Besides all the historical and mythical problems with the movie, it *really* was just another entry into the "Magnificent Seven" subgenre of movies: seven super-competent guys ride forth, rescue some innocent villagers and defeat a nasty army. Instead of Mexican peons we have "woads" (why can't we just call a Pict a Pict? The word dates to the third century, the movie supposedly takes place in the 5th...) enslaved by a nasty Roman, and instead of Banditos we have a Saxon Army a few hundred miles off from where they originally landed (Cerdic & Cynric landed in the *south* of Britain, Mr. Bruckheimer!)
So is the movie any good? Well, if you ignore the whole "Arthur" part, there's some nice fighting sequences (apparantly, Sarmatian knights never fight with shields (even though they carry them on their saddles - they must be related to the Rohirrim), and they like unorthodox weapons like paired shortswords, bladed gloves, and the like). The eye-candy aspect is practically nil, though - Kiera Knightly in skimpy leather fighting harness looks like a 13 year old boy in skimpy leather fighting harness.
You can get some nice Gloranthan scenario ideas, though...
Roman Britain becomes post-Dragonrise Sartar and Tarsh; Hadrian's Wall becomes the Glowline
Arthur and his Sarmatian Knights get transformed into Sable Lancers from the Hungry Plateau (I thought of making them Char-un, but those boys from Erigia probably aren't the right fit for a Magnificent Seven type warband). The Retreating Romans are various useless Imperial troops, the "Woads" are Tarshite hill folk, Saxons are victorious Heortlings (maybe with Harrek & Co. as support). Cerdic is Argath, Cynric is (a different) Argrath.
RR
It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has
done what he has done.
- Richelieu
Powered by hypermail