Well, in some other movie Clive Owen would’ve made a really great King Arthur. And he’s definitely very watchable here as the lead in the Jerry Bruckheimer-produced King Arthur. But this project basically feels like a Gladiator meets Tears of the Sun retread, and, aside from the characters’ names, it has very little to do with the Arthurian legend. I’d say the film’s probably better than you’ve heard, but still somewhat disappointing. Workmanlike, but ultimately rather drab.
I must say, I really can’t get my mind around the current trend in epic movie-making. After the wild success of PJ’s LotR, it should be a no-brainer: You can’t tell The Iliad without the gods, and you can’t do justice to the story of King Arthur without sorcerers, enchantments, love triangles or the Holy Grail. Demystify the legend and you end up with…well, I guess you end up with what you have here, which is a lot of grunting and flying arrows and bad hair days along Hadrian’s Wall. Admittedly, I liked the realistic take of a film like The Alamo, but it just seems unnecessary here (particularly when the “realism” portrayed involves 5th century Abu Ghreibs and an Arthur who’s a good 1000 years ahead of the times on the political philosophy front.)
As I said, Clive Owen is pretty solid, though, and he helps his case here as the next James Bond. Keira Knightley is passable given the material, although every time I see her now I can’t help but think of Winona Ryder and a quote by Bilbo Baggins (“I feel thin — sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.”) Ioan Gruffudd’s performance as Lancelot was also derailed by my terminal fanboyisms, as I spent most of his screentime trying — and failing — to remove his facial hair and picture him as Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic. And the rest of the knights? Well, they’re a dirty, ragged bunch, but Ray Winstone (of Sexy Beast) and Ray Stevenson stand out as Sir Bors and Sir Deadduck respectively. Mention must also be made of a Tom Waits-voiced Stellan Skarsgard as the Saxon Big Bad, who gets off a quality zinger about Anglo-Saxon interbreeding, and who is the only person who seems to be having any fun in this project.
All in all, I suppose this movie is solid enough if you’re looking for a decently well-done entry in the long line of period war movies we’ve had of late. But, if your thoughts on King Arthur run towards Camelot, the Lady in the Lake, Morgan le Fey, or even the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, you might want to wait for the next iteration of the story (or just go rent Excalibur.)
Kevin, greetings from the Left Coast. Generally agree with your review of Arthur, although I admit to having a much higher tolerance for this sort of thing than most of my friends seem to. One quick comment, though. Arthur’s perhaps less ahead of the learning curve than you might imagine. It’s obvious that the makers of this movie asked a professional historian or theologian for some background on 5th century Christianity, and came up with Pelagius. That’s the name to whom Arthur attributes most of what you describe as “a good 1000 years ahead of the times.” Aside from some minor chronological difficulties – Pelagius would have died a generation or two before the real Arthur was romping to Baden – and a somewhat misplaced emphasis on certain Pelagian teachings over others, this part of the movie is not as ridiculous as it seems at first glance. A major tenet of Pelagian teaching is the emphasis on free will over predestination, glossed in this movie merely as freedom. If you’re really bored and have a spare 20 minutes, google ‘Pelagius’ and read the first article you come up with. The problem was less with Arthur’s political philosophy (spot on) than with how it was glossed. Anyhow.
~Rachel from the Oregon Coast~ It is possible to “do justice to the story of King Arthur without sorcerors, enchantments, love triangles and the Holy Grail”: it’s called History. The mystical hokey-pokey aspect of the legend is the accumulation of the poetic liscence authors have taken over the past 1500+ years. Guinevere and Lancelot’s alleged love affair is the product of medival misogynists who thrived on scandal and were so busy tarring them and Arthur that they didn’t bother to look at Guinevere’s background at all(she was a Pictish noblewoman, by the way, an ancient north-Scottish people. She was also the king’s archive keeper). And as far as the Holy Grail is concerned, historians proved years ago that it existed entirely independant of Arthur. Oh, and the idea that he ruled from Camelot in England is not right either; according to ancient manuscripts and archaelogical finds, Arthur was probably born in Galloway, Scotland, and ruled over Strathclyde, which stretched from Loch Lomund in Scotland down to north Wales, a kingdom of Welsh-speaking Britons. There are over 50 place names in Scotland with the name Arthur in them. He kept the Saxons out of Britain for 20-something years and, as evidenced by the sheer number ofCeltic graves, most of Britain was never settled by Anglo-Saxon immigrants. In short, King Arthur altered the course of history. So you see, history is an important thing to consider before you start throwing around the sickeningly stereotypical tales of the king just because Hollywood attempted to create the real world of Arthur, where others settled for the surface legends. I highly recommend that you read ‘King Arthur’ by Norma Lorre Goodrich and get your facts straight.
(Sarah from the California Coast)
I have to say that it wasn’t a bad movie…but it had possibility for so much more. (And personally i don’t think Keira is a good actress) Historically, I’m sure the movie is good, but if you do want the legends with it…KcM’s suggestion of excalibur hit the bullseye.
From a written perspective (is in the screen play) the story would have been a whole lot stronger if Gweneviere had not been in it. Then it would have been more of a solid action movie than a weaker action movie with an unneeded romance in.
From a veiwing persepctive, all the actors did a good job (save Keira who can’t act for her life). The costumes we brilliant (except some skimpy outfits towards the end of the film) and the battle scenes were awesome. But i would hesitate to give the movie even three stars.