Why does the terrible re-write of history - especially at the end - matter here? There are a number of wonderful stories surrounding the Siege of Rochester: the Magna Carta, the cruelty of King John (and his occasional brilliance as a general), the story of William Marshal(look him up!), the decade long running battle between John's supporters, the rebels, the French. And there is even a dramatic story involved in the Siege of Rochester.
Unfortunately that's not the story the makers of this film have decided to tell. The real story of Rochester is that those involved were doomed men in a losing cause. Anyone who has seen the Wild Bunch or the German film Stalingrad will know that such a story can make a great action film, or a powerfully dramatic (if depressing) meditation on the futility of collective violence. But the makers of this film don't care about any of that. Indeed, they relish violence - the whole point of this film seems to be to try to find new ways to depict dismemberment. The effort failed; the trouble is, there is no poetry to it, no grace, no art. It is just dismemberment, and we've seen it all before.
The occasional effort to express some comment on religion, or politics, or even just human relationships tends to fall flat. Just for instance, the historical period doesn't offer much - the 'freedom' sought by the rebellious barons meant entirely freedom for them, not 'the people.' That it eventually led to the establishment of the rule of law was virtually accidental.
Finally it has to be said that most of the characters are neither likable nor interesting - especially the defenders of the doomed castle (and that certainly shouldn't be the case!).
The filmmakers seem to be asking, 'can we make a Ridley Scott epic without Ridley Scott (or the resources he has available)?' Apparently not. Scott's best movies have strong stories to tell, strongly told. I lost real interest in this after the first half hour, zipped through to the end to see if they would tell the real story of the Siege. Also apparently not.
I bought this used, cheap, hoping for a decent action film to while away a Saturday afternoon. I had to fast-forward through an awful lot of meaningless posturing. Final judgment: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Unfortunately that's not the story the makers of this film have decided to tell. The real story of Rochester is that those involved were doomed men in a losing cause. Anyone who has seen the Wild Bunch or the German film Stalingrad will know that such a story can make a great action film, or a powerfully dramatic (if depressing) meditation on the futility of collective violence. But the makers of this film don't care about any of that. Indeed, they relish violence - the whole point of this film seems to be to try to find new ways to depict dismemberment. The effort failed; the trouble is, there is no poetry to it, no grace, no art. It is just dismemberment, and we've seen it all before.
The occasional effort to express some comment on religion, or politics, or even just human relationships tends to fall flat. Just for instance, the historical period doesn't offer much - the 'freedom' sought by the rebellious barons meant entirely freedom for them, not 'the people.' That it eventually led to the establishment of the rule of law was virtually accidental.
Finally it has to be said that most of the characters are neither likable nor interesting - especially the defenders of the doomed castle (and that certainly shouldn't be the case!).
The filmmakers seem to be asking, 'can we make a Ridley Scott epic without Ridley Scott (or the resources he has available)?' Apparently not. Scott's best movies have strong stories to tell, strongly told. I lost real interest in this after the first half hour, zipped through to the end to see if they would tell the real story of the Siege. Also apparently not.
I bought this used, cheap, hoping for a decent action film to while away a Saturday afternoon. I had to fast-forward through an awful lot of meaningless posturing. Final judgment: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.