King Arthur Review
by Homer Yen (homer_yen AT yahoo DOT com)July 14th, 2004
"King Arthur" – Mud, Sweat, and Tears by Homer Yen
(c) 2004
In this retelling, Rome still has enormous reach and influence over the British territories and Arthur (Clive Owen) is a servant of the Roman Church. But the Empire is falling and they are beating a hasty retreat, abandoning their fringe outposts, which include pretty much all of England. With this territory devoid of any military presence, it becomes a place that's ripe for invasion. Arthur debates whether to head off to Rome or to stay to fight for his shattered lands. Meanwhile, other warring races would like to lay claim to these lands, and are willing to spill ample blood as part of that cause.
Surprisingly, and happily, "King Arthur" isn't a banal or campy homage to Camelot and Arthurian times. Arthur is a conflicted warrior whose allegiance has been blurred and whose self-actualization has been stunted by his inability to establish purpose in his life. Here is a man who is an anti-hero, who does battle with his enemies as well as his with himself in a character study that is certainly not your father's King Arthur. Clive Owen inhabits this role with Shakespearean grace and there is a certain sense of majesty that arises as a result.
That he is named Arthur, I think, is just a marketing gimmick to attract attention to this film. None of the legendary characters are as you would envision them. There is a Merlin (Stephen Dillane), but he is not a magician. Rather, he is the leader of a nomadic race called Woads that battle Arthur's forces at every given opportunity. There is a Guinevere (Keira Knightley), although she is not a flowery damsel that catches Arthur's eye. Rather, she is a fearsome warrior princess whose ability with a bow or a sword will catch you by surprise. And there is also a Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), but he is not the cavalier lover that we think he might be. Rather, he is a grounded and loyal friend who questions various decisions but will defend Arthur with his life if need be. Yet while I believe that the film's title is a ploy to generate business, I can not think of a more catchy title for the film.
The story has more depth than one might think. There is a fair amount of effort put forth in developing Arthur's comrades, providing them with some dimension. By the time they reach their first full-scale battle atop a frozen lake (a very neat scene), we feel empathy for these brothers-in-arms. Their sacrifices and their victories come across with more impact. Meanwhile, the production qualities are also quite impressive. The location, the costumes, and the look of the people give the film a real sense of time and place. And the tone is darker and edgier suggesting something along the lines of "Braveheart." Consequently, you'll enjoy this film more than you think you might.
It's unfortunate that movies about knights in medieval times don't get much respect at the movie theatres. If the underachieving "Timeline," a 2003 release about time travelling scientists that become ersatz knights, was any indication that this genre is dying, than "King Arthur" may be fated with doom long before any swords are drawn. But producer Jerry Bruckheimer is not one to back away from a challenge. He reinvigorated the pirate genre with "Pirates of the Caribbean." He may very well do the same with this revisionist tale.
Grade: B
S: 0 out of 3
L: 0 out of 3
V: 2 out of 3
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
