King Arthur Movie Review:


The Arthurian myths have been handed down from generation to generation. Like all great myths a new look or chapter was added or changed as the story grew. This seems to be the same way with King Arthur’s journey on the silver screen.

With each new screenwriter and director we have seen a new King Arthur emerge. There is the pure myth version in the 1981’s John Boorman directed classic, “Excalibur” which harnessed the power of the myth as we know it and presented a story in that light.

In recent years two television mini-series stuck to the myths but changed the perspective of the story. In 1998’s “Merlin”, actor Sam Neill portrayed Merlin, the magician to the legendary King and all the events were seen through his eyes. In 2001’s “Mists of Avalon” the story was seen through the eyes of the women in Arthur’s life including his mother, wife and daughter.

Over the years before and after “Excalibur”, we have seen many incarnations of Arthur and his knights. It really doesn’t seem till recently that historians have tried to uncover the basis behind this vivid of all myths. Folklore experts, interpreters and analysts as well as Arthur enthusiasts all have their theories to the origins of this epic king who drove back the Saxons during the dawn of Britain.

Now in the 2004 version, director Antoine Fuqua and super-producer Jerry Bruckheimer have opened up a new interpretation of the myth but instead trying for a more realistic approach to the events that could have spawned the myth. There is no lover’s forbidden tryst, the mystical magic of Merlin or the revenge of Mordred.

The story begins with a legend of sorts as we learn about a group of knights from Sarmatia who fought the Romans to a stand-still but eventually were absorbed into their ranks. Their leader Artorius (Clive Owen), born of Roman and British lineage, is skeptical about the Roman withdrawal from Britain and that his blessed empire is abandoning his dreams of justice, order and purity of state. Artorius is the only true Christian and Roman among his men but in their 15 years together they have become one. Arthur’s knights include the gallant Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Bors (Ray Winstone), Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), Dagonet (Ray Stevenson) and Gawain (Joel Edgerton).

Rome has one last mission for Artorius and his knights as they must save the god-child of the Pope before the onslaught of the Saxons rape and pillage the land in their mindless conquest.

During that desperate mission, the knights will face the unconquerable Saxons; develop a new alliance with an indigenous guerilla army led by the courageous Guinevere (Keira Knightley); and possibly find a cause worth dying for.

There are a lot of reasons to dislike this film. Its obvious comparisons to the Mel Gibson epics “Braveheart” and “The Patriot”, the radical departure from mystical elements of the legend and the film’s lack of the infamous subplot of sexual betrayal between Lancelot and Guinevere.

But if you liked “Braveheart” and “The Patriot” possibly you can embrace this version of Arthur and see it in that context. I love the whole Arthur myth and its epic scale of story-telling which in a lot of ways bugged me when I watched this new version but when I was able to separate the two as different entities I began to see what the filmmakers were trying to make.

What you get is a steadfast leading performance by the much under-rated British import Clive Owen as a struggling leader who in constant conflict between his moral code and what is right. He is a flawed leader and Owen is brilliant as this legendary but flawed man.

I also really loved the performance from Ioan Gruffudd, who starred in those brilliant Horatio Hornblower films on A&E. Gruffudd’s Lancelot seems to be cocky and gallant on the outside but lost in the inside. It is a brilliant performance because we see a lot more in this man than the script allows.

Arthur’s supporting knights including Hugh Dancy of “Ella Enchanted” and Ray Winstone of “Cold Mountain” who each have their own moments in the film. Winstone’s Bors is hilarious, tender and boisterous all in the same moment which makes him a fan favorite.

If I were to really think hard for a comparison to this version of Arthur I would more likely look to the World War 2 films of the 1970s. The era is different but the people are the same. Films like “Guns of Navarone” or “Operation Crossbow” or even the infamous “Dirty Dozen” come to mind. Flawed characters on one last desperate mission to redeem themselves and become heroes.

Some of the problems I had with the film, without the obvious ones pertaining to the change in the subject matter, come from the performances of Keira Knightley and Stellan Skarsgard.

Knightley’s gung ho warrior princess works in certain situations but lacks in others. I never once for a moment believed in her connection with Arthur. In part you probably can partially blame the filmmakers since their love scene is pretty pathetic as love scenes go. I also found that her character lacked the necessary depth and fleshing out to be effective with all these other beautifully flawed performances. I won’t even get into her warrior wardrobe.

I was also disappointed with Skarsgard as Cerdic, the overtly hairy leader of the Saxons. I felt that he wasn’t menacing enough or roguish enough to lead such a vast army. He almost came off as a clown. I felt that the portrayal of his son, Cynric (Til Schweiger) was more effective. You could tell that the filmmakers wanted the Saxon leader to be ruthless and sadistic but it never reached its blood-thirsty fruition. You should have wanted to drool at the fact that he and Arthur would square off.

I enjoyed this version of Arthur but I still remain a purist at heart. It is interesting, entertaining and a romp of a good time. Speaking of updates, how about a realistic update on “Robin Hood” without Kevin Costner?

(4 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Dean Kish

In the tradition of, erm, Troy, here's a sprawling historical myth with its story simplified and its production overblown. It's entertaining--fully enjoyable but never remotely engaging.

It's the 5th century, and Rome has just decided to abandon Great Britain to the advancing Saxon army. But Rome's indentured warrior knights are given one last mission to rescue a Roman family in the remote north. Leader Arthur (Owen) begrudgingly accepts the assignment, taking his faithful sidekicks (Winstone, Gruffudd, Mikkelsen, Edgerton, Dancy) into battle with the indigenous Woads, led by Merlin (Dillane), while the Saxon leader (Skarsgard) and his warrior son (Schweiger) bear down on them from the north.

Oddly, this is the exact same plot as Fuqua's Tears of the Sun, in which Bruce Willis is given a hopeless mission to rescue a European trapped in war-torn West Africa; then he decides to go further, rescuing innocent people, risking his life in skirmishes with various brutal factions. Mix in rather a lot of stylish Braveheart-style roaring and muddiness and here we are.

The cast is fine: Owen does dignified grunting gruffness very well indeed, Winstone is lively and funny, Gruffudd is soulful and brooding, Skarsgard is hairy and whispery, Schweiger is bald and slithery, and so on. But these fine actors are badly underused. As the rescued young Guinevere though, Knightley glamorously moves from wasted dungeon chic to fierce action girl in record time. She is absolutely ridiculous, and yet so chirpy that she quickly becomes the best thing about the film!

And then there's that Jerry Bruckheimer touch. Despite being set before the gunpowder age, the film is full of scorching pyrotechnics. Bonfires burn everywhere, filling the landscape with moody black smoke. Trebuchets launch nuclear warheads that detonate in mushroom clouds. Trenches drizzled with tar blast 100-foot tall flames. Even ice on a frozen lake doesn't merely crack, but erupts in jagged shards of cacophonous horror! Sadly, nothing's balanced by even a hint of emotional authenticity, which leaves all the rah-rah freedom stuff hollow and corny. Yet as it builds viscerally to the mammoth final battle, the film is great fun to watch even though it's completely preposterous.

Rich Cline

On the verge of gaining their freedom after serving Rome for fifteen years, Arthur (Owen) and his Knights are given one last mission that would see them face their most aggressive foe yet, the invading Saxon army. As he moves north, he discovers that the people of Britain need a leader, someone who could save them from the marauding hordes as the Roman Empire prepares to leave. Against the wishes of Lancelot (Gruffudd) and the rest of his Knights, Arthur decides to stay and fight for the people who he has sworn to protect.

As fantasy films enjoy a resurgence at the box office, revisiting the Arthurian legend must have seemed like an excellent idea. The Sword in the Stone, the Lady of the Lake and all the other myths and magic associated with the tale could be brought to life brilliantly as CGI now allows filmmakers to achieve anything. So why did they decide to forgo all of the mystical elements of Britain’s most famous royal fable?

Jerry Bruckheimer and Antoine Fugua’s version of tale of King Arthur and his Knights takes a more historically accurate approach to the legend and this is to the determent of the film. This account sees Arthur as the leader of a Roman garrison, stationed on Hadrian’s Wall in the 4th century A.D. Never defeated in battle Artorius, a half Roman, half Britain, commands a group of Sarmatian Knights whose deeds are legendary amongst the people, as tales of Arthur and his knights spread across of the country. The Sarmatian Knights are enlisted men who gain their freedom after fifteen years of service to Rome. So Lancelot, Gawain, Galahad and the rest are the equivalent of the Special Forces for the Roman Empire. Guinevere and Merlin are Woads, rebellious pagans who fight against the Roman occupation but the real enemy is the invading Saxon army that threatens to engulf the country as the Roman army leaves Britain. So everything you know about the legend, whether it be from film or books, is wrong and this is really how the story was born. This is all fair and good but the end result just isn’t as exciting as the mythological approach.

The battle sequences are nothing new and they lack the blood and gore that you’d expect from a confrontation involving swords, arrows and flaming catapult fire. The ice face-off and the final fight are impressive but you have the feeling you’ve seen it all before. The leader giving a rousing speech on horseback and driving the troops into battle seems to be the stalwart of all historical dramas of late.

The script doesn’t really push the acting talents of the ensemble cast but they do quite a reasonable job. Keira Knightly sounds overly posh as Guinevere but she does get stuck in during the battle sequences. Ioan Gruffudd doesn’t really have much to do as Lancelot, as the love triangle involving Arthur, Guinevere and him is never really explored. Ray Winston is his usual rowdy self as Bors and Joel Edgerton and Hugh Dancy are fine as Gawain and Galahad. Stellan Skarsgård is seriously underused as the Saxon leader Cerdic. The character just ends up looking like he really doesn’t want to be there.

Clive Owen performance as Arthur is the main problem however. He just doesn’t have the presence to pull of such a commanding role. This is supposed be a man who the knights would die for and a leader they would follow into hell itself but Owen just doesn’t project this in the slightest. Clive Owen is an excellent actor but you might have to question his ability to be a strong leading man.

King Arthur would have been a better film if the filmmakers had gone for a more mythical approach. The Sword in the Stone, the Lady of the Lake, Merlin the Wizard and the power of Excalibur would have made an amazing fantasy adventure now that the technology can do it justice. This historical retelling is still watchable and quite entertaining but you can’t help but think you could have been watching a much better film.

Star Rating = * * *

Jamie Kelwick

Site Contents Copyright© The Z Review, unless used with permission.This site has no intention to infringe on the rights of the film owners of King Arthur and intellectual copyright holders of the movies mentioned herein & hold copyright over the movie, characters, merchandise & storyline.