'King Arthur' is a curious production that has understandably aroused quite a bit of disagreement among critics, historians, and fans of the Arthurian legend. But really--this is a Jerry Bruckheimer production, people! Let's keep the operation in perspective! Bruckheimer has always been about one thing, and one thing only: spectacle, a.k.a. cheap thrills. 'King Arthur' might be gift-wrapped as a revisionist history, but it's a popcorn movie, plain and simple, and as such, it is for the most part a success.
The main premise of the film, of course, is that the Arthur of legend was not, in fact, the magical king of Camelot, but, rather, a half-Roman, half-Celtic warlord--the captain of a clan of Sarmatian knights pressed into service to the Roman Empire as young men. Our tale is narrated by Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), who (like Arthur) is introduced as a young boy on the day of his departure for his 15-year term of service to the Emperor of Rome. The film jumps ahead to the final days of that term, rejoining the characters as seasoned warriors: the familiar names are there--Arthur (Clive Owen) and Lancelot, joined by Gawain, Galahad, Bors, Dagonet, and Tristan. Although most of these characters bear little to no characteristic resemblance to their legendary precedents (Galahad, for instance, is traditionally described as Lancelot's son, not his contemporary; Bors is usually described as pious and devout, as opposed to his rugged, profane characterization in this film; Dagonet--heroic in this version--is usually represented as Arthur's court fool), the actors each manage to project strong, distinct characters for the audience to identify with. Especially strong are Ray Winstone (Sexy Beast) as Bors, Ray Stevenson as a quietly heroic Dagonet, and Mads Mikkelsen, who nearly steals the film as Tristan, here presented as a falconer and expert archer in Asian/Mongolian-style dress and armaments. The fine performances of these actors were clearly noted by casting directors: Winstone is set to play another early English epic hero--Beowulf--in a forthcoming adaptation; Stevenson was cast as another formidable but good-hearted warrior in HBO's 'Rome'; Mikkelsen--a star in his native Denmark, but an unknown elsewhere prior to 'King Arthur'--is set to play the villain in the forthcoming James Bond film, 'Casino Royale.' The basic plot positions Arthur and his knights as having earned their freedom towards the beginning of the Roman Empire's decline and fall. No longer able to afford the human and material expense of holding its most distant territorial outposts, Rome has decided to abandon Britain, leaving it to be fought over by its various tribal factions and invaders from neighboring lands. The history is fuzzy here, but again, this is an action movie, not a documentary, so picking apart the historical inaccuracies seems beside the point.
The Romans are in full retreat, but the Bishop Germanius (Ivano Marescotti) won't give the Sarmatian knights their discharge papers until they complete a final task: rescue a young Roman noble beloved by the Pope whose family estate lies in the path of the Saxon invaders. The men reluctantly accept the charge out of loyalty to Arthur, who prays to his Christian god for the safety of his pagan knights (another big deviation from Arthurian legend, in which Christianity figures heavily as part of the code of chivalry).
The film's advertising gives top-billing (along with the infamous digitally-enhanced bust) to the sublime Keira Knightley, but her Guinevere appears late in the action, so don't rent this one expecting to see too much of her. In this version of the story, Guinevere is the daughter of Merlin (Steven Dillane), who is initially Arthur's enemy, as he leads a tribe of Woads (a version of the Picts), native peoples of Britain who wage war on the Roman invaders Arthur and his Sarmatian Knights serve. Eventually, Arthur and Merlin join forces (thanks to Guinevere) to defend Britain against the invading Saxons, led by Cerdic (Stellan Skaarsgard, who seems to be really enjoying himself playing a bloodthirsty viking).
This scenario affords director Antoine Fuqua plenty of room for expansive battle sequences, some of which meet and even exceed the standard set by 'Braveheart' for the genre. There's quite a bit of gore, and at times the battles seem endless and repetitive, though there are a few fine sequences, especially a battle that takes place on the frozen surface of a lake (nevermind that a Saxon army would never have invaded in winter; snow battles are cool!). The first half of the film allows for some nice, subtle character development for the knights, but without the familiar antagonists and problems (Mordred, Morgan La Fey, the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur love triangle, which is barely hinted at in the film), Arthur is a generic hero whose battle-cries for freedom are both contradictory and achingly derivative of 'Braveheart.' Clive Owen is a fine actor who acquaints himself well here, but his character is dull and one-dimensional, and seems much less compelling than secondary characters like the enigmatic Merlin, the intrepid Tristan, and the courageous Dagonet.
Nevertheless, I felt like I got what I paid for from 'King Arthur.' The acting is above average, the costumes are cool, the villain is nasty and scary, the fight sequences are well-staged and visceral, and the soundtrack appropriately martial and dramatic. While I can understand why Old English history and Arthurian legend buffs might object to it, I think I'd prefer this film to one which tried to recreate the aspects of the myth already portrayed in other Arthur films, especially 'Excalibur,' which, for my money, is the gold standard of King Arthur flicks.
The main premise of the film, of course, is that the Arthur of legend was not, in fact, the magical king of Camelot, but, rather, a half-Roman, half-Celtic warlord--the captain of a clan of Sarmatian knights pressed into service to the Roman Empire as young men. Our tale is narrated by Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), who (like Arthur) is introduced as a young boy on the day of his departure for his 15-year term of service to the Emperor of Rome. The film jumps ahead to the final days of that term, rejoining the characters as seasoned warriors: the familiar names are there--Arthur (Clive Owen) and Lancelot, joined by Gawain, Galahad, Bors, Dagonet, and Tristan. Although most of these characters bear little to no characteristic resemblance to their legendary precedents (Galahad, for instance, is traditionally described as Lancelot's son, not his contemporary; Bors is usually described as pious and devout, as opposed to his rugged, profane characterization in this film; Dagonet--heroic in this version--is usually represented as Arthur's court fool), the actors each manage to project strong, distinct characters for the audience to identify with. Especially strong are Ray Winstone (Sexy Beast) as Bors, Ray Stevenson as a quietly heroic Dagonet, and Mads Mikkelsen, who nearly steals the film as Tristan, here presented as a falconer and expert archer in Asian/Mongolian-style dress and armaments. The fine performances of these actors were clearly noted by casting directors: Winstone is set to play another early English epic hero--Beowulf--in a forthcoming adaptation; Stevenson was cast as another formidable but good-hearted warrior in HBO's 'Rome'; Mikkelsen--a star in his native Denmark, but an unknown elsewhere prior to 'King Arthur'--is set to play the villain in the forthcoming James Bond film, 'Casino Royale.' The basic plot positions Arthur and his knights as having earned their freedom towards the beginning of the Roman Empire's decline and fall. No longer able to afford the human and material expense of holding its most distant territorial outposts, Rome has decided to abandon Britain, leaving it to be fought over by its various tribal factions and invaders from neighboring lands. The history is fuzzy here, but again, this is an action movie, not a documentary, so picking apart the historical inaccuracies seems beside the point.
The Romans are in full retreat, but the Bishop Germanius (Ivano Marescotti) won't give the Sarmatian knights their discharge papers until they complete a final task: rescue a young Roman noble beloved by the Pope whose family estate lies in the path of the Saxon invaders. The men reluctantly accept the charge out of loyalty to Arthur, who prays to his Christian god for the safety of his pagan knights (another big deviation from Arthurian legend, in which Christianity figures heavily as part of the code of chivalry).
The film's advertising gives top-billing (along with the infamous digitally-enhanced bust) to the sublime Keira Knightley, but her Guinevere appears late in the action, so don't rent this one expecting to see too much of her. In this version of the story, Guinevere is the daughter of Merlin (Steven Dillane), who is initially Arthur's enemy, as he leads a tribe of Woads (a version of the Picts), native peoples of Britain who wage war on the Roman invaders Arthur and his Sarmatian Knights serve. Eventually, Arthur and Merlin join forces (thanks to Guinevere) to defend Britain against the invading Saxons, led by Cerdic (Stellan Skaarsgard, who seems to be really enjoying himself playing a bloodthirsty viking).
This scenario affords director Antoine Fuqua plenty of room for expansive battle sequences, some of which meet and even exceed the standard set by 'Braveheart' for the genre. There's quite a bit of gore, and at times the battles seem endless and repetitive, though there are a few fine sequences, especially a battle that takes place on the frozen surface of a lake (nevermind that a Saxon army would never have invaded in winter; snow battles are cool!). The first half of the film allows for some nice, subtle character development for the knights, but without the familiar antagonists and problems (Mordred, Morgan La Fey, the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur love triangle, which is barely hinted at in the film), Arthur is a generic hero whose battle-cries for freedom are both contradictory and achingly derivative of 'Braveheart.' Clive Owen is a fine actor who acquaints himself well here, but his character is dull and one-dimensional, and seems much less compelling than secondary characters like the enigmatic Merlin, the intrepid Tristan, and the courageous Dagonet.
Nevertheless, I felt like I got what I paid for from 'King Arthur.' The acting is above average, the costumes are cool, the villain is nasty and scary, the fight sequences are well-staged and visceral, and the soundtrack appropriately martial and dramatic. While I can understand why Old English history and Arthurian legend buffs might object to it, I think I'd prefer this film to one which tried to recreate the aspects of the myth already portrayed in other Arthur films, especially 'Excalibur,' which, for my money, is the gold standard of King Arthur flicks.