There is really no need for me to go and re-hash the ways in which this movie did not line up with any accepted versions of the Arthurian legend, the way none of the movie was true to any historical period, or why it was miscast or why the actors did a lousy job. Plenty of other reviews can tell you those things, go ahead and scroll down.
What I would like to mention is that whether or not the above comments are justified, I don't see how anyone can ignore that the SCRIPT for this movie was appalling. Whether or not Richard Gere was a good choice, how COULD he do a good job with such terrible, Mills & Boon type lines??? The only question is, why did he sign the contract? Oh, for the money, right, I forgot. Same goes for Connery though it is less forgivable in my eyes that such an actor should do such a crap film for money only. Well who knows, maybe all Arthur's best scenes still lie on the cutting room floor.
Despite being an Arthur Devotee for the past 18 years and having read more versions of the story than I care to admit, I am quite willing to see the possibility that this movie could be enjoyed purely as a love triangle, and not as a version of the Arthurian legend. But, sorry, even this angle doesn't work, the script is still bad, the plot still has big holes. As far as I can see, the Zuckers (yes the whole family is involved, event the kids had bit parts, check the credits) simply thought, 'let's get some big hollywood names, a really famous legend, and make it look gorgeous, and we'll make a mint!!!' Well someone obviously blew the budget before the script was written.
Also, whether or not the details of the movie were period or not, is irrelevant - as others have pointed out, this is a LEGEND, it doesn't matter whether it is true to period. But what does annoy me personally is the cream marble everywhere at Camelot. Hello, we're in Britain here, not Venice!!!!!!! I can forgive the Disney-esque blue outfits on everyone. I can even forgive the leadlighted windows. It may be a legend, but it's a BRITISH legend, this is not Ben Hur or Quo Vadis! But hey, Zucker, you may have appropriated the characters and locations of a famous legend and put them to service in a money-spinning venture that totally betrays the original spirit, but don't feel you have to take EVERY opportunity to insult your audience.
Anyhow, bitching aside, it just doesn't matter which way I look at it. This wasn't a good movie. The only good thing I can find to say about it is that, Italy or Britain, the movie did look very pretty.
Just one last thing - PLEASE can someone make an Arthur movie with a decent script and actors? The Fiennes brothers could do Arthur and Lancelot, though they're not the only ones, Gwyneth Paltrow would do a regal Guinevere with the necessary intelligence and element of playfulness (which I think Cate Blanchett lacks - not that I'm hung up on having a blonde Guinevere), Pete Postlethwaite would make a great Merlin, Jonathon Rhys Meyers or Willem Dafoe for Mordred, Michelle Pfeiffer or even Uma Thurman for Morgana. I'm sure I've missed characters and people out - have to fit John Malkovich in there somewhere - but you get my drift.
What I would like to mention is that whether or not the above comments are justified, I don't see how anyone can ignore that the SCRIPT for this movie was appalling. Whether or not Richard Gere was a good choice, how COULD he do a good job with such terrible, Mills & Boon type lines??? The only question is, why did he sign the contract? Oh, for the money, right, I forgot. Same goes for Connery though it is less forgivable in my eyes that such an actor should do such a crap film for money only. Well who knows, maybe all Arthur's best scenes still lie on the cutting room floor.
Despite being an Arthur Devotee for the past 18 years and having read more versions of the story than I care to admit, I am quite willing to see the possibility that this movie could be enjoyed purely as a love triangle, and not as a version of the Arthurian legend. But, sorry, even this angle doesn't work, the script is still bad, the plot still has big holes. As far as I can see, the Zuckers (yes the whole family is involved, event the kids had bit parts, check the credits) simply thought, 'let's get some big hollywood names, a really famous legend, and make it look gorgeous, and we'll make a mint!!!' Well someone obviously blew the budget before the script was written.
Also, whether or not the details of the movie were period or not, is irrelevant - as others have pointed out, this is a LEGEND, it doesn't matter whether it is true to period. But what does annoy me personally is the cream marble everywhere at Camelot. Hello, we're in Britain here, not Venice!!!!!!! I can forgive the Disney-esque blue outfits on everyone. I can even forgive the leadlighted windows. It may be a legend, but it's a BRITISH legend, this is not Ben Hur or Quo Vadis! But hey, Zucker, you may have appropriated the characters and locations of a famous legend and put them to service in a money-spinning venture that totally betrays the original spirit, but don't feel you have to take EVERY opportunity to insult your audience.
Anyhow, bitching aside, it just doesn't matter which way I look at it. This wasn't a good movie. The only good thing I can find to say about it is that, Italy or Britain, the movie did look very pretty.
Just one last thing - PLEASE can someone make an Arthur movie with a decent script and actors? The Fiennes brothers could do Arthur and Lancelot, though they're not the only ones, Gwyneth Paltrow would do a regal Guinevere with the necessary intelligence and element of playfulness (which I think Cate Blanchett lacks - not that I'm hung up on having a blonde Guinevere), Pete Postlethwaite would make a great Merlin, Jonathon Rhys Meyers or Willem Dafoe for Mordred, Michelle Pfeiffer or even Uma Thurman for Morgana. I'm sure I've missed characters and people out - have to fit John Malkovich in there somewhere - but you get my drift.