01:35 

Лучшая рецензия на Камелот, которую я читала:)

Tourmaline

I can't stand this version of Arthur. Sure I wondered like many reviewers whether the casting was appropriate, and it's probably not. However, it's not so much the acting that makes him bad, but the writing. I've always been under the impression that Arthur was meant to be the embodiment of chivalry. Obviously I was wrong. It seems that the legend that inspired the beliefs of an overwhelming number of European monarchs and noblemen over the last 1500 years or so was simply an utter tool. It makes you wonder what the various reformists and visionaries were aspiring too. Did Edward I think to himself "how could I possibly be a better king? Oh I know, I shall embody all the dickery of King Arthur and then everyone'll think I'm well good." Did Henry V decide "I know how to inspire my men before Agincourt, act like the once and future prick." I highly doubt it. Wasn't Arthur raised by Ector so he wasn't completely loathable once he ascended?

Sucky lead character aside there's still very little to take many positives from. The knights are more than underdeveloped. One of the great things about the Arthurian legend is that his knights have intriguing and profound stories of their own, enabling strong rounded characters. Not here though. All 5 of his knights (yeah that's right 5, he's running the whole of Britain with 5 men) may as well be turd stuffed marionettes. There's more depth on Sesame Street. If you don't believe me you tube James Blunt's My Triangle. Comparatively it's touching and emotionally fulfilling. Plus, who the hell is Leontes? They just made him up. Really, they weren't able to pick any other name associated with the knights of the round table? And who's Ulfius? He couldn't be more of a stereotype token. He has about one line in the whole season only to be killed. If they had to fill an employment quota regarding ethnic minorities there are about three Arabian knights associated with the Arthurian legend.

Obviously there are conflicting sources so I expected liberties to be taken with the story line. The problem is they've over done it. Certain story elements need to stay canonical, but they've been completely changed. By doing this it makes the story no more about the Arthurian legend than Arthur 2: On the Rocks. Otherwise just make it a sword and sorcery show that's influenced by source material. And if the shows makers claim it's their version of what is essentially a made up story, then I say their version's rubbish. It looks and feels like a children's programme, only with boobs.

Which is really the shows only saving grace, boobs, boobs and more boobs. Tons of them, swinging boobs, pert boobs, groped boobs, big boobs, little boobs, medium boobs and the occasional muff. Actually it's totally possible to play Where's Wally when it comes to lady pubes. They're not in every episode, but if you spot them in amongst the lallies it feels like you deserve a prize.

Well, I've given it 4 stars as I managed to watch every episode and I'm not saying don't watch it. I'm a sucker for sub-par programming, and to an extent it did entertain me. Ultimately it was a strange emotional ride, I detested a great deal, but Eva Green nude simply polished over the cracks.

(c) Matt Jones

URL
Комментирование для вас недоступно.
Для того, чтобы получить возможность комментировать, авторизуйтесь:
 
РегистрацияЗабыли пароль?

Sentimental circus

главная