mnemosyne23

At first blush, "Lost" seems like an impossible concept: a bunch of people stranded on a mysterious island. How many story lines can you POSSIBLY take from that before the idea's been sapped completely dry?

It's a legitimate concern, but in the case of "Lost," totally unwarranted. "Lost," unlike many shows today where the plot drives the characters, is in fact the opposite: the characters drive the plot. This isn't "CSI" or "Law and Order," where each week is a variation on the same theme. On "Lost," you have a group of fascinatingly different, tragically flawed characters who must somehow learn to survive together, while at the same time trying to keep their secrets hidden. That's a method for disaster. After living together for a long time, the characters are going to find out it's impossible to keep their pasts a secret.

Yes, there's a monster on the island. Yes, there are mysterious happenings.

Yes, a sense of dread often hangs thick in the air. But to me, the exterior problems presented by the island itself are NOTHING compared to the INTERNAL problems the characters must face, both with themselves and with each other. That's where the REAL drama lies. And it's fascinating to watch.

If you go into "King Arthur" expecting grandiose language and billowy clothing, a la "Camelot," you will be very, VERY disappointed with this movie. If you go into this film expecting a gritty period piece, you may also be disappointed. If you go into this film with no preconceived notions and just let it unfold, you'll enjoy yourself. "King Arthur" is a good enough movie, certainly worth the price of a ticket (especially a matinée), despite a choppy plot and underdeveloped characters.

Setting the Arthurian legend against a historical backdrop, "King Arthur" portrays the legendary king as a brilliant, devoutly religious, utterly devoted Roman general. He is the commander of a squad of gifted Sarmatian knights, who are indentured servants of the Empire. As the movie starts, the knights are preparing to receive their walking papers from a Roman Catholic bishop, following fifteen years of required servitude. But before they're allowed to leave their service to the empire, they have to complete one more mission: rescue a boy from the wilds of northern Britain, in the lands north of Hadrian's Wall. Arthur and the knights know the trip is virtually a suicide mission, but if they don't go they will be considered deserters by the Roman legions, and will be hunted down and killed. Making things worse, the blood-thirsty Saxons have begun to invade Brittania - hence Rome's departure from the island country, and the reason for the entire mission.

Sounds pretty good, right? It would be, if they'd stuck to this plot. Instead, the filmmakers let themselves get distracted by too many themes (freedom, religion, destiny, heritage, etc), and lose the thread of what would have made this movie one of the year's best. Rather than focusing on the legend and weaving the elements of that legend into a tight plot - namely the rescue of the boy and the eventual climactic battle of Badon Hill - the story meanders from place to place, both thematically and contextually. There's no subtlety in the major themes of the movie: Romans are bad; Roman Catholicism (as it was practiced at the time) is bad; the wild life of the native Britons is good; Saxons are evil.

The only subtle touches in the film are the interactions between the characters, which is another failing point of the movie: there is virtually no character development. Each character is introduced with an obvious prominent characteristic - one's a pacifist, one's a womanizer, one's brash, one's steadfast, etc - and from then on, you might as well have tacked a sign to each character's chest that says, "I am the loud one/quiet one/mysterious one/etc." There's no development beyond those initial introductions. The audience is left to depend on their knowledge of the legend to fill in the gaps; if you aren't familiar with these characters in their literary context, you're just left to blink and wonder who the heck they are.

But like I said, this movie IS worth the ticket, because there are moments when you can see the unrealized potential behind the flawed final product. For instance, the few (and I do mean FEW) moments shared between Lancelot (Ioan Gruffud) and Guinevere (Keira Knightley). The Lancelot/Guinevere love affair is never openly discussed in the course of the movie, but it is hinted at through looks and body language. If there is any part of the legend that I mourn the loss of, it is this storyline, because the chemistry that sparks between Ioan and Keira in these brief moments is electric. I would have loved to see it fleshed out, and see these two characters - both torn by their loyalty and love for Arthur - struggle with their affection for each other.

In the end, that is the central problem with "King Arthur." The legend of Arthur is composed of wonderful, beautiful stories, but in the end, it isn't the STORIES that matter. It's the way the people IN the stories are affected by what happens to them. When people think of the downfall of Camelot, they don't immediately think of the Battle of Camlan - they think of Arthur's betrayal by Lancelot and Guinevere. Gawain's encounter with the Green Knight is a moral lesson about honesty, fidelity and honor. Even the quest for the Holy Grail is in turn dominated by the humanity of the story: only the purest knight can see the Grail. Even Lancelot - greatest of all Arthur's knights, and a good, kind man - cannot view the Cup of Christ, because of his elicit affair with the queen. "King Arthur," on the other hand, focuses too much on plot, and not enough of how the characters function WITHIN that plot. So much so that, come the end, the audience has been led down so many different plot pathways, they can't even count the loose ends. At the same time, you're left mystified by what makes the characters tick.

Go see this movie. If you're disappointed, see it again. Count the moments of unrealized potential, then cross your fingers and pray the DVD extras contain a LOT of deleted scenes. I can't wait to see what landed on the cutting room floor. I have to blame the lackluster final product on poor direction, scriptwriting, and/or editing, because with a cast this good, there's no other excuse. But I'll go see it again anyway, because something about it - some nugget of real value under the Fool's gold exterior - is drawing me back. I think it will do the same for you, too.

Comic book movies seem to be all the rage in Hollywood, from the "X-Men" franchise to "Spider-Man." This is hardly a new craze - "Superman" and "Batman" are well-established franchises - but there certainly seems to be a glut of them at the moment. I mean, "The Punisher?" The hell are they doing bringing that old chestnut to the big screen.

Ah well. C'est la vie. For those who thrive on comics and graphic novels, it's a good time to be alive. I'm not one of those people, but its amazing to see the range of such material available for adaptation. "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," based on the work of Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill, is such a fascinating concept, I'm surprised it wasn't made into a film sooner. The story unites some of the 19th century's most famous - and infamous - literary characters in a fight to save the world from the nefarious plans of an evil mastermind. While it's not on a par with "Spider-Man," and nowhere near the league of "X2," "LXG" packs enough of a whollop to be worth the price of a matinee ticket. If you're going to an evening show, I suggest you take a lot of friends and try to get a group discount, because it's just not worth $8.

The leader of the League is Alan Quatermain ("King Solomon's Mines"), played by the indomitable Sean Connery, who does a wonderful job as a crotchety old Great White Hunter. Joining him on the quest is Dorian Gray ("The Portrait of Dorian Gray," Stuart Townsend), an immortal, laissez faire aristocrat; Mina Harker ("Dracula," Peta Wilson), a vampire; Rodney Skinner (taking the place of Claude Raines, "The Invisible Man," played by Tony Curran); Dr. Jekyll (and his infamous alter ego, Mr. Hyde), from Robert Louis Stevenson's book of the same name, played by Jason Flemyng; Captain Nemo ("20,000 Leagues Under the Sea," Naseeruddin Shah), a pirate; and Tom Sawyer ("The Adventures of Tom Sawyer," Shane West), a spy and all-American good ole boy. Recruited by a mysterious figure called M, the League is instructed to stop a wicked villain - known as the Phantom (of "of the Opera" fame) - from starting a world war. On top of that small order, they have to wrap it up in four days.

Well. That doesn't leave much time for a breather for our heroes, nor does it leave the movie much chance to establish any kind of character development. Each figure is introduced in whirlwind fashion, and their backgrounds are forcefed to the audience in blink-and-you'll-miss-it soundbytes. Mina's story of being bitten by the man himself, Count Dracula, is told so quickly, you almost don't realize it's been mentioned at all. They're thrown together over the course of fifteen minutes, and begin functioning like a well-oiled machine soon after. I find it a bit hard to believe that these disparate figures of questionable morality would gel so quickly, but since this is the movies, I'll suspend my disbelief.

Most of the screentime is dominated by Connery (let's face it, it's his movie), West (with Connery), and Townsend (who proves to the world that he can play a smarmy b***ard, but would have been AWFUL as Aragorn in "LotR"). Interesting characters, yes, but more time needed to be given to the others! Tantalizing hints of a Mina/Dorian/Jekyll love triangle remain just that - hints. I especially mourn this loss because I would have loved to see this triangle come to fruition: the three characters with the most moral and spiritual corruption, interacting on such a personal level. The possibilities for drama and character development are staggering. A slightly more prominent Mina/Dorian/Tom triangle bears a bit more fruit, but the fruit is runty and not worth eating. Nemo is enigmatic by the end of the film - how good can a man be who worships Kali, Hindu goddess of death? And honestly, I forgot Curran was even in the movie - he disappears (literally and figuratively) for at least three-quarters of the film.

The effects were good, but not great. Nemo's "Nautilus" was beautiful, inside and out, and his "automobile" was fantastic. Mina's ability to morph into a flock of vampire bats was impressive as well. Mr. Hyde - a primarily CGI character - was believable enough, but in a world where Gollum rules supreme, the big brute just didn't live up to standard. The fight scenes were okay, but not memorable. The only exception is a knockdown match between Hyde and an uber-Hyde wannabe.

You'll hear people complain that there was too much modern technology (eg, machine guns, cars, tanks, etc) in the movie. Tell them to suck it up and pay attention - that was the whole frelling POINT.

In the end, I'll say that most of this movie's ills could have been cured by a few script changes and an extra hour's running time. Quatermain's father-complex towards Sawyer was written so bluntly, it was almost painful, and many moments that are meant to be climactic and shocking were obvious to me five minutes into the movie. Flemyng, Curran and Wilson were so underused, it's criminal. How can you sideline Dr. Jekyll, an invisible man, and a vampire? It boggles the mind.

But perhaps I'm just being picky. This is a summer movie, after all, and it gives the audience everything they're expecting: explosions, fight scenes, a few humorous quips, and plenty of moody lighting. If nothing else, perhaps this movie will prompt audiences to go out and pick up the books from which the characters are derived. I, for one, intend to finally dust off a copy of Oscar Wilde's "The Portrait of Dorian Gray." I suggest you do the same.

"King Solomon's Mines" - H.R. Haggard

"Dracula" - Bram Stoker

"The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" - Mark Twain

"The Invisible Man" - HG Wells

"20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" - Jules Verne

"Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" - Robert Louis Stevenson