| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Heath Ledger (The Patriot) displaying great charm and a winning smile throughout, plays William Thatcher, squire to a washed up champion jouster, who dies during a competition, leaving William to masquerade as his master in order to collect their winnings. Aided by his initially less than enthusiatic pals Roland (Mark Addy from Full Monty) and Wat (Alan Tudyk, 28 Days) William fakes nobility to illegally enter competitions. On their travels they encounter a naked wanderer, the future famed author, Geoffrey Chaucer (Paul Bettany) who joins their `crusade' and helps to forge William's ancestral lineage, so that he can take part in the noblemen only games. Whilst competing (according to my wife who seems to like every Australian film star) the very handsome William catches the eye of a lady, Jocelyn (the very beautiful Shannyn Sossamon), and sets out to win her heart. However, standing between William and his two goals of winning the World Championships and winning the hand of Lady Jocelyn stands the dastardly Count Adhemar (brilliantly played by Rufus Sewell, Dark City).
This is a surprising change of direction for writer/Director Brian Helgelend (LA Confidential).
... Read more ›Sure it's predictable and there are plenty of cliched lines, but the film absolutely succeeds in what it set out to do. It plays very well by its own rules. And it is surprisingly moving at times. When the film could have sunk to schmaltz, it holds its own with good acting and sturdy writing.
What could have been another stupid teen movie actually has legs and a soul.
I'm amazed the number of people who fault it for its inventive style in incorporating contemporary music with the medieval milieu, when these same people loved Shrek for doing exactly the same thing.
I applaud the risks the film takes and how well it succeeds when it takes them. In the end, isn't Pro Wrestling or boxing the modern day equivalent of the joust? In spirit and appeal, at least, if not in grace or sophistication.
Call it a guilty pleasure, but the film is a fun and successful and worth watching again.
Don't skip the deleted scenes -- wonderful stuff there, especially the extended stockade scene.
After reading the first 80 reviews I feel compelled to add my own 2 cents. We rented this and I have to agree that in the first few minutes I was revolted by the rock music, being a big fan of historical pieces set in the middle ages. Despite my initial feelings, I stuck it out. Too soon I found myself again annoyed by the styles worn by the Lady Jocelyn. Yuck! "What is going on", I wondered. But already I was finding myself involved in the story line and enjoying the humor, especially the interactions among the main characters. By the end I was willing to admit I'd been entertained and I was in love with all the characters with the possible exception of Jocelyn.
Then we watched all the extra bonus material and I was amazed at the thought and work that went into this movie. I just had to watch it again, having gained a new perspective on WHY things were done the way they were. What I discovered was an extremely entertaining romp.
For those of you who only saw the theatre version or are concerned about the rock and roll references in these reviews, try to see the director's point of view. Throughout history parents have strived to understand their youngsters. Or do we assume that the generations have always perfectly understood one another until it came to the 20th century? Language, music, clothes...isn't it likely that different generations differed as much in opinions then as now? If not then how did the culture ever evolve into something completely different? Notice that I have avoided the term "teens". Well, face it, back then the teens WERE adults. But there must still have been generational gaps. Did they say "wow" in historical times? No.
... Read more ›