Purists are already complaining about how the ancient legend of Tristan and Isolde has been mutilated for its new screen adaptation, and of course by "purists" I mean "nerds." I wasn't aware this ancient legend existed until the film's trailer informed me that "before 'Romeo & Juliet' there was 'Tristan & Isolde.'" (Take THAT, Shakespeare! You suck!!)

Still, those nerds have a point. Many elements of the story, set in the Dark Ages in England, have been removed to make it more relatable to a modern audience. The star-crossed lovers don't fall for each other because of a love potion anymore, for example; now it's for the regular old-fashioned reasons, i.e., his angular, brooding face and her pert bosoms. But even among the original elements that remain, much of the drama has been sucked out of them by a tired screenplay and underachieving direction.

It is a time of war and discontent in stinky olde England. Not only are the various tribes -- your Anglos, your Saxons, your Jutes, etc. -- at odds with each other, but those darn Irish keep sailing over to burn down villages and take Britons back as slaves. (Why they think pasty, weak-kneed Brits would be good workers, I don't know. Don't they see Italy just across the way?)

Tristan (James Franco) is a British youth and an excellent military strategist. Orphaned as a child, he has grown up under the care of Lord Marke (Rufus Sewell), the man who would be king if the bickering tribes could ever agree on a unification plan. And Tristan would be his No. 2.

Alas, Tristan is killed in battle and, according to custom, his body is put on a boat and sent floating away. But whoops! One, he's not dead; two, he lands on the Irish coast, where the beautiful Isolde (Sophia Myles), daughter of King Donnchadh (David O'Hara), secretly nurses him back to health and falls in love with him.

(A side note: Do you suppose maybe the reason the Irish hate the English so much is that the English are always sending their corpses to them on boats? I mean, you set a body adrift in the Irish Sea, where do you think it's going to wind up? Singapore?)

Anyway, Tristan and Isolde can't be together, and they realize it, as demonstrated by very obvious dialogue such as, "We both know this can't be. We've known it from the start." (Yawn.) Tristan heads back to England and they vow never to see each other again. But then! Through a very odd bit of strategy by her father, Isolde winds up married to a prominent Briton, and she and Tristan are once again living in proximity to one another. They don't have Motel 6, but they sure have old stone dugouts and abandoned cellars.

Director Kevin Reynolds has made period pieces before, notably "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" and "The Count of Monte Cristo" (and, less notably, "Waterworld"), but I don't recall the past being as murky and overcast as this one. He's directed plenty of fight sequences, too, yet all the action in "Tristan & Isolde" is shot mostly in rapidly cut close-ups, making it chaotic and confusing (not to mention cheap, since you don't actually have to teach any actors how to sword-fight).

More damaging, though, is the general WB-ification of the story, in a screenplay by Dean Georgaris ("Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life"). The pretty young leads, scrubbed fresh and clean in a most anachronistic fashion, exhibit only teen-drama emotions, nothing approaching the real depth hinted at by the story's classic themes. Sophia Myles is just bland, and James Franco's one facial expression is that of someone whose feelings have just been hurt.

There are serious ideas at work here. Greed, jealousy, love, betrayal -- you can make a powerful film out of those raw materials. But in these hands, it's as shallow and glossed-over as Franco's English accent.

THE DVD

There are alternate French and Spanish tracks (both Dolby Surround) as well as optional English and Spanish subtitles.

VIDEO: Anamorphic widescreen (1.85:1), pristinely transferred. Even in theaters, the film looked murky, apparently intentionally, and that gray, overcast look is maintained on the DVD. They didn't call it the Dark Ages for nothing.

AUDIO: Both options, DTS and 5.1 Surround, sound fantastic, with the bone-crunching battle effects and the ever-present musical score well-mixed with the dull dialogue.

EXTRAS: There are two audio commentaries, one by writer Dean Georgaris and one by producers Jim Lemley and Anne Lai.

Georgaris seems like an average, friendly guy, not terribly interesting or full of information, but not quite dull, either. (I picture him being an accountant.) He speaks mainly on the various drafts of the screenplay and comments on how particular scenes or shots differed from what he wrote, or how he worked with the director to change them during the shoot.

The producers -- who are quick to point out they were two out of a dozen or so producers the movie had -- present an affable commentary full of anecdotes about the bit players (one actor was Europe's strongest man four years running) and sardonic references to things like digitally removing some of the blood from young Tristan's face after the massacre. They also have a lot of information about the logistics of the shoot. They come off as well-informed and personable.

After the commentaries, the main extra is a making-of featurette (29:11) called "Love Conquers All." It has the usual on-set interviews with cast members and such, but it also includes a lot of interesting tidbits about the arduous filming process: shooting in rural Ireland, the elaborate and realistic costumes, the struggle to get funding, and so forth. Even for someone who didn't care much for the film itself, this behind-the-scenes look is pretty interesting.

(Did you know Ridley Scott once considered doing a sci-fi version of "Tristan & Isolde" set in outer space? It's true. How great would that have been?)

A music video for Gavin McGraw's song "We Belong Together" is included -- in fact, it's included twice, in a 4 1/2 minute version and a 2 1/2 minute version. I prefer the one that's much shorter, for obvious reasons.

The film's theatrical trailer and 11 TV spots are here, too, for your ad-viewing pleasure.

Finally, there are three image galleries: behind the scenes, production design and costume design.

IN SUMMARY

There's a reason Fox dumped this in the killing fields of January, when nobody goes to the movies. It's flat and unmemorable, a period drama aimed at teenagers, who don't generally like period pieces OR dramas. The DVD presentation is pretty good (no deleted scenes, though, and the director is MIA on the commentaries), but what's the use when it's a mediocre movie?

(Note: Most of the "movie review" portion of this article comes from the review I wrote when the movie was released theatrically. I have re-watched the film in the course of reviewing the DVD, however.)