Wednesday, August 3, 2011

King Arthur rises again... with a whimper. Camelot Review


Camelot

Arthurian legends date back to more than a thousand years ago and its different incarnations have permeated popular culture for hundreds of years. Whether this be in book form, movie form or like Camelot, TV series. From parodies like the awesome Monty Python and the Holy Grail, to epics like Excalibur, and Disney movies like The Sword in the Stone, the silver screen has had a lot of adaptations of the Arthurian lore. Now, there is not one simple and cohesive Arthurian legend that you can draw on, there are different versions each with their own unique characters and plot points, but the most important characters are in all of them, King Arthur, the wizard Merlin, Arthur's wife Guinevere among others, are characters you see in every different Arthurian lore. As is Excalibur. The famed sword in the stone.

This particular show was made by Starz with a very interesting and talented cast. I have to admit that it does have the right look. The sets and the costumes and all of that was pretty well done as is most of the times when channels like Starz, HBO and Showtime do their thing. Actually, one of the creators (and writers), Michael Hirst, also worked on The Tudors and wrote both Elizabeth movies. So, he has a good eye for the sets and the costumes. He is also a pretty decent writer of this specific genre.

The characters were well cast for the most part (I'll get to the for the most part soon). Joseph Fiennes was an interesting Merlin. He doesn't have the classic wizard look and at times he almost looks evil, but it works. One of the most interesting things about the story is the use of magic. Using magic is a lot like using drugs. It consumes you. I think that was very clever. Philip Winchester and Clive Standen as Leontes and Gawain respectively were also very good. Gawain is a character of Arthurian lore but I don't remember Leontes from anywhere. Morgan was played by Eva Green who also did a fantastic job. There is something about her that has always made me think of every character she plays as sort of crazy. So that was good for Morgan. Green was also naked a lot of the time, so that is always a plus!

"I'm playing Guinevere, right? I just adore her!"

Probably my biggest problem with this show is the casting of King Arthur. Jamie Campbell Bower was a pretty damn terrible choice for Arthur. I just don't buy this guy as a leader. He doesn't inspire loyalty. I want to see someone that I would fight for and with. I wouldn't trust that kid with my life. I think they tried to make him young and cute like Jonathan Rhys Meyers in The Tudors but Meyers has the acting ability to pull it off. This guy doesn't.

Sadly, everything else gets dragged because one of the most important characters is just so terrible to watch. Its not helped much with the stunted dialogue and the terrible speeches. Also, how can they defend a realm with possibly six or seven knights total. Its ridiculous. I'm surprised Morgan and King Lot didn't just destroy the few people Arthur had behind him. It seems to me that Arthur's opposition are just stupid. They try making all these elaborate plans when a group of 50 battle hardened knights could have finished Camelot in a couple of hours.

Jamie Campbell Bower after taking off all his makeup.

Now that Guinevere is the focus, let's talk about this character. At first she appears to be a very self assured and strong female character and then she ends up losing all her power through the series and basically almost ruined Camelot because she had no self control (Arthur as well, we'll get there though). So a character that had so much promise ends up being just another stereotype for the weakness of the flesh. Also, isn't Guinevere supposed to be Arthur's wife and she is unfaithful to him with Lancelot and not the other around?

Changing of the lore notwithstanding, this series completely ruins Arthur for me. King Arthur is supposed to stand for something. He is supposed to be above all this petty 'I love her' bull crap. He embodies honor and by his actions he attracts the loyalty of his subjects. This guy we get here is just so bland and uninspired basically betrayed one of his most loyal knights. This Arthur doesn't get close to the other Arthur. Sure, he is young and brash and stupid, but to me that's all there is. It doesn't seem like there is a future for him.

Even though I hated Arthur and his relationship with Guinevere, I think this is an enjoyable series to watch if you are bored. There's nothing too deep here and it does have some interesting ideas when it comes to magic and all of that. After watching the series, I learned that it has already been cancelled and I have to say I'm not surprised.

5 out of 10

3 comments:

  1. Frankly, I think Jamie Campbell Bower would have made a better Guinevere than Arthur.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, if you change the story so that Arthur is the one who cheats, where's the tragedy? He's not betrayed. He brings Camelot down himself. How are we supposed to feel sorry for him?

    Stupid!

    That said, I kind of enjoyed this show. I would have enjoyed watching Fiennes and Green and James Purefoy (killed way, way too soon - what was the point of his character?) romp around the set if the show hadn't been written by morons.

    Also, Bower was blond and looked like a princess. This is a Celtic Briton warlord???

    He looks like a Saxon catamite.

    Okay, rant over.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with you. The show is watchable, but they doomed it when they cast Jamie Campbell Bower...

    BTW, thanks for commenting. It's appreciated.

    ReplyDelete