Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here. Well, since TheNorthlander was the one person who reviewed ARN: THE KNIGHT TEMPLAR for us, it makes sense that he'd be the one to review the sequel for us as well. Sure enough, here he is. I'm still not sure if we'll ever see these get a release stateside, but in Sweden, these are big news:
Hey guys. The Northlander here. A couple of months ago I sent in a review of a Swedish movie called ARN: THE KNIGHT TEMPLAR, which together with its sequel is the most expensive and ambitious production in Swedish cinema yet. I also brooded a bit about how and why this film came to be, and I still stand by what I said back then. Nnow the second half of this two parter is opening here, and it's relevant to you because this is something they're trying to sell internationally as well. So here is my review of ARN 2: THE KINGDOM AT ROAD'S END (or as the folks at Disney would have called it - 2RN) ARN 2 is basically a continuation of the first film, and while on the whole I can actually say it's better (or at least not as bad); it's not "T2" better. More like "ATTACK OF THE CLONES" better, if you get my drift. *** Spoilers below: *** Ok here's the story. ARN 2 starts off several years after the first one left off, although nothing has really happened and we don't know how long it has been. Arn is still in the Jerusalem desert fighting the same guy, his girl is still home in Sweden forced to live in the same convent as a nun. Arn has a slight beard now though. That mean old nun who hated his girl Cecilia, she dies in the beginning and due to political circumstances too messy to explain in a review, Stellan Skarsgård pushes Cecilia to take the old head nun's place. She refuses however and leaves the convent to wait for Arn's expected return even though nobody even knows if he's alive or dead.After leaving the convent she is finally reunited with her and Arn's son Magnus, who was born in the last film. Although Cecilia and Arn look pretty much the same age, or maybe a few years older than last time we saw them, their son is now played by a 25 year old guy made to look like he's supposed to be playing much younger. It's a bit confusing and I'm not sure exactly how much later this is supposed to be to be honest. Meanwhile, Arn tries to get out of Jerusalem and back to Sweden and when the templars are defeated and he survives, due to his good personal relationship with his enemy, he gets his chance. The Danish invade Sweden and at this point Arn returns (He now has more beard) and that's pretty much the setup for Act 2. So there you have the basic premise. Confused? Yeah. Me too. See here's the thing. This plot, the whole two films that are based on two books, is a boring mess. It's not exciting enough to be a good drama and it's not a documentary. It almost feels like one of those fake midieval villages you can go to that are never that fun or educational. We finally have a bad guy here though, the Danish King and his right hand man are good bad guys in this film and much needed because the first film didn't have any real antagonist for Arn's hero at all. I mean, a lot of this story is Man vs Society, but there's no one real true antagonist to represent the Society so he never feels like a hero. There are a few small obstacles and stuff but it's too much obsessed with being true to the actual historical events to ever become exciting. There are some good things to say about this sequel though. Stellan Skarsgård is good although he still gets too little screen time. It's not quite as bad as the first movie. It ties everything together surprisingly well in the end (McKee would be proud at how well the third act actually work compared to the rest). There's a very nice moment in the beginning where Arn's horse is murdered by someone and he comforts it as it passes away. But on the whole these things are not really enough for me to recommend this to anyone but die hard Jan Guilliou fans. Jan Guillou is the guy who wrote the novel. Speaking of him, as a companion piece to this review, I found an article with a small Q&A with Jan Guillou in today's edition of Swedish newspaper METRO and I thought I'd translate the whole thing just for you guys. First off, Guillou is probably one of the most successful authors from here, not sure if you ever saw the movie EVIL (directed by Mikael Håfström of 1408 fame), which got an Oscar nomination for best foreign language film 2004. He's also written the books about Hamilton, which the 2001 film starring Peter Stormare with Mark Hamill as the bad guy. So this is from today's Metro (I thought some of this was funny): (this article was written by Peter Lindholm at Swedish Metro and translated by me) HOLLYWOOD WANTED TO MAKE ARN... but Ridley Scott couldn't get hold of Jan GuillouARN could have been a Hollywood production. Famous director Ridley Scott was curious about Jan Guillou's novels but never managed to get hold of the author. Instead, he made the similar KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! Just call the publisher. Amateurs!" says a surprised Jan Guillou. Oscarwinning sound editor Per Hallberg tells Metro Hollywood tried to get in touch with Jan Guillou a few years ago. The subject matter was of interest to Ridley Scott. He talked about how he wanted to make a film about the crusades, but Guillou was a hard man to find. So he gave up after a while. Instead Ridley Scott - the man behind ALIEN, THELMA & LOUISE and GLADIATOR - made KINGDOM OF HEAVEN in 2005. "It was good in the way that it wasn't a racist film but there were too many stupid historical inaccuracies in it. This is way too complicated material to get in the hands of the Americans," says Jan Guillou. But wouldn't you have liked to see ARN as a Hollywood movie? "No, I'm not sure I would have agreed to that. There would have been too many political changes, additions and so many historical inaccuracies. But it was nice not having to deal with that problem." "Wouldn't you have liked to see Orlando Bloom as Arn?" "Eh. No. Haha. And not Brad Pitt either. I happen to think the Arn movie is better than KINGDOM OF HEAVEN." So, there you have it. Not sure how true any of that Ridley Scott talk is, but this is certainly a story that he would have handled better and it could have used a lot of historical inaccuracies if it had made the story less boring if you ask me. Go see Mongol instead. Or I hear the director's cut of KINGDOM OF HEAVEN is supposed to be really awesome. Well that's about it. In a few weeks I'll send in a review of a new Swedish vampire movie called VAMPYRER. I know next to nothing about that one, but there's another one called LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (also a new Swedish vampire movie) that's awesome like a mother pus bucket. See it at Fantastic fest, and read the novel. Seriously, I mean that. Until then, folks. /TheNorthlander
