Michael Hirst (2) (1952–)

With a better pacing than the first one and a more specific romance plot that few other stories could do, this is the rare case where I find the sequel slightly superior to the original. I'm still feeling a lack of "oomph" as far as the plot-driving intrigues go -- there are some fun, clever twists here (the unloaded pistol in particular), but the payoffs are so muted and passed so nonchalantly that they never really get to shine. Decent fun for idle historical fiction enthusiasts like show more myself, but sadly never particularly memorable. show less

No idea why so few people saw this film. It is utterly incredible, both as a seering film and as a literary adaptation. Redgrave is the perfect performer for this, disquieting and savage. The screenplay is whiplash evocative of McCullers, thanks to Edward Albee. It made me wistful for the days when great playwrights were writing for the movies on a more basis, although, if you've seen Barton Fink, a thinly veiled fictionalization of Clifford Odets' bad time in Hollywood, you might have some show more idea. The production design, too, is really perfect. show less

The film is carried by splendid actors, but the plot feels oddly thin and surface only. To my tastes, at least, the intrigues that drive the film are underplayed and underdeveloped, with its payoffs feeling oddly subdued when they arrive, while the fairly standard romance plot is slow and largely uneventful. The film has some great moments, but they are much too far between. That said, the ending lands very solidly -- as everything else in this film, in large part due to Blanchett's show more impressive performance. show less

In many ways a well done Arthurian reimagining that does some interesting things (the visual of the sword in the lake, for instance, will stay with me), but for all the intriguing presence of Merlin and Morgan, the protagonist is horrifically bland. The show never fully managed to compensate for the weak centre, and then suddenly it was cancelled.