King Arthur Review
by Andy Keast (arthistoryguy AT aol DOT com)August 19th, 2004
King Arthur (2004): ** out of ****
Directed by Antoine Fuqua. Screenplay by David Franzoni. Starring Clive Owen,
Hugh Dancy, Stephen Dillane, Ioan Gruffudd, Keira Knightley, Mads Mikkelsen, Stellan Skarsgård and Ray Winstone.
by Andy Keast
"King Arthur" is a good example of why true stories beget myth. The Arthur legend is an idealized version of history, a history I can only imagine as being very vague and dull. Truth is stranger than fiction, but in the case of myth, it just isn't as interesting or nearly as fun. I remember as a kid reading *Le Morte d'Arthur* and T.H. White's charming *The Once and Future King,* and while it's commendable that someone wants to tell the supposed "true
story" behind it all, I thought to myself watching this: *Do I really want -or need- to know?* Any true story of the boy king can only be distilled from a fragmented patchwork of history anyway (hence a better work of fiction), so why
bother?
To synopsize the film is to sadly refer oneself to the History Channel. The Roman Empire is falling, and outlying territories throughout Europe are engaged
in various skirmishes for autonomy. The Roman army had included the Sarmatian Knights, lead by Arthur (Clive Owen). The Romans are leaving Briton, and the Sarmatians will gain their independence, of course, after the proverbial "one last job." I like Clive Owen as a film personality, but not in this movie. In
the BMW film series "The Hire" he has the action hero charm of Errol Flynn or someone from a Republic serial. Not here. As the young king, comes off more as a grizzled infantryman than as any would-be leader -imagine Charles Bronson playing the President. The rest of the cast is fine. Stephen Dillane, as Merlin, is buried under so much fake hair and makeup that virtually anyone could've handled the part. Actors like Stellan Skarsgård and Mads Mikkelsen are always dependable. Keira Knightley looks especially ghostlike, as if she wandered in from a Tim Burton production next door. Ray Winstone strangely produces the film's best performance by being reduced to comic relief. The film is directed by Antoine Fuqua and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, and to
their credit, the epic battle scenes are nicely done. They're filmed in such a
way so that one can actually discern the strategy of an attack, and I was grateful to see real human beings in front of the camera instead of those movie
vistas blanketed with CGI. The screenplay by David Franzoni ("Gladiator") is a
sequence of historical fragments which may or may not have happened, but more so a clothesline for swordplay and military pep talk. If I may engage in some hero worship, let me state that the real reason to see "King Arthur" is for the
photography by Poland's great Slawomir Idziak. He transports you into the Dark
Ages with his charcoals, blasted-out golds and pale greens, and there is a scene with Skarsgård and his army on a wind-swept mound that I wanted to frame and take home. Thus, as with most Bruckheimer products, one is left with the cinematic equivalent of fireworks: nice-looking and forgettable.
[email protected]
[email protected]
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.
