"Tristan + Isolde" is one of those almost movies. It has a good story, competent actors and a good director. So what failed? First let me say what I liked about this. James Franco: it takes time to warm to his barely there acting style, but he is the best thing here. Rufus Sewell: this guys always good, why isn't he a major star? Location: the Czech Republic never looked better, subbing for England and Ireland is gorgeous.
Now for the bad: Pacing, this movie could have been trimmed by twenty minutes! It's far too slow, the entire prologue should have been dropped. Sophia Myles: she did okay accent wise, but she can't act, at least she's pretty, which is more than one can say for Shannon Sossamyn in "Knight's Tale". And the let's be real award: Tristan and Isolde sleep together in Ireland, then she's married to King Marke, this makes him the first and only king in English history not to question his bride's virginity! Stupid mistake, apparently Kevin Reynolds.
Sum that up and you have a decent movie, the supporting players are good, even David O'Hara, and give it up with the "Patrick" David, we know who you are: "Bragveheart", "Jesus", manages not to go over the top for once. The dialog is good and Rufus Sewell has a very good scene opposite Franco. In any tragic romance the end is very important. I think this film was badly marketed, it really had nothing like the Romeo and Juliet story in it, and they should have built up the triangle more. At the end, a truly beautifully filmed scene, Isolde doesn't die! Huh? Who decided to rip off the end of "spartacus"? Oh, that's right: Dean Georgaris, who wrote this way back. Apparently Ridley Scott had this on his mind for decades. Sorry to say this wasn't up to "Gladiator". Oh and Bragnae's character? One of the more annoying I've seen ever and why didn't they use her to bookend the story? That might have worked.
Tristan and Isolde isn't bad, it just could have been better, in some ways it was better than "King Arthur" with Clive Owen, but it leaves you depressed, as Sophia Myles admitted in an interview. That's not right, it should leave you with longing and regret, but not down. Too grim and too long, though Franco tries hard. I give this a b- for his effort.
Now for the bad: Pacing, this movie could have been trimmed by twenty minutes! It's far too slow, the entire prologue should have been dropped. Sophia Myles: she did okay accent wise, but she can't act, at least she's pretty, which is more than one can say for Shannon Sossamyn in "Knight's Tale". And the let's be real award: Tristan and Isolde sleep together in Ireland, then she's married to King Marke, this makes him the first and only king in English history not to question his bride's virginity! Stupid mistake, apparently Kevin Reynolds.
Sum that up and you have a decent movie, the supporting players are good, even David O'Hara, and give it up with the "Patrick" David, we know who you are: "Bragveheart", "Jesus", manages not to go over the top for once. The dialog is good and Rufus Sewell has a very good scene opposite Franco. In any tragic romance the end is very important. I think this film was badly marketed, it really had nothing like the Romeo and Juliet story in it, and they should have built up the triangle more. At the end, a truly beautifully filmed scene, Isolde doesn't die! Huh? Who decided to rip off the end of "spartacus"? Oh, that's right: Dean Georgaris, who wrote this way back. Apparently Ridley Scott had this on his mind for decades. Sorry to say this wasn't up to "Gladiator". Oh and Bragnae's character? One of the more annoying I've seen ever and why didn't they use her to bookend the story? That might have worked.
Tristan and Isolde isn't bad, it just could have been better, in some ways it was better than "King Arthur" with Clive Owen, but it leaves you depressed, as Sophia Myles admitted in an interview. That's not right, it should leave you with longing and regret, but not down. Too grim and too long, though Franco tries hard. I give this a b- for his effort.