|
King Arthur
(2004)
Starring:
Clive Owen, Keira Knightley,
Ioan
Gruffudd
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Rating: PG-13
Distributor:
Touchstone
Release Date:
07.07.04
Review
Posted: 07.08.04
Spoilers:
Minor
By
Sara M. Fetters
"King
Arthur" Loses His Majesty
Not
that I really want to admit this, but I’m a total computer video game
junkie. I can sit and play for hours, wasting precious time I could be
using to do something constructive like, say, washing dishes or
writing better reviews.
At the moment,
my current game of choice is Age of Empires, specifically
The Conquerors expansion disc for the second chapter of the
popular series. One part history lesson crossed with equal doses of
Sim City, Civilization and War Craft, this game is
one of the very best I’ve ever played. To say I love it, to say that I
am unquestionably addicted to playing it, would unfortunately be an
understatement. Frankly, I’ve turned into a geek and don’t let the
flashy spike heels and ruby red nail polish fool you to thinking
otherwise.
Typically, I
tend to play the Britons. They are assuredly my civilization of
choice. Not because they have the most advanced weapons (they don’t)
or the best armies (although they’re pretty darn good), but because I
can imagine they are Arthur’s legions and I am the one leading them to
victory.
That’s right,
I’m an Arthur junkie. From Mallory’s La Morte de Arthur to
Disney’s song-filled “The Sword in the Stone,” I just eat this stuff
up. Heck, John Boorman’s “Excalibur” is one of my favorite films of
all time, while Sean Connery taking on the mantle of the once and
future king in “First Knight” gets me week in the knees just thinking
about it. (Granted the movie stinks, Richard Gere and Julia Ormand
maybe the worst Lancelot and Guinevere this side of a bush-league
dinner theater production of their tale.) Maybe I never grew out of my
fairy princess phase, maybe I just like a good tragic love story,
either way Arthurian legends truly make me weak in the knees and I
almost feel like swooning just thinking about it.
What does any
of this have to do with uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer’s “King
Arthur” hitting theaters today? Well, simply put, there is more
emotional heft to be found in one of my late-evening games of Age
of Empires then there is in all 120-plus minutes of this movie’s
running time. It is a chaotic and undisciplined mess, “Training Day”
director Antoine Fuqua completely incapable of delivering anything
more than a somewhat diverting scene or two. For me, this is the
single most disappointing film of the summer, and with misfires like
“Van Helsing” and “The Day After Tomorrow” already littering the
landscape that really is saying something.
This version
of the ageless story, written by “Gladiator” scribe David Franzoni,
dispenses with the magic, the mysticism and – bizarrely – the famous
love triangle to instead put forth a gritty, supposedly based-on-fact
version. Arthur (Clive Owen) is no longer the son of Üther Pendragon,
instead he’s a half Roman-half Brit general who has spent the past
fifteen years leading a ragtag group of indentured Samatian Knights.
In that time, Arthur has earned their trust and loyalty and, in turn,
through their courage, honor and bravery they have earned the same
from him.
On the day of
their freedom, Arthur and his men are given new orders by a
weasel-faced Roman Bishop to journey outside of Haradrian’s Wall and
save a young aristocrat from certain death at the hands of invading
Saxons. For some inexplicable reason, this boy is important to the
Pope, and the Bishop is under strict orders to not allow either Arthur
or his men go free until this last – very likely suicide – mission is
complete.
Long story
short, Arthur starts to question his loyalty to Rome during this
mission. Not only does he save the young Roman, he also picks up a
ragtag group of serfs and peasants, amongst them a ravishing Woad
named Guinevere (Keira Knightley) whose mighty handy with a bow. Turns
out, she just happens to be the daughter of the Woad leader, a mongrel
of a man named Merlin (Stephen Dillane), and he just happens to think
Arthur is the right man to unite the people of Britain and lead them
to victory over the invading Saxons.
What can I say
– this movie bites. What’s most frustrating, really, is that all the
pieces are in place for some rousing entertainment. Owen is the
perfect choice for Arthur. Regal, smashingly sexy, authoritative; Like
Merlin, I really did believe this was just the man to be king. For
anyone who’s followed this remarkable actor over the years – from
“Croupier” to “Gosford Park” to “The Bourne Identity” – it isn’t a
surprise he’s a smashing choice to play maybe the most iconic
character in British history.
What is
surprising that he’s not enough to make me care more about the film
than I do. As good as Owen is, when he finally puts down his sword and
engages in some nubile coupling with Guinevere I could have really
cared less. Fuqua directs like he hasn’t a clue as to how to stage an
epic of this type. Scenes either go on for an eternity or they’re
inexplicably cut short for no apparent reason other than the scene was
on the verge of making sense. The battle sequences are truly horrific.
Cluttered, edited as if by a jackhammer and scored with composer Hans
Zimmer’s first completely horrific piece of music, it is impossible to
tell what is going on let alone get emotionally involved in the
action. It is a waste of time, talent and money, and just when you
think it can’t possibly fall any more to pieces it suddenly does.
But, like I
said, the actors really do give it their best shot. Knightley is a
fetching Guinevere, while Dillane makes the very most of his limited
screen time. As the Arthur’s knights, both Joel Edgerton and Hugh
Dancy steal the show as, respectively, Gawain and Galahad, while Ray
Winstone seems to be the only one in the entire picture truly having a
good time as the good-naturedly violent knight Bors. Best of all is
veteran Swedish actor Stellan Skarsgård as Cerdic, the vile,
devilishly evil leader of the Saxon army. He’s so good at being bad I
almost wished the movie was about him, Cerdic rise and fall far more
interesting than anything else going on in the picture. Only Ioan
Gruffudd as Lancelot disappoints, his take on the character nothing
more than whiny waste of energy that’s too silly to be believed.
As bad as it
all is, there is magnificent sequence that almost makes “King Arthur”
worthwhile. As Arthur and his knights are fleeing back towards to
wall, the seven of them – with Guinevere helping – decide to make a
stand against a contingent of the Saxon army on top of a sheet of ice.
The resulting melee is blisteringly beautiful menagerie of cascading
arrows and cracking ice. It is a breathtakingly exciting sequence, the
bluish tint of Slawomir Idziak’s cinematography simply breathtaking.
If only the rest
of the movie could achieve anything close to the majesty of this one
sequence, “King Arthur” would not feel so dreadful. Yet nothing else
in Fuqua’s picture comes close to this sequence, scene after scene
ending in a thud so loud it’s almost sure to empty the theater. Maybe
I’m too close to the material, maybe I wanted more from Bruckheimer
and Fuqua than they could ever be expected to deliver. Maybe so, but
be that as it may this time the Arthurian legend doesn’t just lose its
magic, it loses its majesty.
Film
Rating:
ê1/2 (out of
5)
Home | Back to Top |