freakezette

This movie has all the makings of a pretty typical family affair. It draws a bit on the "Modern Medevial" setting that Shrek created (there are malls and teen magazines and such) But the only thing that saved this movie from being totally cheesy and predictable is the cast lead by the Impossibly charming Anne Hathaway.

Mandy Moore, Hilary Duff and Lindsey Lohan's boobs may rule the young actress scene, but I'd be hard pressed to think of a young actress with more potential than Anne Hathaway. She hasn't been in anything great yet (only other major roles are in the short lived fox series "Get Real" and Disney's "Princess Diaries') but at the same time she's pretty much made everything she's been in worth watching. She's a pitch perfect Ella, and there's a certain warmness about her that make you care about her characters.

Prince Char (not short for charming, surprisingly) could have probably been played by any young actor, but the casting crew did good with adorable British actor Hugh Dancy. Hugh, who unfortunately had nothing to do in his other 2004 release, King Arthur, shines as the apathetic prince who grows a bit of a heart. Since this is a fairy-tale, you know there's love, and Anne and Hugh have fantastic on-screen chemistry.

The supporting cast is great, though I wish they gave Ella's friend (played by Parminder Nagra) a bigger part. The special effects aren't the best, but the films going more for fantasy than reality, so the effects work fine. With it's lightheartedness and strong female lead, this is a good movie to watch with any young girl.

Jerry Bruckheimer's yearly contribution to the annual `Low on Plot High on Style' Movie Fair that is the Summer Blockbuster Season is `Kind Arthur,' whose tag line is `The Untold true story that inspired the legend.' I guess when a movie claims to be telling the `true story' of a man that historians can't even agree ever existed, I get suspicious. And when this movie that claims to be telling the `true story' features current `it-girl' Keira Knightly wearing a belt for a top (and a cinched up belt at that), I determine that this movie is based on about as much fact as a grocery store tabloid. And I'm talking about those `Woman marries Werewolf and has a Bat Boy' tabloids too.

The `true story' claim is really just code for `no magic, no singing, just lots of dirty guys.' Arthur (Clive Owen), a general for the rapidly declining Roman Empire, and a group of knights protect one of the farthest and most vulnerable Roman posts. At the end of their tenure, a snarky Roman Bishop sends Arthur and the handful of remaining Knights on one last suicidal mission to retrieve a Roman family living living in hostile territory on the brink of being invaded by the Saxons (why they're living so far into non-Roman territory is a mystery to all). At the Roman estate, Arthur is determined to saved a few dozen villagers from the Saxons in addition to the Roman Family (he also rescues Guinevere who was in a dungeon being punished for her pagan ways). Arthur, though he had a Briton mother, considers himself a Roman above all and is eager to return to Rome. But, after learning his beloved Rome is on the brink of being sacked and Guinevere uses a little gentle persuasion, Arthur begins to care about the Britons he once fought.

Question: What would the story of Arthur be like without the Sword in the Stone or the Lady in the Lake? If Merlin was a rebel Briton leader rather than a wizard and Arthur's mentor? If Lancelot and Guinevere weren't lovers, and if Arthur's illegitimate child Mordred never came to crash the party? Answer: A big, gloomy movie that often feels like little more than a wannabe "Gladiator" and "Braveheart." "King Arthur" is one of those frustrating movies that had the potential to be good, but thanks to some missteps and mistakes only ranks as average. Some of the missteps are small, for example, Guinevere's little war outfit that just makes me giggle, or how her fingers were mangled in the dungeon she was kept in but Arthur resets them and by the next day she's shooting an arrow with deadly accuracy. "I see your hand is better," Lancelot quips. Glad to see someone in the movie itself found it ridiculous too.

My biggest grip with the movie is the way they handled Lancelot, well, I should really complain about all the knights since they were all cardboard cutouts at best. I figured since they went to trouble of starting the movie with a clip of Lancelot as a child that he would be a larger factor in the movie. But as an adult (played by Ioan Gruffudd, who I'd cheat on Arthur with any day) his role is relegated to some one-liners and a couple bitch-sessions with Arthur about how to much he doesn't want to do whatever. In what is probably the worst move in the movie, the love triangle between Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot is completely absent. Lancelot and Guinevere's relationship consists of Lancelot staring at her a lot, and it's hard to tell if he wants her, or if he's angry at her for taking Arthur affection. Now it's not because I was eager to see some Ioan/Keira make-out sessions, it's just Guinevere's betrayal has always been a core part of the Arthur legend, how when things seemed so perfect, Arthur's wife and best friend betray him and ultimately bring down Camelot.

With it already falling to 6th place at the box office in it's second week of release, King Arthur will likely go down as the big flop of the Summer of 2004. It's sometimes hard to figure out why some movies flop while other similar movies (Troy and Van Helsing, neither a box office smash but at least reached the $100 million level that King Arthur will never reach) enjoy moderate, and even great, success. "King Arthur's" problem is that the makers were so eager to demystify the legend that they stripped away all of the elements that made it a legend. All that's left are some uninspired battle scenes, a few mundane speeches about being born free, and footage of Keira in that outfit that talk-shows hosts will probably tease her about for the rest of her career.

I really love the Harry Potter books (can't convert my friends, but that's alright) and have read all 5 of them, and the 3rd is far and away my favorite. I mean, they're all great, but for me the third just falls together so perfectly, it felt a little like a reward for reading the first two books. And now I feel the same way about "Prisoner of Azkaban," it's like a reward for sitting through the first two movies.

Don't get me wrong, Chris Columbus did a fantastic job with the first two. Much like Harry himself, I watched in awe as he wandered around Hogwarts, every little detail was perfect. But while I really liked it, my friend who hadn't read the book fell asleep. Same with the second, I stared in awe, my friend kept asking when it was over.

I was more than skeptical that the director of the sex-romp, Y Tu Mama Tambien, was directing my beloved Harry, but now I kind of wish he would direct them from here on out. Harry was finally able to break out of the idealized little boy, worshipped by 10 year old around the world, who kind of beat the bad guys out of dumb luck in the first two movies and became more real. He's hotheaded sometimes, but also very insecure about who he is and where he came from, and really faces his fears.

This movie is only 10 minutes shorter than the first, and 20 shorted than the second, but it felt like it was 45 minutes shorter. The pace really picked up (by getting rid of some of the pomp and circumstance the first two sometimes focused on) the tone is darker, and even though I knew what happened I was still very excited. And my friend (same friend) only asked if it was almost over once, and there was only 10 minutes left.

As much as I liked the first two movies, it's nice to see a Harry Potter movie get over itself and not play like the longest kids ad ever. ***1/2 out of ****