King Arthur

I have just seen King Arthur and what a disappointment! I have seen heaps of movies, and I am able to stomach a lot, having enjoyed mediocre films like, Van Helsing for instance. Van Helsing at least was silly, but had no pretensions of being anything else, King Arthur on the other hand, is a little movie, very predictable, filled with plot clichés that you have seen in countless other motion pictures, but has pretensions of being something extraordinary. Well, surprise, surprise it is not! There is not even enough camp in this movie to grant it a sort of je ne se quois to make it enjoyable. Even the soundtrack is a rip off of Gladiator, without even fitting the movie adequately. Hans Zimmer should know better than to copy/paste from is own work, some of us might notice!

Most of the acting is pretty good. I have especially enjoyed Ioan Gruffud as Lancelot and Clive Owen and Arthur, both of them make a very good effort given the silly lines they have, especially Owen who's lines are extra silly. Most of the actors are competent with the exception of Til Schweiger as Cynric and I felt that such a great actor as Stephen Dillane (Merlin) was completely wasted and given no chance to show is quality.

The direction was pretty bad and uneven. Antoine Fucqua doesn't show the talent he has demonstrated in Training day or even Tears of the Sun, the movie is a mess from start to finish. Visually, I must admit, it looks good. Slawomir Idziak's cinematography is really good and I hope to see some of his work in the future.

I have a lot more problems with this movie which I won't detail much further, with the exception of two that I cannot overlook. First of all, trebuches (the catapult thingies) were invented by the French during the 100 year old war, several centuries later, and not by Merlin. In a movie that brags about historical realism and accuracy, this strikes as odd. Besides, if Merlin had this kind of weapons, why not used it against the Romans in the first place? Another gripe, and this a big one, is the complete absence of gore! Did people in the "Dark Ages" not have blood? The battle scenes are violent but no blood! What's the point? Again if you want to have a realistic take on this period of history, why the absence of realism in the battle scenes? Do the filmmakers think that a PG-13 rating will get them more money at the box-office? Having seen this mess I seriously doubt it!

Summarizing, this movie is a complete mess with the exception of some of the performances, namely the Knights and most of all Gruffud's and Owen's acting. As for the rest, it is dumb, predictable, not very original in terms of plot and a complete disappointment! Long live Excalibur (John Boorman) that with it's 23 years it is still the best Kig Arthur story in movie history.

The first time I had a chance to meet up with King Arthur somewhere back in the ancient legendary time of the sixties, he wasn't a king at all. He was only a squire who liked to go around being called by the nickname Wart. Along came this wacky David Copperfield type of guy named Merlin who thought he could make something out of Wart by turning him into a fish, a squirrel and a bird. All Wart wanted to do was be a squire which kind of ticked Merlin off and he left for a while. Eventually Wart found this special sword called Excalibur stuck in a stone that looked kind of like an anvil, pulled it out, changed his name to Arthur and became King. Of course there's more to the story as told in the unofficial sequels Excalibur and First Night but it has been the Disney version that will forever be ingrained in me. According to Director Antoine Fuqua, Producer Jerry Bruckheimer, and writer David Franzoni however, all those stories are a bunch of hooey. They have taken it upon themselves to bring to the screen, 'the untold true story that inspired the legend.' And apparently, Disney also must have got tired of the big lie being told by The Sword in the Stone because it's their Touchstone division responsible for distributing this film.

In King Arthur, it seems that Arthur's (Clive Owen) real name is Artorius but his Knights call him Arthur because if they had to call the film King Artorius everyone would be dazed and confused about the subject matter. The Knights are all present and accounted for though, including Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), and Gawain (Joel Edgerton), and they follow their exalted leader Arthur around battling here and fighting there because they aren't just knights they are also slaves of Rome. It seems they have to fight for the Romans for fifteen years to gain their freedom and Arthur is their best bet to stay alive for any length of time. That would make anybody a loyal follower wouldn't it? Unfortunately, on the day the Knights are supposed to be given their freedom, this Roman bishop comes along and says not so fast, you have to do one more little all time dangerous mission for us. It seems the Roman's have problems of their own back home so they've decided to leave Britannia for good. At about this time the Saxons led by their fearless leader Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgard) are ravaging the country and killing everyone they come across. There is however this Boy out there somewhere that is supposed to become a bishop in Rome whom Arthur and the gang must rescue before Cerdic gets to him and his family which means Rome would be minus a bishop and King Arthur would be without any plot. To make matters worse, there are the natural inhabitants of Britannia known as the Woads trying to reclaim the land for them selves. The Woads are led by Merlin (Stephen Dillane), who wants to convince his enemy Arthur to join forces with him to rid the land of the Saxons. Lest you ask why Merlin doesn't use his magical powers, the answer is because in this the 'true story' Merlin is no longer a magician. He's just a guy out there in full guerilla warfare makeup doing army type grunt work shooting arrows and setting traps.

Of course any story about King Arthur has to have Guinevere (Keira Knightly) in it somewhere and she pops up here also. She is not the lovely, soft spoken beautiful Guinevere prone to hanky panky with Lancelot. She's a sprightly lass who can shoot an arrow like nobody's business and swing a sword that weighs about ten more pounds than her body weight as effortless as if it were a light saber straight out of Star Wars. So do you want to know how does Guinevere get hooked up with Arthur? Either go see the movie or read some other review because I can't take everyone's world of discovery away can I?

As you can tell, most of this is dreary stuff. Arthur, like most film heroes these days spends a lot of time soul searching and questioning his career choices. Of course he is aided by the constant nagging of Guinevere to get him to do the right thing. The Knights tell off color jokes dealing with penis size, bodily functions and illegitimate kids. Their conversations are supposed to lighten the mood but the audience I saw the film with only gave a light scattered chuckle once or twice. They were probably trying to figure out as I was what this dialogue was doing in a story that takes place somewhere around 400 A.D. There is a round table here, but it makes only a brief cameo appearance. Lancelot and Guinevere do eyeball one another a couple of times but I don't think there was any passion involved in those looks. Perhaps they were wishing they could do a remake of First Knight instead of this.

Believe it or not there are some good things here. Slawomir Idziak's cinematography is breathtaking whether it's the scenes in dark hidden abysses of the forest, a light snow falling in the countryside, or a trek through the snow covered mountains. I will admit to the fact that a couple of times it irritated me how blue the sky was during one fog covered day, and during the early scenes of snow falling to the ground but that's a minor quibble. The battle scenes likewise are well stage and are fought in full close up with little if any dependence on a bunch of CGI created soldiers. One particular battle that takes place on a frozen river bed with cracking ice is in itself almost worth the price of admission. However, the battle scenes also seemed to be somewhat sanitized in order to help garner the precious PG-13 rating. We seldom actually see any sword strikes because magically the victim always seems to have the wrong side posed for the cameras. Most of the blood that pops up is some splattered spots we see on the faces of the Knights afterwards. It gave the film more of a 1950's gladiator feels to it, before blood was allowed to spew across the silver screen by the buckets full. In 1955, that was okay, but in 2004 it only makes the scenes feel that much more artificial.

As for the acting, the cast does a pretty good job with what they have to work with. Owen is good as King Arthur, although the script makes him appear as somewhat of a dim wit for his blinding loyalty to Rome. Stellan Skarsgard as Cerdic the leader of the Saxons brings some true seething evil to the screen. And despite the oddity of watching someone of her stature battle and fight as well as the Knights, Knightly does quite well as Guinevere.

You won't hate yourself if you watch King Arthur. The battle scenes and cinematography are worth a look see at least once. The story is just okay enough to keep you interested, but it's one you'll forget about a few days after watching. What the film really lacks is the fantasy, romance, involving characters and magic that is usually included in any King Arthur story. Instead we just get a film about warriors with a convenient plot line used only to get us from point A to point B. And since the makers of this film feel that fantasy is such a terrible thing and they must destroy the myth, I have no choice but to bestow upon King Arthur my grade of C-. The next thing you know some film maker will try to convince me there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny either. What's the world coming to?

I have been a huge King Arthur fan ever since the night that I sat in an empty theater, in my hometown, awestruck by John Boorman's Excalibur.

Since then, I have seen the legend of King Arthur mutilated in films such as First Knight and The Mists of Avalon.

My high hopes for the movie, King Arthur, were dashed before the film even opened in theaters, by critics who were panning the movie from advanced screenings.

So, I stayed away while it was in theaters and most definitely passed on special discounts on the week it was released to DVD.

After finally getting around to renting a copy, I am left with just one burning question - Why in the hell do I listen to movie critics? The movie King Arthur has it all - a tight, well written story, believable characters, gritty realism, a great musical score by Hans Zimmer, epic battles, and more blood and splatter than you probably really wanted to see.

The bottom line is that King Arthur is a very good film. No, it's not the mythical Camelot, but it does not try to be. Nor, does it trample all over the name of King Arthur by making him a shallow or less than heroic character.

This is not Braveheart or Gladiator , but it is a film worth seeing and appreciating. Now that I think about, it's worth buying a copy to add to the home video library.

Jerry Bruckheimer's yearly contribution to the annual `Low on Plot High on Style' Movie Fair that is the Summer Blockbuster Season is `Kind Arthur,' whose tag line is `The Untold true story that inspired the legend.' I guess when a movie claims to be telling the `true story' of a man that historians can't even agree ever existed, I get suspicious. And when this movie that claims to be telling the `true story' features current `it-girl' Keira Knightly wearing a belt for a top (and a cinched up belt at that), I determine that this movie is based on about as much fact as a grocery store tabloid. And I'm talking about those `Woman marries Werewolf and has a Bat Boy' tabloids too.

The `true story' claim is really just code for `no magic, no singing, just lots of dirty guys.' Arthur (Clive Owen), a general for the rapidly declining Roman Empire, and a group of knights protect one of the farthest and most vulnerable Roman posts. At the end of their tenure, a snarky Roman Bishop sends Arthur and the handful of remaining Knights on one last suicidal mission to retrieve a Roman family living living in hostile territory on the brink of being invaded by the Saxons (why they're living so far into non-Roman territory is a mystery to all). At the Roman estate, Arthur is determined to saved a few dozen villagers from the Saxons in addition to the Roman Family (he also rescues Guinevere who was in a dungeon being punished for her pagan ways). Arthur, though he had a Briton mother, considers himself a Roman above all and is eager to return to Rome. But, after learning his beloved Rome is on the brink of being sacked and Guinevere uses a little gentle persuasion, Arthur begins to care about the Britons he once fought.

Question: What would the story of Arthur be like without the Sword in the Stone or the Lady in the Lake? If Merlin was a rebel Briton leader rather than a wizard and Arthur's mentor? If Lancelot and Guinevere weren't lovers, and if Arthur's illegitimate child Mordred never came to crash the party? Answer: A big, gloomy movie that often feels like little more than a wannabe "Gladiator" and "Braveheart." "King Arthur" is one of those frustrating movies that had the potential to be good, but thanks to some missteps and mistakes only ranks as average. Some of the missteps are small, for example, Guinevere's little war outfit that just makes me giggle, or how her fingers were mangled in the dungeon she was kept in but Arthur resets them and by the next day she's shooting an arrow with deadly accuracy. "I see your hand is better," Lancelot quips. Glad to see someone in the movie itself found it ridiculous too.

My biggest grip with the movie is the way they handled Lancelot, well, I should really complain about all the knights since they were all cardboard cutouts at best. I figured since they went to trouble of starting the movie with a clip of Lancelot as a child that he would be a larger factor in the movie. But as an adult (played by Ioan Gruffudd, who I'd cheat on Arthur with any day) his role is relegated to some one-liners and a couple bitch-sessions with Arthur about how to much he doesn't want to do whatever. In what is probably the worst move in the movie, the love triangle between Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot is completely absent. Lancelot and Guinevere's relationship consists of Lancelot staring at her a lot, and it's hard to tell if he wants her, or if he's angry at her for taking Arthur affection. Now it's not because I was eager to see some Ioan/Keira make-out sessions, it's just Guinevere's betrayal has always been a core part of the Arthur legend, how when things seemed so perfect, Arthur's wife and best friend betray him and ultimately bring down Camelot.

With it already falling to 6th place at the box office in it's second week of release, King Arthur will likely go down as the big flop of the Summer of 2004. It's sometimes hard to figure out why some movies flop while other similar movies (Troy and Van Helsing, neither a box office smash but at least reached the $100 million level that King Arthur will never reach) enjoy moderate, and even great, success. "King Arthur's" problem is that the makers were so eager to demystify the legend that they stripped away all of the elements that made it a legend. All that's left are some uninspired battle scenes, a few mundane speeches about being born free, and footage of Keira in that outfit that talk-shows hosts will probably tease her about for the rest of her career.

When I heard that this film was coming out back in the spring, I was excited. I had finished an entire session of analyzing "Le Morte d'Arthur" in my AP British Literature class and I wrote a 35 page paper about the topic. So, I was thinking, "What a great way to apply my knowledge to this film!"

Of course, that's not how it turned out.

1. The action scenes could have been done much better. Sure, the strategies that the archers used were interesting, and Artorius' attack against the Saxons seemed to be well-planned out, but there wasn't enough blood to be convincing. When a sword is pulled out of the body, there should be blood coming out of the body, right?

2. This particular King Arthur was based on the Roman general Ambrosius, whom existed several hundred years earlier than the more popular King Arthur. After doing a fair amount of research on him, I concluded that the battle was in the right place, but there should have been a reference about Arthur being the recorded Ambrosius.

3. Guinevere and Merlin didn't live as Pictis. Period. I liked that Guinevere had a more powerful part as an action hero rather than a damsel in distress, but she seemed to come out of nowhere.

4. The acting could have been better; Owens' lines were cheesy at times and choppy at others, but he did make the best of it. Ioan Gruffud was a good choice to be Lancelot; the relationship that he and Owens had as their characters was done with as much as they could give it.

Overall, it could have been done better. I give this a 6/10.