I have seen a lot of bad movies. One of my favorite pasttimes is watching bombs and making fun of them. This film, however, surpasses almost every one in terms of confusion and all-around ambiguity.
Having read the classic epic poem "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," I know that there is a plot to the story. However, watching this atrocity--I hardly dare to call it a "film"--you wouldn't be able to tell. The desperate stab at entertainment makes infinitely less sense than the plot of 1998's "The Avengers" (another waste of Connery's talent), and is so painful to experience that even I, a veteran of the worst of the worst, almost succumbed to the urge to throw a lamp through my TV screen. I kept watching in the vain hope that there would be a point to the random events I was witnessing.
There wasn't.
The lead (I think he was intended to be romantic, but failed) is wearing one of the worst wigs I have ever seen, and does absolutely nothing that makes sense. There is a love interest, who follows the tradition of "Blade Runner" by turning into a bird and flying away. The production values are terrible; the writing, nonexistent. It strays so far from the original literature that I still have difficulty connecting the two in my mind.
The only redeeming factor is Connery's presence; unfortunately, he is on-screen for only a few minutes at the beginning and end of the film (kind of like Charlton Heston in "Beneath the Planet of the Apes"), and is given no passable material with which to work.
As much as I adore Sean Connery as an actor, I can't help but wonder why he hasn't shot the agent who is responsible for putting him in some of these roles. Of all the bad apples of his distinguished career, this is by far the most rotten. If you value your brain cells, avoid it.
Having read the classic epic poem "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," I know that there is a plot to the story. However, watching this atrocity--I hardly dare to call it a "film"--you wouldn't be able to tell. The desperate stab at entertainment makes infinitely less sense than the plot of 1998's "The Avengers" (another waste of Connery's talent), and is so painful to experience that even I, a veteran of the worst of the worst, almost succumbed to the urge to throw a lamp through my TV screen. I kept watching in the vain hope that there would be a point to the random events I was witnessing.
There wasn't.
The lead (I think he was intended to be romantic, but failed) is wearing one of the worst wigs I have ever seen, and does absolutely nothing that makes sense. There is a love interest, who follows the tradition of "Blade Runner" by turning into a bird and flying away. The production values are terrible; the writing, nonexistent. It strays so far from the original literature that I still have difficulty connecting the two in my mind.
The only redeeming factor is Connery's presence; unfortunately, he is on-screen for only a few minutes at the beginning and end of the film (kind of like Charlton Heston in "Beneath the Planet of the Apes"), and is given no passable material with which to work.
As much as I adore Sean Connery as an actor, I can't help but wonder why he hasn't shot the agent who is responsible for putting him in some of these roles. Of all the bad apples of his distinguished career, this is by far the most rotten. If you value your brain cells, avoid it.