls who've gone into this expecting many of the elements of the legend. Some of them are there, to be sure, but even those elements generally get only a passing mention.
If you like your battlescenes bloodless and your humour of the blokey "boys club" style, you can't go wrong with this one.
-----
feeling:
groovin' to: "Lucky You" - lostprophets
last movie viewing: "King Arthur" [cinema]
While looking at a recent photograph of myself I was alarmed to discover that my hand took on a rather claw-like appearance. The reason I found this so alarming was that I have long considered my hands one of my most cherished and best physical features. I've been a pianist since age 5, and consequently have (what I had considered to be) long, elegant, piano-playing fingers.
Jason Isaacs is just wonderful in the dual roles of Captain Hook and Mr Darling, and the DVD includes a positively hilarious section of deleted sequences featuring Mr Darling (quite literally) in the dog house! Jeremy Sumpter is at times an inspired Pan, at worst he is adequate. The other child actors/actresses are all a joy to behold. I did find myself thinking that Harry Newell (who played John Darling - see pic) would have made a decent Harry Potter (appearance-wise) - had Dan Radcliffe not been discovered. :-)
First up was Ioan Gruffudd, who was there to promote the upcoming 
Moving on to James Marsters, I can't much recall what he spoke about, as I spent the duration of his interview being amused by his somewhat manic demeanor. Apparently he was nervous, but I'm wondering if it was a nicotine patch high. I don't know much about such things, but I do believe the recommended number of patches to apply at any one time is one - Marsters had two. He did share some potentially exciting news for we Buffy and Angel fans (currently mourning the end of both shows) by admitting that he has signed on for a "Spike" telemovie. Apparently this is contingent on other cast members agreeing to a series of four telemovies, focusing on individual characters.
