La Leyenda Del Caballero Verde

Despite one of the biggest divides in critical reception (critical acclaim) and audience reactions (much more polarising, with a large amount of strong dislike) of any film seen by me, 'The Green Knight' was still seen anyway on high recommendation from my sister. Also like Dev Patel, with him coming on a long way as an actor, and have liked David Lowery's other work. Especially 'The Old Man and the Gun'. The subject did fascinate me a good deal and have no problem with symbolism or slow pacing, have even in the past defended films with heavy symbolism and/or slow pacing.

Somehow though, 'The Green Knight' was one of those difficult to rate and review films. Really wanted to like it, with how much it had going for it and how highly recommended it was, but it was wildly uneven. There are good things, and those good things are actually quite outstanding. There are also bad things, and a few of the bad things are worse than bad. Actually saw 'The Green Knight' last year, but it has taken a while for me to think over and adequately sum up what my thoughts were.

'The Green Knight' does have good things. Cannot fault the acting, with Patel giving perhaps his best performance to date in full command of a strongly written role. Alicia Vikander is suitably enigmatic and 'The Borgias' Sean Harris makes the most of his short screen time. Did think that it started off great, very thought provoking and with a very haunting, creepy mood. The Green Knight is pretty frightening.

Also cannot fault the production values, which are quite wonderful. Very handsome and atmospheric scenery enhanced by the vibrant yet also moody photography. The effects work shows a lot of professionalism and care. The music has a haunting ominous vibe and had no problem with how it was placed, also felt that it suited the tone of the story and didn't come over as too heavy.

On the other hand, the story felt dully paced and over-extended, starting off with great promise but meanders about a lot in the second half. If you read any synopsis that indicates that a lot goes on, it didn't feel like it to me with a lot of scenes going on for too long, everything that happens post the battlefield sequence (which was well done) to the arrival at the Green Chapel feels like forever. Lowery directs with ambition but sometimes it was very more style than substance and show offy.

Furthermore, the symbolism is very heavy handed and not easy to get the head round. Especially in the final act. Some interesting themes here, not dug into deeply or insightfully enough. The whole ending also felt confusing and it feels rather abrupt as well. Too much of the script is too rambling and there is not much fresh or insightful about it.

In conclusion, very difficult to rate and review. 5/10.

The Green Knight came highly recommended. I went in wanting to love it, but left disappointed. The cinematography and visual execution in the film are outstanding (with the exception of the weakly CGI'd fox). The movie drops the viewer into a fully realized medieval fantasy, complete with talking creatures, witchcraft, a ghost, and even a traveling crew of giants in a segment that made little sense. It's fortunate that the scenes are so dazzling, because you'll be staring at them a while. The movie trudges along for over two hours.

For plot, the Green Knight tells the story of Sir Gawain, King Arthur's unaccomplished nephew who appears to spend much of his time drinking or fraternizing with a prostitute he fancies but is unwilling to progress the relationship any further beyond transactional. On Christmas, at the King's feast, the eponymous Green Knight appears, a creature with a human shape but made of trees and plants. He proposes a game: anyone who strikes him will receive his powerful ax, but in one year, that individual must go to the Green Knight's home, an earthen chapel, and receive the same strike in return. Gawain beheads the Green Knight, achieving instant fame throughout the kingdom. As the following year slips away, Gawain then faces his obligations and sets off on the journey to meet the Green Knight.

It's a film that asks Big Questions, about the meaning of being human and facing one's death, about honor, duty, and chivalry, and even about love. After raising these issues early on, once Gawain begins his travels, the film then instead forefronts the slog of the journey. Maybe the unpleasantness of duty is part of the point, but it's not enjoyable viewing either. Several of the stops along the way seem nothing more than pretty, pretentious asides - dreamlike aspects of the film's world that they just couldn't cut during editing - rather than necessary portions of plot. The movie was stuffed with these aspects and overlong as a result, resulting in a viewing experience that felt tedious by the time the credits rolled.

I really wanted to like this film, but other than the obvious care towards its execution, everything else is basically slow, pretentious, referencing stuff important to the writer/director and metaphorical. This is one of those movies that you have to research after watching it, trying to understand what it wanted to say. In short: a boy's rite of passage to becoming a man by facing his own death... stretched to more than two hours.

It certainly helps to know the 14th century poem the film is based on, its various interpretations and associated folklore, including the French versions. Not ready to do that? Well, you're out of luck! Because the film is purposely vague, explaining nothing, making no sense and adding stuff from poems from the same era as filler. In short: Gawain was this noble and kind knight, unless you read the French versions where he was a total dick or the later rewrites which feature Lancelot as the top good guy.

The film is slow, methodical, making you want to watch it at 1.5x speed, only you can't because you need to see every detail and divine its meaning. For example: King Arthur's coat has these little metal badges on it, which are references to previous projects of the writer/director and of other people in the team. What? You didn't get that while Arthur is walking around in a dark room and scenes are interspersed with scenes of Morgana Le Fay doing pagan magic? Well, I can't understand how, because the writer/director spent more than a year perfecting the scene until it was just right! And yes, I am sarcastic.

The only reason why I rated this so high is because the sets were nice and the actors did great work. However, this is one of those obscure works that carry meaning only to the creator and can't possibly bring any joy at the first viewing. Do I care about old British folk lore and how the writer/director wanted to tell the story so I would research all of this and then rewatch the film so I can revel in the details? Hell, no!

Told in the spirit of watching paint dry, waiting for water to boil, or watching golf...this an insanely boring telling of what should have been a great story.

It's a good film, but modern filmmakers seem a little too obsessed with deconstructing characters and de-romanticising the hero's journey, and it's starting to become a cliche that is overplayed and almost insulting to the audience. The filmmakers seem to think that by making all the protagonists anti-heroes who are not as heroic as we think that it's intelligent storytelling, but it really isn't.

I find myself regularly asking, "Where have all the good guys gone?" and "why isn't there romance in films anymore?"

Is it a little too much to ask for a righteous protagonist and a little love in films?

The modern landscape of cynical filmmaking that creates nihilistic stories has become very tedious.