apexa
14Jan12
Haha that's because Bresson used non-actors in his films later in his career. Which I find distracting at times to be honest.
Wall
Displaying all 12 wall posts
demarcated
13Jan12
Everyone in this film is terrible at acting. Also horses whinny every five seconds. There's something about it though. I like the dialogue if not always the delivery, and how it is patently staid while still impressing the fact upon the viewer that 'shit is getting real'.
Francisco R.
1Oct11
The movie flows with an inperceptible dynamism, in part thanks to the heavy use of ellipsis over some plot points while never eliding the bloody action sequences, which some can argue it may strengthen the narrative but makes it rather difficult to fill in the gaps at times. A little post-processing must be done after you watch it.
Lars Ole Kristiansen
5Aug11
"One could say that Lancelot du Lac is about nothing more than the clanging of armor or the movements of legs, but the fact that he cares about the way situations look and feel, its textures and emotional tones (even as filtered through the singular Bressonian personality) is exceedingly important—and exceedingly cool." - Slantmagazine. This quote summarizes the film perfectly. Lancelot is pure linguistic gold. A-
Darvek
17Jun10
I believe Bresson's intentions were profound & somewhat transgressive, & I welcome that, because an anti-romantic adaptation is what's needed in this ever-so-shining genre. But the director's visions must have fallen short of his realization, because the film is as enervative as it is innovative.
DT likes this
Darvek
17Jun10
A bore of Dark Age proportions. The wooden acting rattles in the tin armour like a barge pole in a swill bucket - when they kick the bucket, there's quite a racket. The camera is forever hanging down at hoofs & feet, & horse rumps, as if too shame-faced to witness (& record) such poor performances, & such tedious tournaments.
