:
Luc Simon,
Luc Simon,
Humbert Balsan,
more...
:
Robert Bresson,
Robert Bresson
see all cast/crew...
: New Yorker Video
: Drama, Foreign, Costume Drama/Period Piece, France
: 80 min.
: French
: English
see additional details...
|
|
As with his earlier Trial of Joan of Arc, French-filmmaker Robert Bresson effectively casts unknowns in his interpretation of the Knights of the Round Table saga. Breaking with the standard romantic spin on this legend, Bresson offers us a selfish, ruthless Lancelot, no better than the other grubby "nobles" who seek but fail to find the Holy Grail. Returning from his futile mission, Lancelot callously renews his affair with King Arthur's Guenevere, who likewise is depicted in less than sympathetic terms. Expectedly, the dream of "Camelot" is dashed to bits; Bresson argues that Camelot was never any more than a dream--or rather, a delusion. The mudcaked cinematography of Pasqualino de Santis adds to the iconoclastic flavor of Lancelot of the Lake. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
|
| not the best
by AByrd1
December 27, 2005 - 8:10 PM PST
|
|
|
1 out of 3 members found this review helpful
|
| In the first five minutes of the film, cartoonish blood comes pouring out of jugulars, groins, bellies, you name it. This should be enough to keep anyone from expecting realistic acting, Merchant-Ivoryesque "authenticity" in the sets, etc. But the movie is a little disappointing even if stylization is your thing: it's not strange enough to be as strange as it is, if that makes any sense. It's not clear what Bresson wanted here -- it's hard to believe that he either loved or hated the whole Arthurian thing enough to make a movie about it. |
| Disappointing
by RAH49
June 22, 2005 - 11:19 AM PDT
|
|
|
1 out of 3 members found this review helpful
|
After viewing Bresson's "A Man Escaped," I had very high hopes for this film. Utterly dashed.
The acting is wooden beyond belief. The characters ponder their various fates in would-be Bergmanesque solemnity, but the dialog doesn't hold up, wobbling clumsily between the portentous and the pompous and back again without mercy or respite.
The director's sense of history is unintentionally hilarious. There is always a tension in dealing with Arthurian material: Do you set the myth in its alleged "historic" setting (i.e., early 6th-century)? Or do you set it in the era in which the stories flourished (12th- and 13th-century)? Or do you create your own reality? This production abuses the question by setting the whole affair in a tent city which has all the historical persuasiveness of Midwestern Renaissance Faire, without the soothing distraction of plentiful beer.
And then there is the tournament scene, where for reasons known only to Bresson we watch Lancelot's horse's legs for joust after joust, while hearing the crash of steel and wood off camera. Was the production budget really that pinched?
And the armor. Why do directors feel compelled to have these fellows clank around in their armor all day long? Is it supposed to say something about the restricted nature of their lives or souls? This movie shares this irksome absurdity with "Excalibur." Both directors should have consulted Mark Twain's "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" on the joys of wearing steel armor before indulging in such pretentious silliness.
I have to admit I couldn't make it through the movie. I watched as much of it as I did out of a perverse fascination with the idea that the director who filmed the radiant escape movie could make such a bomb.
I did wake up, however, in time to watch Arthur and Mordred cancel each other. And a good day's work it was. |
|
|
GreenCine Member Rating
(Average 6.58)
33 Votes
add to list 
|
|
|
Your cart
etaviotal
beretta
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®,
a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.