52 for '22: King Arthur

Movie: King Arthur (2004)

Method: Hulu

Suddenly a generation was a lot more interested in Arthurian Legend

Why Did I Watch This?

Like so many of the movies on this list, oftentimes I sit back and think..."Why DID I watch this?" I had never seen King Arthur. It felt like a big movie at the time it came out, but I also looked up that it finished third at the Box Office its opening weekend, to Spider-Man 2 (2004) and Anchorman (2004). That's awesome. It's in a weird zone where it was a mindless blockbuster movie from my childhood that no one ever saw, which always intrigues me, plus I do generally like movies about medieval times. The vibe I got was fun, brainless fun.

What Did I Know Going in?

Well...I knew that Keira Knightly was in it. In a costume that just seems really dumb for combat. It's definitely a 2004 outfit, though, check out that straight up tube top. I firmly remember the marketing at the time bragging that this was the REAL take on King Arthur, and that it was based on concrete historical evidence that would blow all other interpretations out of the water. It starred Clive Owen and Mr. Fantastic. That's really about it.

What Did I Think?

Haha! Okay. To get this out of the way, there is no level that exists that this could be a good movie. The plot is incomprehensible, motivations extremely blurry, the action is middling, and the acting is remarkably flat and uninteresting. However, I enjoyed bits and pieces of this, mostly because this snuck up on me as the most 2004 movie of all time.

First of all, the whole thing is clearly an attempt to ride the Lord of the Rings / Gladiator (2000) wave of the early 2000s, but it just doesn't get anything right. Like I said about The Dark Tower (2017), it feels like it's cheating itself out of epicness. It's more like it's trying to get some quick cash and ride everything that was popular in 2004 and it lacks any identity of its own.

I did not realize the cast this thing had. Arthur's knights are composed of Ioan Gruffudd, Madds Mikkelsen, Ray Winstone, Ray Stevenson, Hugh Dancy, and Joel Edgerton. Dude - this is like a dream cast of mid-2000s stars waiting to break out. Gruffudd did Fantastic Four (2005) the next year, Mikkelsen did Casino Royale (2006), Winstone did The Departed (2006), Stevenson did Punisher: War Zone (2008), and Joel Edgerton did...well, it took him a bit to catch on, maybe his next big big role is Warrior (2011). And Dancy, I dunno, that's always a name I hear that can't place. Always one dud in the bunch! Totally true, I straight up did not recognize that dude as I was getting pumped for all the other Knights.

Joel Edgerton is really fun because he plays Gawain here, and later he started in The Green Knight (2021), not as Gawain, but you should check out this way better movie based on Arthurian Legend! I kept thinking about that over and over again, not only because both films share a particularly mist-filled England, but to see an interpretation of valiant Arthur at the beginning of his reign juxtaposed with a dying corrupted Arthur at the end. This movie needed more weird foxes.

And it's a film that has Ray Winstone and Ray Stevenson! I got those two confused for the longest time. I remember watching The Other Guys (2010) and thinking, "That doesn't look like the dude from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)!" They're both really good in this, in fact, all the Knights have pretty defined personalities and you get hang-out time with them that serves way better than a film like Transformers (2007) that never lets you into the personalities of the team beyond caricatures.

Anyway, it's all Clive Owens' show. Or...is it? He was the most about-to-blow-up actor of any of them, cranking out Sin City (2004), Inside Man (2006), Children of Men (2006), and Shoot 'Em Up (2007) in subsequent years. I forgot how big Owens was as just a cool dude in the mid-2000s. I question if this is actually his film or not, because we never really get into his viewpoint. We don't really get into anyone's viewpoint. It opens on Lancelot being taken as a child in Samartia to fight for Artorius as Roman...mercenaries? Guards? I don't know. I thought, "Oh, we're going to follow Lancelot," but he's really far from a main character. He's slightly more developed than the other random knights, but it's not his story to tell.

So, it's Arthur's, right? I guess so, but he's also kept at a sincere distance. It's like an ensemble that was too afraid to be an ensemble and a character study that was too afraid to have a protagonist. It's bizarre. We need to talk about Keira Knightly, though, because she takes so damn long to appear in this movie. At the time it was released Clive Owen was 40 and she was 19, no big deal. He finds her in a whole and then she becomes like, a Woad Warrior Queen? I can't figure out her arc at all, but she does throw herself into this role for some reason and gets to fight a lot of people. She's like one of two women, though, this might be one of the worst Bechdel tests ever. Keira was obviously coming off Pirates of the Caribbean (2003), and had that trilogy to ride for a while while also crushing Atonement (2007) and shit.

There's this really out of place sex scene between Keira Knightly and Arthur. I mean, I know she's supposed to be Guinevere, but they don't set up the romance more than he saved her. I also cringed at the end when she's battling as good as anyone...but STILL needs Lancelot to save her. It's insane. No one else needed anyone to save her. (SPOILER - Lancelot does actually die fighting Til Schweiger, but it really feels like her character was cheated out of a heroic moment to complete her arc as...Woad Commander or whatever).

And Stellan Skarsgard shows up as the villain! He's a bad Saxon dude who is invading Roman territory. He's reliably wacky, as his Til Schweiger, who didn't really break out until Inglorious Basterds (2009), but he fits our star bill as well. Skarsgard is really just in every movie ever made, he was well past his breakout role.

This is one of many muddled messages in this film. The Saxons are bad because they want to invade Roman territory as the Empire is collapsing. This in itself is a really interesting point in history, and the characters ask often, "What are we fighting for? What are we preserving?" It's odd to think of King Arthur as protecting British freedom on behalf of the Romans against the Saxons. They also fight the Woads, which are really just the Picts. Did anyone here watch Braveheart (1995) and know what's coming up in a few hundred years? It seems so misguided, and it's really just an attempt to elevate Arthur's morality, but he always had that sense of virtue and chivalry. Just do that. Be like The Green Knight.

No one in this movie has any functional reason to do anything. They instead all just do the war because they're told to. None of them want to. We don't see any of them relishing the killing (except maybe Mads Mikkelsen), or learn a lesson, or have a deep intrinsic desire for anything that they are trying to achieve. Well, they do I suppose, they're all trying to go home, but it feels like their wants are trampled and they all easily sidestep those desires for baseless reasons. I don't know how to fix that, I think they really needed to unearth the entire premise. Maybe introduce the Bishop earlier as their taskmaster or show more how 15 years of fighting a cause they don't believe in has taken its toll on them. Make them soldiers who don't know how to go home. Surely that'd have no relevance in 2004 right...

I don't know what is about King Arthur movies that they keep making them. I guess it's just easily recognizable and in the public domain. Yeah, that's enough. I actually enjoyed Charlie Hunnam's King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) - that's an underrated film. What are the other big ones? Excalibur (1981). We need a decent King Arthur movie every 20 years or so. Just update to whatever kind of blockbuster filmmaking we're doing at the time.

This was admittedly fun, it's a fine way to spend a mindless evening, but nothing in this really works. The supporting cast is solid, though, and you get to see a little bit of Keira Knightley's boob, so they fulfilled that promise.

Check out more of our insane series this year!

First Impressions: Jackass Forever

 Ohh....Jackass. I was pretty excited for this one, having been a significant of this series for the past twenty-two years. I was right at the perfect age in High School when it came out and completely bought into the skater culture of the time. It's also the kind of movie that doesn't really get old. People falling down is still funny. Of course, the actors are much older here, but they bring in some new blood. So, SPOILERS here, but let's talk about Jackass and what this film does right and how it whiffs.

No! Not the bees they're in my eyes auuughhh!!

I watched all three previous installments (plus 2.5 and 3.5) in anticipation of this. It reminded me of both how cinematic a collection of random sketches can be, and also their distinctive eye towards nailing iconic shots. Director Jeff Tremaine deserves more credit than he gets for wrangling these insane personalities, but also for his crisp editing, impeccable comedic timing, and a clear vision for where the brand is going. Knoxville adds a lot to this - there's always this Buster Keaton / Looney Tunes element. They go for really classic gags that are typically creative to see on screen. Their improvisation, especially Knoxville and Pontius' was always far, far underrated. They only get one chance to nail a one-liner after an insane stunt. "Is Butterbean okay?" still slays me.

Now, this series obviously being one focused on the most puerile elements of society, but I also really dig how it continuously and effortlessly busts taboos. There is ingestion of fecal matter, interaction with venomous animals, and an extreme amount of nudity. In 2.5 they interact with the Aghori Tribe of India who partake in this to the extreme, cutting themselves, dusting with ashes of dead bodies, and consuming raw and dead flesh. Jackass isn't the Aghori, but it's as close as Western Civilization will come.

Despite all this, though, Jackass in the end tends to be a warm and welcoming place. There is a ]high amount of divergent acceptance, both physically and neurologically going on here, and more than that, the camaraderie always shines through. You see them hurtling their bodies through these insane stunts, but they also capture moments of pain, support, and laughter at each other. It's as if by acknowledging the pranks, stunts, and pain, they are able to express that true love and brotherhood at the end of the day. This is not always true. Also, we'll talk about Bam later.

However, this is still why Jackass stands out and why it's lasted so long. Well, that and Johnny Knoxville's invincible will to push himself far longer and harder than anyone else in the business. But there is such a jovial nature to the pranks, and it's rarely at the expense of the victim. It is far more focused on the person doing the prank, with public embarrassment, taboo-busting, or shock value as the goal. Victims are almost always seen laughing when the curtain is pulled down. Again, this isn't always the case with the cast.

So, let's dive into the fourth movie! Right away something is wrong. Namely, we're missing two of our beloved cast members. Ryan Dunn was killed in a drunk driving accident in 2011. Bam Margera was supposed to be a part of the movie (you can see him in one scene - the band members on the treadmill), but he was not able to submit to sobriety regulations handed down from Paramount and was kicked off set. I want to tackle this head-on.

Losing Dunn was devastating. He was always more of this sidekick character to Bam, but it was fun to watch him (and his beard) grow. He doesn't do too much in Jackass: The Movie (2002), he gets beaten up by a professional Japanese kickboxer, but then isn't all that much of a presence. Until the end, when he does the stunt that even Steve-O wouldn't do and establishes himself in Jackass history forever. After that his presence and confidence increased and you see him as a huge utility player in the group.

Being part of Jackass naturally means you're always teetering on the edge of full-blown alcoholism. It's a crazy environment. You see how much beer they drink on set (most notably in the papercut scene, which I really can't watch. This film adds the Spider-Helmet to that honorable distinction). Steve-O demised and rised, but Bam struggled with addiction before losing his best friend Dunn. That really pushed him over the edge and it's been a difficult recovery. Here is where I'm at - when you watch him in this deleted instagram video, you get his side. It seems like Paramount was setting him up for failure with multiple drug tests and breathalyzers a day, and as he notes, he's not the only Jackass member with substance abuse problems. Nothing seems to be on the side of the addict.

At the same time, he's clearly handling it poorly. He blew up at Tremaine and Knoxville, and seems to be burning the bridges of that great intimate friendship they had had twenty years ago. It's all just really sad and looms over this film like a dark spectre. I kept thinking about which sketches Bam might have done if he were here. The nut-boxing that Preston does seems like a weird choice for him, as he doesn't usually do nut stuff. But Bam does. I'm sure there are others if I looked at it with a clear eye.

Also awkward is the Ryan Dunn tribute. I know they were trying to be touching, but I found it odd they shoved it in at the end of the credits instead of in the movie proper. It just feels like this elephant in the room for the whole movie. They also clearly tried hard to find clips of him that didn't also contain Bam. This put a bad taste in my mouth because it's contrary to everything that made Jackass great that I said earlier. It's ignoring the timeless camaraderie and friendship bonds that made this fun to watch in favor of something more corporate. I recognize that it's more complicated than that, but it was a downer.

Looking back at the other films, I was surprised to realize how commercial this is. That's really weird to say because we straight up see Steve-O's dick covered in bees, but it lacked the gritty edge that the first two movies had. It finds itself in line with 3D (2010), which had these ridiculously expensive phantom cameras that could capture the stupidest shit in slow motion 3D. Sometimes literal shit. This film does find an excellent way of integrating phantom cameras again, although it's not the main gimmick this time. There is a good mix of old and new here, with old stunts updated with a new twist, like Dave England taking a shit at a yardsale or Knoxville doing another 360 with a bull. It's all a lot of fun. And it's perhaps weird to bemoan the era of grainy video cameras, but that level of cheapness always made it feel DIY and home-brewed. I know we're well, WELL past that, but I'm still whining.

This film adds a lot of new cast members and transition is always hard. The CKY crew seems completely burned off, although we do get a glimpse of Raab Himself operating a camera. I didn't spy Loomis Fall, but he's apparently in there somewhere, and they seemed to replace Manny Puig and David Weathers. These were always fun apocrypha to dig into about Jackass. I always loved how close it was to the extreme sports world, with Brandon Novak, Matt Hoffman, and Clyde Singleton showing up randomly. Re-watching the old ones, Matt Hoffman is in a surprising amount of background shots. Some of this is assuredly the loss of Bam, who was a strong connection. Also the world has kind of moved on.

We get Poopie, Rachel Wolfson, Zach Thomas, Eric Manaka, Jasper, and Dark Shark. They are pretty good. I think it's tough because we don't totally know them and we don't really have that history with the guys. Poopie fits in really well, but he doesn't totally have a distinctive sketch. None of them really do. Rachel comes close with her scorpion Botox and positively gnarly silent electricity lick. By the way, I love how Pontius plays the doctor putting scorpions on Rachel's chin, after he fought them the same way when he dressed his face up like a barbarian. There's also a great bit when he asks permission to touch her breast to remove the scorpion. He's just so sweet and earnest.

Distaff counterpart Jackass

I liked Dark Shark as a kind of cameo as Jasper's dad that hangs out and does spider and vulture shit. His death grip of Knoxville is fantastic, like this is finally someone who isn't taking his shit. Same with a brief appearance by Tyler the Creator, who seems to be the only one who realizes that he's about to get shocked as he plays the piano. I didn't realize how much Tremaine worked on Loiter Squad, and yeah, that's a perfect partnership to bring into this fold. Jackass has always been incredibly egalitarian in incorporating its imitators.

Eric Andre appears and seems to be a continuous presence, and even gets some good one-liners, but I was waiting for a big sketch with him. He's the best heir apparent to this world and has pushed Jackass concepts to their natural millennial conclusions. He supposedly might be in 4.5, but I'd take more of him now mixing it in with these guys!

Mostly, I was looking for something distinctive from these new guys. They more or less just seemed like fodder since a lot of the original cast couldn't come back. Everyone always had a role - Knoxville was the leader and chief prankster, and would specialize in stunts. Bam was the whiney skater and Dunn the stealth gnarly sidekick. Pontius loves his dick, Steve-O master of pain and turds that combined taboo with physical feats. Dave England could take craps, Wee Man was a little person, Preston the fatass, and Ehren the whipping boy who could also stealth do some incredible stunts. I know it's really just a new lot of people, but like many modern updates, they had trouble finding their voice amidst the old cast trotting out their tried and true.

The best of this is probably the Icarus. Knoxville so instinctively is able to spread his fake wings at the apex of his cannon launch. It is incredible. I don't know how he pulls this off. He really broke himself on...well, just about everything he did, but it's an amazing sight to see here.

So, let's talk about Ehren McGhehey. He always came off as a huge piece of shit, but it seemed like they really went after him in this movie. The "Terror Taxi" gag was a fun prank on a prank, and it felt like they just rolled with that. Ehren isn't the only one fooled by the Silence of the Lambs bit, which is terrifying, but he's the most canny because they've done this too him before. In the bear bit, it really feels like Knoxville is a psychopath, though, tying him him and shocking him in front of a large bear, repeating over the PA system, "Are you really allergic to bees, Ehren?" as if it had been some great lie. It's haunting.

I hate to say it, but these moments are what pushes Jackass Forever (2022) over the edge into a really, really funny movie. I give it all the credit in the world for creating an experience where I cringe, cover my eyes, laugh, become uncomfortable, and find some genuine shock. It is a real trip. It oddly felt really short, though, despite being the longest of all movies. I think that's because there isn't a high total amount of bits.

For the record:

Jackass: The Movie: 55

Jackass Number Two: 52

Jackass 2.5: 27

Jackass 3D: 46

Jackass 3.5: 44

Jackass Forever: 36

The bits breathe a ton more, though, and more than any other film we see more of the set-up, more of them breaking, more angry call-outs to Jeff Tremaine, and the after-effects of pain. The lack of Bam and Dunn also mean that everyone else gets a lot more time to shine, particularly Ehren, although that's also because he seems to get all the most painful tasks to complete. I wonder if he was Darfing it up every night.

It's amazing to me that the final sketch is Jackass: The Move is more memorable than this one. You can do a lot with a car up your but. The Vomitron that became a paintball war just seemed unconnected and unironic. Normally pranks work because they set the victim up to compound their pain. When Bam and Knoxville dump bees in a limo, they run out in a panic, only to trip on marbles. I don't know. I thought the final bit in 3D was a letdown, too. They needed to up the tension of Steve-O's rollercoaster fear more. Number Two with their huge production number at the end remains the high point of a big conclusion for me, Forever is assuredly anti-climactic.

But I liked this movie! I liked it a lot. It felt good to laugh again and these idiots just felt like old pros the whole time. I'd honestly like to see this continue with the newer cast getting more of a chance to prove themselves. I think Knoxville and Steve-O are done. They just keep breaking too many bones. Knoxville might remain as a ringleader, destroying everyone psychologically. And as we know, Steve-O will outlive all of them.

52 for '22: The Square

Movie: The Square (2017)

Method: HBOMax

Apes together strong!

Why Did I Watch This?

The Square was one of those classic movies that was on my queue for literally years. It had buzz when it came out, it was nominated (and I think favored) to win the Oscar for Best International Film, although it ended up not pulling through. I had heard of it from back then and don't watch enough foreign films, so it was a no-brainer. It was really one of those moments where it was about to be taken off HBOMax on January 31st, so I finally pulled the trigger and checked it out.

What Did I Know Going in?

Surprisingly little. I knew there was a shirtless guy from all the ads. And I read the synopsis, which said it was a satire. Also, its 2.5 hour run time turned me off for a looong time. But really...not much more than that when I pressed play.

What did I think?

This movie was fantastic. Let's get the negative out of the way, it is DEFINITELY too long, especially towards the end. There is a lot of momentum in the film, it always feels propulsive, but there were scenes down the stretch with new characters (his daughters, which first appear [checks timer...] an 94 minutes into the movie! He's got kids?!) that assuredly drag on and forego the point. There are also a lot of really unique cinematography choices, some novel, others baffling, but in general I really enjoyed this.

Some folks will surely gripe at the chopped up, nearly anthology nature of this movie. It is oddly constructed in that it moves between only a handful of long scenes, some influence each other, others don't. Notably, the Wikipedia plot summary just tracks one storyline at a time, although in the film everything's happening simultaneously. The most famous (and best) scene, the aforementioned shirtless dude goes on for about 10 minutes and actually doesn't impact the plot in any way. It's not even in that Wikipedia summary...

This can be a negative, but ultimately, this feels like a hangout movie that still has a plot and sincere character arcs. Our main dude, Christian, is a museum curator who is smarter than just about everyone else, but also shallow. He's able to outwit conscious questions about the nature of art, but doesn't actually have much of substance to stand on. The film nominally centers around the museum's objective to install and promote a new piece, called The Square, which blandly promotes equality and helping others. Conversely, there's also a thread where Christian has his wallet pick-pocketed by a pair of con artists. Both of these pretty simple premises spiral out of control for the rest of the run time.

The thesis of the film seems to be repeated again and again, that within the Square, everyone is harmonious, helps each other, and has equal rights and obligations. Over and over it does seem like outside this square, no one is willing to help each other. You get that at the outset (sure, SPOILERS here), when Christian's wallet is stolen because he tries to help a woman, whose cries turn out to be false. There are beggars that everyone refuses to help, although again, Christian eventually does so, but he isn't thanked or rewarded. There's a mysterious entertaining bit when Christian refuses Elizabeth Moss' help in throwing away a recently used condom. You see it with the YouTube video that explodes, the boy Christian accidentally pushes down stairs, and more. It's just everywhere. This whole movie is about people not helping, not listening, and not bothering to understand other people.

So, do you want to talk about that scene? It fuels the thesis of non-helping as well as a commentary on the nature of art, mostly just how unknowable and exact it is. This dude is giving a performance at a gala where he's playing a Gorilla, and he absolutely commits to it. When does he just become an asshole for his commitment to a role that is clearly bothering everyone? The director, Ruben Ostlund (who also did the excellent, Force Majeure [2014]) says he was inspired by a piece by Oleg Kulik where he pretended to be a dog and attack people. That's great. Like, I get what the art is trying to do, but why do we need that in our lives? At what point do we agree that our point is made and move on?

It takes a lot. There is this disconnect between the patrons who think this artist will give up on his own, and the artist who takes his role seriously. It finally comes to a head when he assaults a woman and really looks like he's about to rape her. Folks finally get up and start beating the hell out of him. Would he have gone all the way for his art? Is it him trying to push this crowd and get them to stand up for each other (at the expense of himself?). Again, this is just the idea of helping each other out, even strangers at a gala, even if it means accepting the falseness of art.

This feeds into a bit about following directions. The gorilla in the film states before he comes out that if everyone is still and calm, the animal will ignore them. Just like when Christian gives directions to everyone who lives in a building to return his phone and wallet to him. But ultimately neither goes the way they expect, because we're dealing with human beings here. Chaos ensues, as one response to his letter so aptly suggests.

The film is supremely interesting, there are dozens of scenes to drill down into and pick apart. This doesn't even get into the other core plot element of creating a shocking YouTube video to drive up attention, even though it's wholly negative. Christian eventually has to resign from his position because he couldn't bother to screen the promotional video (which let's just say involves a child...that explodes), but it actually does exactly what the ad agency promised. He should be praised, but that surely wouldn't align with the museum's values. Or does it? Because they clearly are just insane people with no values. It's a really fun movie to think about.

It's also shot really weird. There is little to no camera movement in any given scene, even if two people are talking. Often one of them is off camera, so we really just stay with one character at a time and see their reaction. The scope is so limited and narrow, but there's also room for these big scenes in the museum, particularly on the steps when Christian introduces the exhibit and in the Ape scene. But more often, we barely get a glimpse of the car, the parking lot, or even establishing shots of the buildings we're in. It's so wholly focused on the characters. There was one scene where Christian is driving and his assistant is in the backseat, and I really couldn't figure out why. The camera is in the passenger seat and it's better for their dialogue, but it seems to totally break convention and doesn't care at all.

The Square is really long and the ending is dumb, but it's pretty great and you should watch it. Not on HBOMax anymore, but put it on your Netflix DVD queue baby!!