Change Your Image
jrchaff
Reviews
The Objective (2008)
Much Ado about Nothing
Movie is a disappointment, sort of like Stargate: Starts good, ultimately a big letdown - no real insight or resolution - just the confusion of a director not really sure where his own plot is going. In Stargate, the letdown was the arrival at a typical cartoon ending for a cartoon generation. The letdown happens because, as with 'Objective', the movie starts strong and engages the watcher(s), especially those with no knowledge of astrophysics (Stargate), or of real military operations and real military SF folks, or normal adult behavior under stress, for that matter (Objective).
The so-called 'military adviser' to the movie producers (his military qualifications apparently restricted to a bald haircut simulating some tough-guy) has quite obviously never been in a military organization - certainly not Special Forces. The extreme letdown begins soon in the movie, with the SF team nearly all acting out the temper tantrums and continual foul-language of teenagers. This is not real, folks. The real SF people are far more mature, far less ruled by such childish rebellion. As are the vast majority of military troops - especially those with any real combat experience. The viewpoints expressed, rapid-fire and with no attempt at cool analysis, are those of street goofs having a shouting match about drugs, not real soldiers in the zone.
In contrast to some above comments, I have to say that the 'acting' here was atrocious, the military 'adviser' was completely uninformed, and the attempt at 'mystery' was about as challenging as a 3rd grade reader. Today's youngsters in the military - those that pay attention - should recognize this as a kiddie story, poorly acted, poorly advised, poorly directed, and poorly presented. I changed my vote from 3 to 1. It's not some 'fresh idea' people; it's just a low-budget loser.
But of course, this kind of arrogant mischaracterization of the U.S. military is about all Hollywood really knows how to do. Most of the playwrights, directors, and actors are clueless about the military or its real people - and about America and its history - as certainly shows in this movie. Oh, did I mention the complete lack of individual and small-unit tactical skills by these overgrown spoiled children/characters pretending (badly) to be 'soldiers' ?
From there on, the movie goes on a downward spiral of unexplained nonsense, with little or no real explanations - just the mental gyrations of a plot with no direction, and no real conclusion.
A frustrating experience - I would avoid it unless your mental appreciation for reality is sadly lacking or nonexistent - which unfortunately describes most of today's 'moviegoers'.
King Arthur (2004)
A Great Movie - Get the DVD !
This is a truly great motion picture.
There appear to be many inaccurate and misleading negative comments about this movie. When it first came out, the harshly negative reviews and the 'dark' preview caused me to miss one of the best movies in 50 years. I don't want to be too hard on critics, but for the benefit of others who may want an informed opinion on the 2004 motion picture, "King Arthur", I recommend you buy the DVD if interested in possible historical origins of the Arthur myths.
For a critic to simply say the movie is 'non-historical' is well off the mark, and in fact not true at all. For beginners, one might refer to Linda Malcor's excellently researched and fully documented articles; one is online at,
http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2lac.htm
and her book, coauthored with Littleton, "From Scythia to Camelot". Sadly for those who would prefer some mythical - yet no doubt 'British' origin of Arthur - it appears almost certain now that he was in fact a Roman army officer. There are stone-carvings with the name 'Artorius' in his honor; there appears to be no trace of any English or Celtic root for the name, Arthur, contrary to the desires of many English medieval kings (and their public) who wished such a lineage.
There are, in the movie, a number of deliberate departures from known (or probable) history; for one, the Saxons would be hardly likely to land north of the wall, knowing of its existence as they do in the film, then having to face it later. But it is easy to see that these are nothing more than 'dramatic license', which add to the storytelling, and do no damage at all to the main point of the movie - Arthur as the Roman, and the knight stories as transfers of Sarmatian myths. In fact, this is far and away the most realistic movie - or story - yet made about Arthur. The medieval tales, and the comic books, are clearly all myths.
Some argue that it would have 'made no sense' for the Romans to move captive soldiers from one end of the empire to the other, to provide local defense. In actuality, this was a rather common practice of Rome's, see for example Goldsworthy, "Roman Warfare", 1999, Cassell, Great Britain. And in point of fact, approx. 5500 Sarmatian cavalry were transferred to Britain, many to service on Hadrian's Wall, after their defeat by Marcus Aurelius in the 2nd century A.D. It seems probable, following Malcor and Littleton's research (among others, beginning in 1925), that the commander of these Sarmatians was a certain Roman officer named L. Artorius Castus.
That is why this movie is such a grabber - it may not portray every event, or even most events, accurately; it may not get every sequence correct; but it goes a long, long way to capturing the essence of what many now believe about Arthurian history. I submit that is all a movie can do in 2 hours - and most fall miserably far short of the standard set here. Of course some myth- lovers are defiant: they have lost their stock in trade - the discussion of Arthur in mythological context only. The story is real, and bears only a little resemblance to the myths; in fact, it is a better story than the myths, and more exciting, as fact almost always is. The music and acting are superb, and sent shivers down my spine. It makes 'Camelot' (1960's), 'First Knight', 'Excalibur', etc look like the fairy tales they are.
Though I am a Christian, it is good to see an accurate portrayal of the early Church. Such extreme treatment of pagans - and heretics - was not unusual, and the Church was at times synonymous with the Roman State. I believe that was why the artifice of Pelagius' presence was used - it forms a central part of the development of Arthur's character. And in fact, Germanius did actually go to Britain - to preach against the Pelagian Heresy - that too appears to be well documented. Again, it sets the tone.
A suggestion - the movie happens fast. It really does not become clear in a single watching. Those confused might try a 2nd or even 3rd viewing. The DVD is better by far than the theater version. The CD music is haunting and beautiful.
jrc