The Green Knight

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.

Before I viewed this movie I was aware of the polarized reviews and ratings, some think it is great while others consider it a complete miss. So I was curious.

It is a lesser-known story on the fringes of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Sir Gawain (they pronounce it 'GAW-in') is the King's nephew, it is Christmas, and a mysterious Green Knight shows up, inviting a challenge. None of the Knights step up but Gawain does.

Then a year later, on Christmas, he must travel 'six days north' to meet up with the Green Knight again, to settle the score.

My wife and I viewed it at home on BluRay from our public library. At just over two hours it was a fantastical, mystical movie. It has very accomplished actors who play their roles well. The locations (shot in Ireland) and cinematography are excellent all the way through. The sound track is really great. That's all the good stuff.

The not-so-good is that the story is very obscure much of the time. Things happened (like, what was up with the blindfolded woman who never spoke?) that cannot easily be interpreted as part of the story. So what we end up with is a pretty good viewing experience that leaves you figuratively scratching your head and wondering, "What was that all about?"

I am glad I watched it, I doubt that I will ever want to watch it again. The "making of" extra on the disc contains lots of discussion for those wanting to dig deeper into it. I viewed some of it. The cast and filmmakers clearly had a good time making it.

I don't know what kind of drugs David Lowery took but it seems like that stuff was doing its job. The Green Knight is well filmed, I'll give them that, but the story itself is slow, making no sense for the majority of the time. It's just a weird movie, and normally that doesn't mean it's bad but in this case it was. The acting wasn't bad either so it wasn't their fault this whole movie was a mess. Apart of the good cinematography and the decent acting it's just not good. I wouldn't waste your time with this one if I were you.

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!

I've got to admit, I'm very confused by all of the negative reviews. Were people expecting A Knight's Tale? This is an A24 artsy movie, it's not a popcorn movie. That being said, I found it very engaging. It's slightly slow paced, only because each scene takes its time, but I did not find it boring. In fact, I found it fairly riveting and propulsive for a movie of its kind. There is a thick atmosphere by way I of very compelling visuals and music, which reminded me of an Alex Garland movie, like Annihilation or Men, but set in medieval times.

The movie is also extremely thought provoking. There are several interesting themes of the movie: 1) The nature of chivalry and honor, 2) The meaning or meaninglessness of life and death. There are also some interesting choices about race and color.

I will say, I did read the original legend before seeing the movie, and perhaps that increased my enjoyment of the movie. It's short, and will only take you a few hours. It was very interesting to see in what ways Lowery chose to stay true to the story, versus what says he chose to deviate. There was even an interesting meta line in the movie about making changes to an original work when it needs improvement.

Overall, if you're open to a thought provoking and artistically beautiful movie, I think you'll enjoy the movie.