The once and future king
Jul. 11th, 2004 12:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gwynThe intellectual review of the movie King Arthur:
Even when I was working as a film critic, I often felt out of step with all the other film writers in town because i didn't share that snooty, hermetic Cahiers du Cinema mindest that derided action movies, romance, sicience fiction, whatever was mainstream. These days critics seem to be divided into two camps, those asshats I just mentioned, all "French cinema is the only thing that counts" and the morons who wouldn't know Eisenstein from Einstein and came into film "crit" because they like going to free movies, but have never bothered to learn enough to be discerning. So it's not at all unusual for me to feel completely out of step with the derision being directed at King Arthur, but what bothers me most is that so much of it is being leveled at the film because it doesn't tell the familiar fairy tale of Camelot and tries to, while still being a very Hollywoody, old-fashioned action epic, get at something more accurately historical about where the legends sprang from. It's like they demand that a movie not succumb to the familiar treatments of a false story, but then they criticize it for doing exactly that and not having any of the elements everyone wants to love so much.
And to me, that's one of the things that made KA so enjoyable -- it' s not a perfect movie, not by a long chalk, but it's got enough qualities to recommend it, not the least is the stealing of major characters from the later fictions (Lancelot, Guinevere, Galahad, Tristan, you name it) and trying to tweak them into something new and slightly more believable. It shows that Antione Fuqua's original hard-R cut has been messed with in the attempt to have a summer kid-friendly bloody sword epic, but I still felt there was enough of a dynamic new story that the slamming is really unfair. But I don't think any movie these days that attempts history, even if somewhat muddied history, will ever get a fair shake from critics, especially if they have action in them, because action=bad.
While a lot of the movie has faults -- a voiceover narration that feels as false as Deckard's in Blade Runner, some seriously cornball dialog, just about everything with Keira Knightley as Guinevere (I used to adore her, why am I starting to dislike her so? Maybe it's the overused squint), and a horrible, exposition-laden flashback to a pivotal event in Arthur's childhood -- one of them, to my mind, is not the fact that Arthur himself is boring or remote, which seems to be something everyone is hammering on. This is a story of a place and time at a crossroads, and about a man at a crossroads, and I think the genius of what Clive Owen does with the character and Fuqua did with the story was to start before the crossroads, and keep the evolution of the time/place and the character going throughout the movie. Arthur is seriously conflicted -- he's a man who believes very deeply in the ideal of Rome, in his Christian faith, but neither of these ideals is serving him at all in the situation as the story unfolds. Then he finds himself having feelings for a woman who is both his enemy and someone who should be, in his worldview, dirt beneath his feet. Throw in the fact that his actions to save his enemies in the face of a new enemy make his knights doubt him, and make him doubt himself, and drives a wedge between him and his closest friend, Lancelot, and you get a great psychological soup-pot. This, for me, was the true joy of the movie and made the bad spots bearable. This Arthur is watchful and wary, cautious and removed, because he has to be: he's a leader, but suddenly he's leading something he doesn't know if he believes in, and the development of his changing character is wonderful. For once, a big action epic took the time to let a character develop from point A to point Z.
It's clear, though, that much of that development has been cut out of the movie, and of Lancelot's doubts, and I can only hope that we'll see them in the R-rated version that Disney promised Fuqua for screwing with his movie so heavily. The ending felt tacked on, and it was, because audiences didn't understand how this version of Arthur could give rise to the legendary, mythological version, and it will be interesting to see some of the scenes where I have the impression we get to see more of the inner turmoil of Arthur and Lancelot (but which were in commercials and trailers). But it's clear from the reaction of the critics that no matter how much people deride the legend, that's what they want to be fed. Take away things like the Lady of the Lake, Merlin as a magician (instead of a Pict warrior leader), the love triangle, all of that, and everyone seems to be left floundering, unable to see the richness of a character who's undergoing a great deal of change in a place that's also on the cusp of upheaval and turmoil.
The shallow review
I confess, I went to this primarily because of the eye candy. I've been disappointed in every single Arthur movie I have ever seen and had no overwhelming desire to subject myself to yet another stupid, overblown, tricked out story (and no, I don't consider MP & The Holy Grail a real Arthur movie), except that this had Clive Owen, one of my greatest heartthrobs, and Ioan Gruffudd, not to mention wonderful players like Stellan Skarsgard (who I'd forgotten has worked with Clive before, in one of the better BMW The Hire films), Hugh Dancy, and Ray Winstone (who always steals every movie he's in, and this is no exception -- he's a fantastic addition, with his great bovver-boy blowhard act and his dog-like devotion to Arthur). And oh my, was I not disappointed.
As a person who normally does not like facial hair on most men, I was surprised the first time I saw a picture from the film, seeing how good Ioan looked with that beard. He should keep it, always. And never give up the leather quilted tunic, either. Or the two swords. He's just stunning, and his voice is like buddah, and those big brown eyes are so soulful, especially when he's got them trained on Arthur. He does his best with a fairly sketchy role, and I get the impression there is more to his story that we may be able to see in a DVD release.
I seem to be one of the only people I know who went to it for Clive -- all anyone seems to talk about is Ioan, so apparently there aren't many folks I know who share my appreciation for the other one with a Welsh name. But I couldn't have been happier with the view in this movie -- there aren't many long shots of him, but whenever we got a full body shot of him in the Roman armor, I just about fainted, and when he stands on the ramparts of the fort in one shot towards the end of the movie, in only a black split-necked tunic and leather trousers and the big boots, I think my heart actually did stop. Good god, was that a look that worked for him, especially with his wavy curly black hair all grown out like that. He looks stunning throughout, and they clearly lit this movie for his eyes.
For years, I've watched Clive fans debate the true color of his eyes -- we get extreme closeups of his eyes in Second Sight, where they seem to be blue, but there are people who swear they're green and in some movies, they do look like that. Now, seeing those crystal irises 20 feet high and with exceptional underlighting, I know that they're both -- they are blue and gorgeous green and gold as well, that true hazel with golden inner tones that make them look other colors. If they made a movie just about his eyes, I would be a happy woman. I really believe he has the most gorgeous eyes of any actor working today. (Why, oh why, won't I'll Sleep When I'm Dead ever arrive here? It's so rare to get to see Clive on the big screen over here, and I just hate that it's not playing in my city.)
And as for the relationships -- while I definitely felt there was more sparkage between Keira Knightley and Clive than most of the snipers are saying (and why does everyone gripe about his age vs. her age? For crying out loud, the last big Arthur movie had Sean Connery with Julia Ormond!), it's really clear that this isn't where Fuqua wanted to place the emphasis. The intensity for both Clive as an actor and for the character comes when Arthur is with his knights, and especially with Lancelot. There is serious slash potential here, and I was giddy with joy at how intimately they touch each other when they're arguing at the end. And I kept thinking that this remoteness everyone is complaining about was what worked so well for Clive as Arthur -- even while the character is getting hammered on, most critics are talking about how Clive is usually such a charismatic actor, has this incredible aura, etc., but I think they're missing the point of what he's doing here. With the knights, he turns into a very dynamic, intense guy; with others, he's distanced, closed off, the way a leader must sometimes be. He's always watching things (with those incredible eyes!), always evaluating, and it's this caution that makes him so alive and human with his knights. I don't know, I guess I must be unusual, because I find that yummy, not boring.
Fuqua's element is manly men doing manly things and having mixed motives, etc. I think the characterizations here, even as cut up as they are, do that, and it's to the actors' credit that they're still able to bring in those qualities after such a harsh edit to the film. It would be impossible not to fall in love with all the knights; they seem like a truly believable band of brothers. I was hopeful that at last Clive might reach a larger audience and thus get the pick of cooler roles (the long-promised international stardom after Croupier never really happened, and Beyond Borders went nowhere, of course; though I was heartened to see him address the "he's the next James Bond" issue in EW this week by commenting that no one has ever approached him and he thinks it's really unfair to Pierce Brosnan that journalists keep bringing it up), but after Arthur got bumped from the EW cover by Brando's death (yeah, yeah, I have no respect), and it's been trounced by the critics and only done what used to be pretty respectable -- third -- at the box office, I'm doubtful. But my adoration remains unabated. Most actors seem to get scarier as they get craggier, like Harrison Ford or Mel Gibson, but Clive just seems to be getting prettier the older and more rugged he gets. He looks damn good swinging a sword, exchanging knowing looks with Ioan and sparking with him, and being all kingly and leaderly. And really, in the end? That's good enough for me.
Even when I was working as a film critic, I often felt out of step with all the other film writers in town because i didn't share that snooty, hermetic Cahiers du Cinema mindest that derided action movies, romance, sicience fiction, whatever was mainstream. These days critics seem to be divided into two camps, those asshats I just mentioned, all "French cinema is the only thing that counts" and the morons who wouldn't know Eisenstein from Einstein and came into film "crit" because they like going to free movies, but have never bothered to learn enough to be discerning. So it's not at all unusual for me to feel completely out of step with the derision being directed at King Arthur, but what bothers me most is that so much of it is being leveled at the film because it doesn't tell the familiar fairy tale of Camelot and tries to, while still being a very Hollywoody, old-fashioned action epic, get at something more accurately historical about where the legends sprang from. It's like they demand that a movie not succumb to the familiar treatments of a false story, but then they criticize it for doing exactly that and not having any of the elements everyone wants to love so much.
And to me, that's one of the things that made KA so enjoyable -- it' s not a perfect movie, not by a long chalk, but it's got enough qualities to recommend it, not the least is the stealing of major characters from the later fictions (Lancelot, Guinevere, Galahad, Tristan, you name it) and trying to tweak them into something new and slightly more believable. It shows that Antione Fuqua's original hard-R cut has been messed with in the attempt to have a summer kid-friendly bloody sword epic, but I still felt there was enough of a dynamic new story that the slamming is really unfair. But I don't think any movie these days that attempts history, even if somewhat muddied history, will ever get a fair shake from critics, especially if they have action in them, because action=bad.
While a lot of the movie has faults -- a voiceover narration that feels as false as Deckard's in Blade Runner, some seriously cornball dialog, just about everything with Keira Knightley as Guinevere (I used to adore her, why am I starting to dislike her so? Maybe it's the overused squint), and a horrible, exposition-laden flashback to a pivotal event in Arthur's childhood -- one of them, to my mind, is not the fact that Arthur himself is boring or remote, which seems to be something everyone is hammering on. This is a story of a place and time at a crossroads, and about a man at a crossroads, and I think the genius of what Clive Owen does with the character and Fuqua did with the story was to start before the crossroads, and keep the evolution of the time/place and the character going throughout the movie. Arthur is seriously conflicted -- he's a man who believes very deeply in the ideal of Rome, in his Christian faith, but neither of these ideals is serving him at all in the situation as the story unfolds. Then he finds himself having feelings for a woman who is both his enemy and someone who should be, in his worldview, dirt beneath his feet. Throw in the fact that his actions to save his enemies in the face of a new enemy make his knights doubt him, and make him doubt himself, and drives a wedge between him and his closest friend, Lancelot, and you get a great psychological soup-pot. This, for me, was the true joy of the movie and made the bad spots bearable. This Arthur is watchful and wary, cautious and removed, because he has to be: he's a leader, but suddenly he's leading something he doesn't know if he believes in, and the development of his changing character is wonderful. For once, a big action epic took the time to let a character develop from point A to point Z.
It's clear, though, that much of that development has been cut out of the movie, and of Lancelot's doubts, and I can only hope that we'll see them in the R-rated version that Disney promised Fuqua for screwing with his movie so heavily. The ending felt tacked on, and it was, because audiences didn't understand how this version of Arthur could give rise to the legendary, mythological version, and it will be interesting to see some of the scenes where I have the impression we get to see more of the inner turmoil of Arthur and Lancelot (but which were in commercials and trailers). But it's clear from the reaction of the critics that no matter how much people deride the legend, that's what they want to be fed. Take away things like the Lady of the Lake, Merlin as a magician (instead of a Pict warrior leader), the love triangle, all of that, and everyone seems to be left floundering, unable to see the richness of a character who's undergoing a great deal of change in a place that's also on the cusp of upheaval and turmoil.
The shallow review
I confess, I went to this primarily because of the eye candy. I've been disappointed in every single Arthur movie I have ever seen and had no overwhelming desire to subject myself to yet another stupid, overblown, tricked out story (and no, I don't consider MP & The Holy Grail a real Arthur movie), except that this had Clive Owen, one of my greatest heartthrobs, and Ioan Gruffudd, not to mention wonderful players like Stellan Skarsgard (who I'd forgotten has worked with Clive before, in one of the better BMW The Hire films), Hugh Dancy, and Ray Winstone (who always steals every movie he's in, and this is no exception -- he's a fantastic addition, with his great bovver-boy blowhard act and his dog-like devotion to Arthur). And oh my, was I not disappointed.
As a person who normally does not like facial hair on most men, I was surprised the first time I saw a picture from the film, seeing how good Ioan looked with that beard. He should keep it, always. And never give up the leather quilted tunic, either. Or the two swords. He's just stunning, and his voice is like buddah, and those big brown eyes are so soulful, especially when he's got them trained on Arthur. He does his best with a fairly sketchy role, and I get the impression there is more to his story that we may be able to see in a DVD release.
I seem to be one of the only people I know who went to it for Clive -- all anyone seems to talk about is Ioan, so apparently there aren't many folks I know who share my appreciation for the other one with a Welsh name. But I couldn't have been happier with the view in this movie -- there aren't many long shots of him, but whenever we got a full body shot of him in the Roman armor, I just about fainted, and when he stands on the ramparts of the fort in one shot towards the end of the movie, in only a black split-necked tunic and leather trousers and the big boots, I think my heart actually did stop. Good god, was that a look that worked for him, especially with his wavy curly black hair all grown out like that. He looks stunning throughout, and they clearly lit this movie for his eyes.
For years, I've watched Clive fans debate the true color of his eyes -- we get extreme closeups of his eyes in Second Sight, where they seem to be blue, but there are people who swear they're green and in some movies, they do look like that. Now, seeing those crystal irises 20 feet high and with exceptional underlighting, I know that they're both -- they are blue and gorgeous green and gold as well, that true hazel with golden inner tones that make them look other colors. If they made a movie just about his eyes, I would be a happy woman. I really believe he has the most gorgeous eyes of any actor working today. (Why, oh why, won't I'll Sleep When I'm Dead ever arrive here? It's so rare to get to see Clive on the big screen over here, and I just hate that it's not playing in my city.)
And as for the relationships -- while I definitely felt there was more sparkage between Keira Knightley and Clive than most of the snipers are saying (and why does everyone gripe about his age vs. her age? For crying out loud, the last big Arthur movie had Sean Connery with Julia Ormond!), it's really clear that this isn't where Fuqua wanted to place the emphasis. The intensity for both Clive as an actor and for the character comes when Arthur is with his knights, and especially with Lancelot. There is serious slash potential here, and I was giddy with joy at how intimately they touch each other when they're arguing at the end. And I kept thinking that this remoteness everyone is complaining about was what worked so well for Clive as Arthur -- even while the character is getting hammered on, most critics are talking about how Clive is usually such a charismatic actor, has this incredible aura, etc., but I think they're missing the point of what he's doing here. With the knights, he turns into a very dynamic, intense guy; with others, he's distanced, closed off, the way a leader must sometimes be. He's always watching things (with those incredible eyes!), always evaluating, and it's this caution that makes him so alive and human with his knights. I don't know, I guess I must be unusual, because I find that yummy, not boring.
Fuqua's element is manly men doing manly things and having mixed motives, etc. I think the characterizations here, even as cut up as they are, do that, and it's to the actors' credit that they're still able to bring in those qualities after such a harsh edit to the film. It would be impossible not to fall in love with all the knights; they seem like a truly believable band of brothers. I was hopeful that at last Clive might reach a larger audience and thus get the pick of cooler roles (the long-promised international stardom after Croupier never really happened, and Beyond Borders went nowhere, of course; though I was heartened to see him address the "he's the next James Bond" issue in EW this week by commenting that no one has ever approached him and he thinks it's really unfair to Pierce Brosnan that journalists keep bringing it up), but after Arthur got bumped from the EW cover by Brando's death (yeah, yeah, I have no respect), and it's been trounced by the critics and only done what used to be pretty respectable -- third -- at the box office, I'm doubtful. But my adoration remains unabated. Most actors seem to get scarier as they get craggier, like Harrison Ford or Mel Gibson, but Clive just seems to be getting prettier the older and more rugged he gets. He looks damn good swinging a sword, exchanging knowing looks with Ioan and sparking with him, and being all kingly and leaderly. And really, in the end? That's good enough for me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 01:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 09:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 03:43 pm (UTC)I think he'd be a great Bond but more as the classic Cold War spy than a guy with gadgets.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 09:12 am (UTC)Re Keira, I don't know why I wanted her out of the movie -- if it was some kind of slash fan misogynist reaction like I see so often and hate (I don't think it was that, but maybe), or more about the fact that she doesn't seem to belong there, her clothes are always either nearly nonexistent or falling off her, and the squint is starting to really bother me -- it's becoming almost comical. She just didn't seem to belong in this particular movie or story. She's not awful, she's just... out of place.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 10:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 03:49 pm (UTC)I'd gone Wednesday night, so hadn't even read the EW article yet, and I'm probably more impressed now with what they achieved (for all its flaws), knowing the back story.
I am totally with you on the Clive Owen adoration - he's the reason I'd wanted to see the movie forever - but, really, there's little I'd disagree with in your review(s) at all, although I probably appreciate Kiera Knightly a tiny bit more than you did.
The only thing I have yet to figure out for myself was one small point - who was more gorgeous, the men or their horses. Because, man, those were some beautiful horses :)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 09:16 am (UTC)I have to say I didn't hate Kiera, but there's something about her mannerisms that's wearing thinly on me (I adored her in Bend It Like Beckham) after seeing her so much lately. Maybe that they gave all the front and center publicity to her since she's a name, even though it's not her story. Maybe I'm just petty and jealous! Mostly she just felt extraneous and kind of... no reason to be there.
One of my friends who was at it with me was also commenting on the horses -- really gorgeous animals (though we were wondering about the Arabians...)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 09:07 pm (UTC)I totally didn't get any hatred of Kiera from your post - or indeed the others commenting here. I guess I'm just more of an "any eye candy is good eye candy" sort of person, whether it be male, female or equine. I do get the mannerisms thing-especially having (re)watched that Princess of Thieves tv movie Saturday night on ABC.
I guess I sort of hand-wave her character in the film-perhaps they wanted to have the Guinevere character no matter what, so they sort of shoe-horned her in.
To be honest, I didn't give the Arabians too much thought, altho I was pondering those rather large drafty types pulling the carts. Maybe all the horses were supplied from Rome, as someone below mentions :)
Anyway, I'm so glad to know for once it wasn't just me who liked a film, and I'll be back in full-lurk mode now :)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 09:55 pm (UTC)I almost didn't even notice the Arabians, but my friend sitting next to me is Horse Girl, and she trained my eye on them -- then I coudn't help it! But it was more of an amusement -- like the early "armor piercing" crossbows and the stirrups. I handwave it all too -- in the end, most of that stuff never really changes my enjoyment of things. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 07:26 pm (UTC)But I am glad I could join the "King Arthur is not the trash everyone says it is" support group here, anyway. My reward for (hopefully) making it thru a particularly horrendous week of work, even for Hell, is I get to go see it again Friday night, if I live that long. It's probably gonna be a near thing, tho.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 08:11 pm (UTC)And I really love Clive Owens ever since 'Greenfingers' - do you know the movie?
I thought it was great and Helen Mirren was a hoot!
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 09:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 12:05 am (UTC)My biggest gripe was that damn tacked on ending [shudder]. Gaaah!
You might want to visit:
http://outnow.ch/Media/Img/2004/KingArthur/
(Takes a long time to load on dialup, but worth it.)
They have more photos, and more different photos, than I've seen at any other site. They have one in particular of Ioan which is my new background. To die for!
There is serious slash potential here, and I was giddy with joy at how intimately they touch each other when they're arguing at the end.
There were times the jealousy Lancelot was feeling fairly crackled on the screen. Hot-tempered, jealous, passionate - does it get any better than that?
Forgive another plug, now that the film has actually been released, for
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 09:21 am (UTC)Thanks for the links, I will definitely check it out. There really is a sad lack of pics.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 08:57 pm (UTC)My main gripe with the ending was that I felt it totally disrespected the loss of Lancelot, and was a 180 degree mood shift with no warning whatever. The use of a henge as a sort of Celtic chuppah was rather twee, I thought. Appalling how many who've commented on the film actually thought that pitiful little effort was actually supposed to represent Stonehenge!
no subject
Date: 2004-07-18 01:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-18 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-18 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 07:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 10:26 am (UTC)I agree with you that quite a bit was deleted to get the PG-13. This is even more apparent if you read the novelization of the film that's around -- like how son of Saxon bad guy got the cut across his face, for example.
And maybe it's just me, but Galahad and Gawain were *so* doing it -- they were practically joined at the hip.
15 years this bunch was together? Serious slash potential is right :)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 05:09 pm (UTC)And I went to the movie for Clive.;)
Well, that, and Arthur himself.
It would be impossible not to fall in love with all the knights; they seem like a truly believable band of brothers.
This is the aspect of the movie that I appreciated the most, and which Every. Single. Other. Arthurian film has sadly neglected. I've been putting myself through the grim task of watching a lot of other Arthur movies, and, other than Lancelot, the rest of the nights are essentially anonymous swords. So with this movie, where each knight had actual characteristics! Unique looks! I instantly forgave the movie it's flaws for even making the attempt to show this. Also, while Bors is, indeed, a scene stealer, Daigonet doesn't do too shabbily, either.
Ok, I'm rambling on, but I'm simply so happy to have found someone else who appreciated this film.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 05:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-13 11:15 am (UTC)Very much yes! When I read the EW article about how the film had been rushed and modified for a much earlier release I was more than a little miffed. I'll be quite happy to get my hands on the DVD.
I was so thrilled with how the knights interacted with Arthur, and he with them, and the way they all were able to read each other's thoughts and body language to make not just a successful fighting machine, but a family as well.
Exactly, and these interactions have always comprised the bulk of the Arthurian myth; by focusing so exclusively on the love-triangle, previous filmed versions have actually done the story a huge disservice.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 09:06 pm (UTC)The whole group (
Clive was sublime, and I loved his wonderfully understated and, as you said, conflicted Arthur. I adored Ioan as Lancelot, too, and loved the strong bond and affection between him and Arthur. It was so nice not dealing with that icky love triangle crap. I've always hated that. I generally like Keira, and loved the idea of Guinevere as a Pict warrior so much that I didn't have a problem with her. I knew she did most of her own stunts, so I give her a lot of credit for that alone.
Did you see any of the shows those three did to promote the film? Clive is very quiet and reserved, and the other two are very animated and talky. Very interesting to see.
Oh, I came away totally enamored of Tristan (god, a hawk *and* a man of few words! Guh!) and Dagonet. Stellan Skarsgard is one of my favorite actors, and I loved seeing him in such a different role. He rocked! And Til Schweiger, who played his son -- fab, even with the ugly chinbeard -- K and I finally realized why he was so familiar. Years ago, we'd totally fallen for him in a German movie called "Maybe, Maybe Not." Hee!
So, basically the film gave me nothing to bitch about. I walked away hoping it does a lot more business than it has, and looking forward to getting the R-rated DVD.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 10:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 11:46 pm (UTC)Yeah, I just found out, myself. I don't expect any posts, though.
I just figured they'd be interviewing Kiera, and maybe Ioan since he lives in LA now, but not Clive. Durn.
Clive actually showed up on one of the morning shows last week. Not a very interesting interview, though, so you didn't miss much. He was really beautiful, though. *sigh*
Clive! Clive! Clive!
Date: 2004-07-13 12:45 am (UTC)Speaking of his eyes --- have you ever seen Greenfinger? There is one scene where they light up his eyes and it's breathtaking.
About KA not doing that well in the box office - again, I've got mixed feelings. Clive is far too good an actor to get scarfed up by Hollywierd. I'd hate to see him in some mindless drivel which is more likely than not. I'd much rather he be in interesting, independent films - they may not pay as well but he gets to grow as an actor.
After all, look what's happening to Kiera' she had the potential to be a good actress but they strip her half naked and put her in bondage gear.
Not the way to developing acting skills.
namaste nancy
Re: Clive! Clive! Clive!
Date: 2004-07-13 12:55 am (UTC)Yum yum yummy!!!
namaste nancy
Re: Clive! Clive! Clive!
Date: 2004-07-13 08:38 am (UTC)I'm not too worried about Clive going Hollywood -- he actually did once, and did the bad boy thing, made one terrible movie (The Rich Man's Wife, one of my guilty pleasures), and then wised up and went back to England, where he's pretty much decided to stay. I think the big thing would be if they *did* tap him for Bond, but I'm pretty sure it won't happen. Mostly, though, what I want is for more roles in Hollywood-financed films because it means I'll actually get to *see* him on the big screen. Beyond Borders may have bombed, but at least I got to see him in a theatre, 20 feet high. And the rate it's going, I may never get to see I'll Sleep When I'm Dead -- so it's total shallowness and selfishness that make me want him to break out a bit more. I just want to have the option of going to Clive movies at least a couple times a year. ;-)
Re: Clive! Clive! Clive!
Date: 2004-07-13 04:28 pm (UTC)That's just because I am a very generous person and always want to see the people in "my" fandom get what they want.
namaste nancy