Avalon

Avalon opens with several beautiful women coming before Morgana Le Fey and reporting the events in the lands. It seems that Morgana is on the verge of conquering the world.

Elsewhere, druids prepare to sacrifice Clotilde the Virgin and chop off the hands of Kieran the would-be thief. Owen, a wandering knight, comes upon the scene, dismounts, ties his horse to a tree, and we never see that horse again. Sneaking into the druid's grove, he frees Kieran, who suggests they leave Clotilde to her fate. Owen instead insists that he will fight the druids while Kieran saves (reluctantly) the virgin sacrifice. Despite overwhelming odds and bad fight choreography, the trio escape into the forest and soon come to a beach. Now free of pursuit, the three get to know one another.

Owen is out to win glory by achieving great deeds. He wants to go to the isle of Avalon where Morgana rules and test his mettle there. Clotilde is searching for her lost love, Edwin, a glory-seeker like Owen, who went to Avalon and never returned. Kieran wants gold.

No sooner have they laid bare their souls than an old man - worst makeup ever (it's like a paper Mache mask) - accosts them. It is Merlin! He offers to help them get to Avalon. He casts a spell and suddenly he is a young version of himself. "Come, let us swim to Avalon." Though they see no land in the endless sea before them, Merlin assures them it is only an illusion and the swim is not that far.

Acting like Gandalf in the Hobbit, Merlin departs immediately after depositing the three on the island shore. "I must see the Lady of the Lake. I'll be back," he assures them. The heroes suffer a series of adventures - golden apples, a sucking swamp, a friendly monster with oozing green skin, and a horde of zombies who carry off Clotilde - before they come across Morgana's lair. The beautiful women of the opening sequence convince Owen and Kieran to join the gladiatorial competition of the next day.

Meanwhile, Merlin gets it on with the Lady of the Lake so that she will give him Excalibur. Further, she demands that after he defeats Morgana, he must return to her forever. He accepts and returns to Avalon where he demonstrates the awesomeness of Excalibur. He need merely point it at an opponent to disintegrate them (special effects courtesy of Star Trek phaser, circa 1966). Rather than give Morgana the same treatment, Merlin accepts a room for the night where he is almost immediately seduced by an illusion of Morgana. Sigh.

The epic conclusion has Owen prying open the tomb of King Arthur and placing Excalibur in his hands. This causes the island to detonate and destroys Morgana's power. Luckily, Owen was blown clear and was able to swim back to the mainland where he is reunited with Kieran. Merlin, once again old, returns to the Lady of the Lake. Clotilde embraces the rescued Edwin.

The filming is low quality and has some odd choices. For some reason, the cinematographer really liked filming from the ground, so we are often staring up the actors' nostrils. The fights, though plentiful, are pretty bad. Kieran is mostly useless so Owen somehow fights everything and Clotilde screams. It was pretty funny that Owen and Clotilde kept seeming like they were about to get it on when something would interrupt them; you naturally expect them to get together by the end but, nope, Edwin is discovered and rescued. It seems Owen was saved from his peril.

The most peculiar fight was when our heroes meet two of Morgana's eunuchs in battle. Each eunuch polymorphs into his opponent, so that Kieran is faced by another Kieran and Owen another Owen. Okay, that's pretty standard magic and a common plot device. But when they switch who they fight, I was incredulous. If Kieran fights Owen, he might be fighting the REAL Owen. I was waiting to see the fakes laugh uproariously as Kieran and Owen beat on each other but the director didn't seem to realize that could happen. On those few occasions when they fought their doppelganger, the special effects were horrendous, unbelievably bad for 1989. Doubtless, that is why they chose to fight the other person's double.

The movie has its moments. That Kieran is constantly thwarted in his quest for wealth is amusing. The golden apples become ordinary. The druid's treasure must be abandoned if he is to escape their wrath. Owen tosses away the gold wreath that Kieran had pillaged from one of the zombies. In the end, he is no wealthier than when he started. Also, most of the women get half-naked. Morgana prances around in a golden bikini.

Though available on YouTube, I don't recommend seeing it.

The Book of Beasts

Yet another SyFy movie, this one played in May 2009. 

 

A dark wizard with a mystical book is ravaging the lands, summoning mythic beasts thought long dead. In the wake of the fall of Camelot, four knights set out to find the long missing Merlin. They are led by the elder Galahad. There are two young men who chatter constantly and a helmed knight who seems mute. The helmed one is obviously a woman though the viewer is expected to be surprised when she is finally unmasked. Oh! Gee, didn't see that coming. Worse, she leaves her helm on the forest floor and never again dons any headgear. That aside, our unmasked heroine is Avlynn Pendragon, daughter of Arthur and Guinevere. She has been raised by Galahad and only recently informed of her noble parentage. Avlynn manages to convince Merlin (James Callis) to join her band (now that she has been unhelmed, she leads the party) in an effort to recover the Book of Beasts.

The book is sort of like a Mirror of Life Trapping. Monsters have been entrapped by having their images drawn on the pages, thereby being sucked into the book. The dark wizard has learned to set the beasts free, do his bidding, and then return to the book. An interesting sort of summoning, well-suited to this campaign that is otherwise absent monsters.

The heroes decide to tackle the problem directly, riding for Camelot to steal the book from the dark wizard. They overcome a couple of monsters on the way, letting each character develop. Tristan is the best swordsman and prone to pointless commentary, Lysanor, son of Galahad, is in love with Avlynn and a trusting fellow, Galahad is the old veteran, Merlin is a crotchety grumbler with a dark disposition, and Avlynn is the token female. Sneaking into Camelot via underground tunnels (built in case of a siege so women and children could be evacuated but besiegers would never think to use them to get in; stupid) and Merlin goes to face the dark wizard. He is subdued by the dark wizard who turns out to be Mordred. Meanwhile, Avlynn is captured by gorgons and Mordred has grand plans of incest with his half-sister.

Our bumbling heroes escape thanks to Merlin driving off Mordred but getting killed in the process. With the book in hand, they flee Camelot before Mordred's lackeys can get them. The story tumbles along with the resurrection of Merlin, the recovery of Excalibur, a final confrontation with Mordred that leaves Galahad a statue (don't look at Medusa, you fool!), and Mordred trapped in the Book of Beasts. Merlin has lost his magic and now plans to live out his days as an ordinary mortal, content in the knowledge that Avlynn and Lysanor will live happily ever after.

The production is poor, the CGI is pretty sad, and the characters mostly stink. The actress playing Avlynn was 10 years too old for the role and it showed. With the exception of the opening scene where lots of extras are killed in Mordred's attack, the film is devoid of people. Mordred seems to rule a land that is peopled only with his monsters and his handful of lackey soldiers. Oddly, I did like Merlin. His gravelly voice, constant glowering, and moodiness reminded me of an old man telling kids to `get off my lawn.' This was funny since the man playing him is still in his thirties (5 years older than the actress playing Avlynn). Even so, he can't save this travesty.

 

At the time this was made, James Callis was best know for his role as the cowardly traitor in Battlestar Galactica, Doctor Gaius Baltar.

First Knight

I remember having had high hopes when I went to the theaters to see this one.  It offered a villain and storyline I did not know but which are part of the Arthurian Cycle.  As with Sword of the Valliant, I was working my way through Sean Connery films and so I saw this one again and offered a critique on October 28, 2007.

I recently saw this movie again. I had last seen it in the theater (1995) and was tremendously disappointed. Seeing it again, I find it isn't a bad movie. In fact, there is much to like about it. What ruined it for me is that this is a tale of King Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot. How can that ruin it?
The movie is loosely based on Lancelot, Knight of the Cart, a poem written by Chretien de Troyes in the 12th Century. De Troyes introduced Lancelot to the Arthurian Legend and was also the first to call Arthur's castle "Camelot." Prior to de Troyes, there is no mention of either in Arthurian literature. He based his poem on an older tale of Guinevere's capture by a fallen knight named Malagant. The movie takes liberties with the story but that is to be expected. So, there is a basis in Arthurian legend to tell this story. It is the execution that fails.

This tale is told without magic. There is no Lady of the Lake, no Merlin, no Morgan le Fey, no Mordred, no Holy Grail, and no Excalibur. Camelot has been purged of its fantastical elements. Will that leave us with a more `real' King Arthur? No, we have traded one set of fantasy for another. King Arthur was a figure from the Dark Ages and the one battle that is certain was that of Badon Hill around 500 AD. In 500, there were no cathedrals in England, the crossbow was centuries from being invented, no one spoke of `brigades' and `battalions,' windmills had not yet come to England, stirrups did not exist, roofs were made of thatch (perhaps by one of Margaret Thatcher's distant ancestors), stone walls hadn't been built since the departure of the Romans, Britons did not practice the `Viking Burial,' and on and on. This is a 5th or 6th century story that has somehow found itself in the 14th century. So the movie fails because it uses Lancelot, Guinevere, King Arthur, and Camelot. If it had been Anselm the Swordsman, Lady Angela, King Rurik the Wise, and the shining city of Selidor, this film would have been greatly improved. But using Arthur sets certain requirements, especially if you are dispensing with the magical elements.

The other great failing was the death of Arthur. One wonders how Malagant managed to sneak his entire army inside the walls of Camelot without any of Arthur's knights noticing. Even if you leave the gate open, you'd think someone would notice when black-armored soldiers arrived in large numbers. Upon his deathbed, Arthur hands his kingdom and his widow to Lancelot. This is a man who only an hour before was on trial for his life at Arthur's behest. Strange that the other Knights of the Round Table accept this succession so readily.

 

I did not like Sean Connery as King Arthur, which is strange since I usually like Connery in everything.  He comes off as a kindly, old idealist who is suddenly beset by a jealous rage that he rationalizes as justice.  He is a weak character, which should not be said of Arthur.  Richard Gere's Lancelot is a rogue who happens to be the world's greatest swordsman.  I haven't read Troyes but somehow this seemed all wrong for Lancelot.  This was the second of Julia Ormond's hat trick of big movies (Legends of the Fall, First Knight, and Sabrina).  She looked to be headed to stardom and then vanished.

King Arthur

Here is the previously mentioned movie review, originally posted August 2, 2004.

 

Foolishly, I saw King Arthur today and, as a member of this group, you shall suffer my rant.

I heard several good reviews for this movie so I dared to see it. Unfortunately, the reviewers knew nothing of history and could thus be fooled by this drivel. How is it that boys from southern Russia have Celtic or French names (i.e. Tristan and Lancelot)? Why are Saxons landing in Scotland? Why is it snowing and icy in one place but a day's ride away, the trees are still covered in leaves and the land is green with grass? Obviously, the makers of the film didn't know that Roman cavalry didn't have stirrups. How is it that Arthur claims to have met Pelagius when the man has been dead for nearly 50 years? Why are Romans recruiting boys from Sarmatia when the Goths swept away the Sarmatians centuries ago? Better still, the story starts in 452, while Attila the Hun is pillaging Gaul but somehow some Romans have time to collect boys from Sarmatia so they can send them to Britain (BTW, Rome abandoned Britain in 410). How is it that Saxons have crossbows several centuries before they are invented? If the Woads are SO dangerous north of Hadrian's Wall, why the hell are these important Romans living there? Guinevere, Warrior Princess: enough said on that topic. How is it that these otherwise primitive and tattooed Woads are using something like a trebuchet to fling fire at the Saxons? How is it that 6 knights prove decisive in a battle against hundreds of Saxons? Don't these Saxons know how to fight cavalry? There are tactics for defeating cavalry but these fellows don't know about them. I guess they had never seen a horse before. So the entirety of Arthur's command is 6 knights, the rest having died over the long years? Basically, this movie was horrendously bad, more so because it claimed to be the 'historical Arthur.'

I am something of a stickler for history so this truly irked me. I find that those less familiar with history enjoyed this and other historically inaccurate films (e.g. Gladiator). However, you have been warned.

 

The cast was impressive, including Clive Owen (Arthur), Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot), Mads Mikkelsen (Tristan), Joel Edgerton (Gawain), Keira Knightley (Guinevere), and Stellan Skarsgard as the Saxon leader, Cerdic.  Also, the movie does dispense with the chrome armor of Excalibur (1981) and leans correctly toward Roman armor.  Of note, this was Antoine Fuqua's first sally into historical films.  His latest film, The Magnificent Seven, shows that he is still unsuited for films in a non-current setting.

 

Mindless popcorn fun?  Sure.  True story of King Arthur?  Absolutely not!