Every time he starts with the opening narrative, it makes me skip through it in a haste. It sounds so fake, "overtrying" to sound more epic maybe or like a strong man? And that "Destiny is all" line is probably the cherry on the top.
I like the show, Leofric was an awesome character with an amazingly well-fitting actor, but Uthred... god I want him gone.
[deleted]
Agree, I cant stand Uthred, I found him the most tolerable during the finale,
I dont get the constant argument from fans that Alfred is the A hole who mistreats Uthred who is justified in everything he does
but he will start to mature.”
Alfred, his wife and Edward are horrific to Uhtred. He is promised men to take back his lands but they never come through. At every twist and turn they screw him over. No matter how many times he saved them. They are hyper ungrateful. The number of men needed to retake his fort is laughable. There's enough men in the tavern at times to overpower it. Even when he does retake his fort, it was only tangential to the aims of Edward.
You don't have to like Uhtred to notice how much they owe him and yet time and again are ready to sacrifice him. It might be required to be ruthless to rule but they go overboard. Even times when the cost is little they won't help him. Aelswith only becomes tolerable in the last season or so and reserves herself a room at his fort.
Wyrd bið ful aræd
shareRory McCan Would be a better choice for Uthred.
shareToo old for the part. He would of been a,great choice for any of the lead Viking rolls though. Excellent actor.
shareMaybe current uthred? :P i really hope they change the actor as soon as uthred ages, it would be a shame if they decide to make him old by using make up. I always pictured uthred in the books talking like the hound
shareI've seen far worse.
But the character is also written in this way.
A smart but foolish teenager...isn't he still 19?
Also a nice example that wisdom or manners does not come automatically with intelligence.
Some say that intellectuals are people in whose cases the intellect has outrun their manners. Call it the "Dr. House"-syndrome.
Ich bin kein ausgeklügelt Buch, ich bin ein Mensch mit seinem Widerspruch.
Conrad Ferdinand Meyer
[deleted]
I have to agree that although Dreymon still hasn't convinced me that he is Uhtred, it would be wiser to stick with this actor. Both Uhtred and Dreyon get the chance to mature next season.
I'm looking forward to it.
"Now, who has the key?"
[deleted]
Oh God, yes, I never went to the imdb boards at the time, but I have to admit, I really couldn't adjust to the second actor playing Octavian.
The younger actor was just so perfect. His lovely face gave the character a sympathy factor, that made you want to forgive his flaws. The second one just made the character 100% annoying.
I also loved Rome and didn't like the second Octavian as well, much prefer the first and younger one.
shareYes.I think he is excellent.
shareI agree that the opening narratives are a bit over the top, but that is the tone of the book. I am American, lived in Denmark, and Dreymon's accent is spot on.
Beyond that, I am blown away by Dreymon's performance. If you know acting, you will see how well-trained he obviously is, and how often he puts nuance and deeper layers than he needs to, into a scene. He is certainly a very intelligent actor, and I don't think they could have cast a better one in that particular role.
In my review of the series I said this: "Not enough can be said about the cast. Heading it up is the relatively unknown Alexander Dreymon, whose anonymity will come to a screeching halt with this project. The well-trained young actor has delivered a performance worthy of an epic - always competent, nuanced, and fascinating. He understands the value of accent, the glance of an eye, posture, and all the small moments that raise a performance from passing to mesmerizing. His Uhtred is multi-layered, enigmatic, superbly physical (check out the horseback stunts and the fight scenes - his martial arts training shows) and by turns quietly emotional and fiercely warrior-like, as he cries over a friend's betrayal or his dead child, then rushes into battle swinging a broadsword with an intimidating fury-birthed grimace. He is never less than 100% male, as a ninth century warrior had to be in order to survive."
YOu can see the entire review here: http://lichencraig.blogspot.com/2015/11/bbc-series-last-kingdom-ends-with.html
In my review of the series I said this: "Not enough can be said about the cast. Heading it up is the relatively unknown Alexander Dreymon, whose anonymity will come to a screeching halt with this project. The well-trained young actor has delivered a performance worthy of an epic - always competent, nuanced, and fascinating. He understands the value of accent, the glance of an eye, posture, and all the small moments that raise a performance from passing to mesmerizing. His Uhtred is multi-layered, enigmatic, superbly physical (check out the horseback stunts and the fight scenes - his martial arts training shows) and by turns quietly emotional and fiercely warrior-like, as he cries over a friend's betrayal or his dead child, then rushes into battle swinging a broadsword with an intimidating fury-birthed grimace. He is never less than 100% male, as a ninth century warrior had to be in order to survive
Totally agree. I was turned off by the scenes they chose of him for the trailer, but when I saw him in action, I realised that David got Alfred spot on. He really nailed the Machiavellian nature of Alfred while hiding it behind an apparently pious priestly appearance.
Really looking forward to what he does with the role as Alfred gets older and more sickly
This is my only beef with the series: the real Alfred according to our sources was NOT Machiavellian.
shareI'd be very careful about that statement. Our primary source of Alfred was a chronicle of his life, written by Bishop Asser, who was an advisor in his court. He had good reason to project a highly relevant image of Alfred at the time to promote the English cause; primarily that of having a warlike nature. The statue of Alfred at Winchester corroborates this view because it portreys him as a warrior king, celebrating his victory over the Danes at Edington.
However, equalled achivements in his life was his dedication to the scripture, and his significant work dedicated to writing the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which puts the idea of his warlike nature on shakey ground. It is also known that he suffered from Crohn's disease, a condition that would have made waging war impossible.
Bare in mind, however, that primary sources of the time are from Saxon sources, who have a certain agenda. Saxons writing about Alfred during the making of England, in particular, would have sought to project a powerful image of Alfred to rally the Saxons and intimidate the Danes. What we have from the period is a taylored image of him so we cannot say that he was warlike as such.
Basically, we can't rely on the sources and whether or not they say he isn't Machiavellian. He wasn't a great warrior, that much is certain, but he was certainly a very intelligent man and it is logical to infer from this that he knew how to play the game of politics. I find his Machiavellian nature more believable than if they showed him as a strong warrior.
However, equalled achivements in his life was his dedication to the scripture, and his significant work dedicated to writing the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which puts the idea of his warlike nature on shakey ground. It is also known that he suffered from Crohn's disease, a condition that would have made waging war impossible.
A sport's player playing hurt, or a soldier fighting with an injury, is very different to fighting with Crohn's disease. The latter causes violent and crippling stomach pains. Alfred is known to have collapsed from these pains during his wedding. The pain and debilitation from Crohn's disease is radically different to a soldier continuing fighting despite a slash to his side.
The problem is we can't be certain of his character at all due to the agendas of the sources. You could certainly argue that the chronicle provides some unflattering descriptions of Alfred and some of his achievements, but that certainly doesn't detract from or improve the reliability of Saxon sources writing about their king during a time of hightened existential tensions with the Danes. It is not in their interests or the interests of the Saxons to rip apart his character, so why would they not portrey him as a warrior during a time of war, even if he wasn't? Food for thought.
Just wanted to say i agree with 90% of what you said. I really don't know how most of the people didn't realize he is actually quite good, Uhtred is annoying and stupid in some scenes but that is a part of who he is and Alexander Dreymon portrayed that perfectly !
share[deleted]
I disagree. While the opening narrative is a bit extra dramatic it doesn't represent the actor's ability to deliver his character.
He may not be the best actor ever but he does a pretty decent job.
Plus, he's easy on the eyes which never hurts.
www.Kodi.tv
"Come to the dark side. We have cookies."
I really like the actor and the way he plays the character but you're right, the opening narrative is awful. I think it may be his intonation on speaking english but something is off there though I like the way he speaks in the series. Took me a couple of episodes to sort out what his accent was.
I WILL NEVER GIVE UP!