July 9, 2004

Two movies, both alike in laughter,
In fair Hollywood, where we lay our scene,
From an ancient structure break to period comedy,
Where uncivil laughs makes civil drama unclean.

I can barely think of a nice thing to say about King Arthur. I certainly can't fathom how anyone could give it a rave review.

I have always loved the notion of rethinking and remaking classic stories. There is no element of this reimagining of the tale of King Arthur that I object to on its face. Merlin doesn't have to be a magician or live backwards through time. There doesn't need to be a love triangle between Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere. They don't have to deal with Camelot.

But a compelling story would be nice. Memorable characters besides Ray Winstone's what's-his-name would be helpful. In fact, anything that would help us recognize that this story has something to do with the legend we all know and are fascinated by (other than the title) would be a tremendous advantage.

I kept trying to find a way into this movie as I sat there in the dark. But it was an ongoing parade of nothingness. Even the oft-mentioned "Ice Battle" sequence… it was a great idea that just didn't feel like anything more than a scene in a movie.

The deconstruction of a classic tale has to, in my opinion, be motivated by some specific goal. I have no idea what David Franzoni was after here. His script for Gladiator was not a deconstruction… or at least, the final film does not indicate one. In many ways, the film went right down the center of Sandals & Toga Road. I suspect that the screenplay was even more that way, with more time on the Woody Strode material. But what is the point of the Arthurian deconstruction… essentially a "Young Arthur" flick?

Does fighting along side young Guinevere give him any added humanity… passion… knowledge? Do we experience the birth of the legend of Lancelot's unmatched fighting prowess and unbendable chivalry? Do we learn anything other than that Ray Winstone must be the next Bond villain and a much bigger star? Even his game performance is brought down by the dreary surroundings that eventually turns our relief at his presence into dread, as the bawdy guy becomes a too often told joke before long.

It's official… this is Bruckheimer's worst film ever. Days of Thunder and Kangaroo Jack are no longer fighting for the basement slot. All and all, I'd rather be at Van Helsing.

Here's another pull quote: If you hated Dodgeball, you'll really hate Anchorman!

But if on the other hand, like me, you really enjoyed the raucous stupidity of Dodgeball, Anchorman could be right up your alley. The big question mark for the widest possible audience is whether kids under 20 will have any idea what is funny about the big hair and gold chains of this 70s era comedy. Starsky & Hutch managed to make it work, but there was a bit more iconography with which to deal. Me? I laughed my ass off.

Of all the near-absurdist comedies of the last couple years featuring Farrell, Stiller, Wilson and/or Vaughn, Anchorman is probably the most absurd. It is very much like an extended sketch from Mr. Show With Bob & Dave that just keeps going. But it keeps finding new jokes and milking the jokes that have already been told.

Almost stealing the movie is Steve Carell, as Brick Tamland, whose stupidity can be measured only from space. You might remember Carell stealing a scene from Jim Carrey as the anchorman whose mouth function was taken over by Carrey to hilarious consequence in Bruce Almighty. The rest of the cast also shines, including Farrell's on-screen cat.

It's really simple. If you laugh at the trailer, the commercials or the music video of Afternoon Delight, you will laugh at this movie… so hard you might dislodge a filling.

READER OF THE DAY: THE TEXAS KID writes: "I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you! -- to hear that major newspapers might be stressing gender/race/age diversity over film-reviewing cred when hiring movie critics. Gee, next thing I know, you'll be telling me that a 51-year-old white guy might have a hard time getting a film critic job anywhere in the United States."

THE MONTREALIAN writes: "Having seen Fahrenheit 9/11 on a Sunday night at a 10:45, what surprised me most about the film was not the film itself but the veritable deluge of people who had lined up to see it. Upon first glance, the line was daunting. That was until I realized that the line acutally continued down a flight of stair into the bottom floor of the theater. As I waited semi-patiently for nearly an hour to be ushered in, I began to ponder the implications of this film becoming a major success. Considering that I live in Montreal, Canada and this is where I saw it, this does not bode well for the tattered image of the US overseas. The people waiting were anxious to see Bush and his cronies portrayed as idiotic war mongers intent on destabilizing the world. Canadian opinions in this are pretty close to those of most Europeans, of whom there are legions up in arms over the invasion of Iraq and the so called Bush Doctrine, and they will take Mr. Moore's film at face value. The fact is that people want to believe this film and will most definitely take it at face value. While one film could not damage strained US-European relations any more than they already are, it certainly will not help in repairing them."

DAVID NOTE: There were many fine e-mails in response to "Johnny Pannsylvania," but they reflected much of what has already been suggested in this column… the alleged lies of George Bush do not make the alleged lies of Michael Moore acceptable. I feel like we've gone there many times already in the last months, so let's leave it that. Thanks.

Finally, THE KILOBYTER writes: "I haven't seen the film but growing up I read ALL of Asimov's Robot Stories. The film can't be based on the book because it is a collection of short stories.

There is NO robot accused of murder in I, ROBOT. That happens in a later book (THE CAVES OF STEEL-I think).

So the film takes the title and the 3 laws of robotics from the book and one hopes the Asimov estate takes the check to the bank.

I've always held hope that the film would be good for one reason: Proyas."

E ME: Weekend's here and I'm for that… got my Hush Puppies, got my straw hat…