SPOILERS BELOW
World-Building: Shoddy-Decent
Characterization: Flat
Plot: Interesting Concept, but bad execution.
The premise of this story is to connect Arthurian legend to Roman history. It's been done much more movingly and convincingly in King Arthur (2004) - which I can't believe I haven't reviewed yet! Nevertheless this story tries to connect Roman History with Arthurian legend through the story of kid-emperor Romulus (who only lasts on the throne for one day!) and his teacher/tutor Ambrosius aka Merlin (who resembles Gandalf).
This probably would have worked fine if they had focused more on Ambrosius' motivations and given him a more assertive role in pushing for the kid going to Britain. If he had pressured more, if they had convinced us that he really wanted them to go there so they could free his home from Vortygn, it might have worked. Instead the characters are just moving around almost aimlessly with the sole purpose of saving the kid. It just doesn't work. Especially since they didn't convince us that the kid has any special talents or qualities that we'd want in an emperor. I mean, he could potentially have been sent to live with some farmers and thus been hidden and quite safe. But no, they still want to see him as the Emperor and... actually I'm not even sure what they were planning to do. Go back to Rome and put him back on the throne? That seems laughable.
I won't even get started on the warrior-princess character, the stupid romance, and the lame and rushed ending where it turns out that the kid wasn't the supposed historical Arthur like I had assumed the whole time. No, he was his father. *headdesk*
Needless to say, if they had been planning to make a second movie I don't think it's ever going to happen.
Overall, it was a watchable movie, but there was little real emotion, little motivation for any character, and too many lame lines and stupid things for it to be taken seriously like it so desperately wants.
No comments:
Post a Comment