Review: King Arthur
What do you get when you take a legend, a myth, a magical tale--and remove most of the elements that make it mythical? You end up with a story that fails to sparkle, a historical account that isn't. It's pretty well impossible to separate man from myth in the legend of King Arthur, as the new Antoine Fuqua movie shows.
The plot premise is somewhat interesting, and might have made a decent movie if the protagonist weren't supposed to be Arthur. In this account, he's a native Briton raised as a Roman, leading a band of knights from Sarmatia who are indentured to Rome. Arthur (Clive Owen), through a series of events, becomes disillusioned with the Church and Roman Empire which is pulling out of Britain. He joins the native pagans led by Guinevere (Kiera Knightley) and Merlin (Stephen Dillane) in fighting off the invading Saxon hordes, and in the process several of his knights and beloved friends are killed.
The film suffers from acting that's mediocre, at best. Owen may be good behind the wheel of a BMW, but he's rather wooden when faced with a substantive role. Even this might not be a fatal flaw, though, if it weren't for the paucity of dialogue. Battle scenes are nice, but they can't carry a movie. And Owen isn't nearly a good enough actor to carry a man-of-few-words part off. The lack of dialogue also prevents the relationship between Arthur and his knights from developing as it should. Thus, we don't feel the emotional impact when Arthur and the men part ways, or when Lancelot and others are killed in the final battle.
The romance element of the story doesn't feel right, either. The Lancelot-Guinevere affair, which adds so much tension and tragedy to traditional Arthurian accounts, is reduced to a few lingering exchanges between them. The fact that Arthur and Guinevere aren't married until the end, after Lancelot is dead, doesn't help matters.
In the quest to create a "historical" Arthur, the creators have cut out most of what makes the story so endearing--and so enduring. We don't get a sense that this man was of such stature that he could inspire a legend spanning 15 centuries. All in all, the film is just a mediocre piece of historical fiction that claims the name of the king to get recognition and pull in viewers.
I give it a 4 out of 10.
The plot premise is somewhat interesting, and might have made a decent movie if the protagonist weren't supposed to be Arthur. In this account, he's a native Briton raised as a Roman, leading a band of knights from Sarmatia who are indentured to Rome. Arthur (Clive Owen), through a series of events, becomes disillusioned with the Church and Roman Empire which is pulling out of Britain. He joins the native pagans led by Guinevere (Kiera Knightley) and Merlin (Stephen Dillane) in fighting off the invading Saxon hordes, and in the process several of his knights and beloved friends are killed.
The film suffers from acting that's mediocre, at best. Owen may be good behind the wheel of a BMW, but he's rather wooden when faced with a substantive role. Even this might not be a fatal flaw, though, if it weren't for the paucity of dialogue. Battle scenes are nice, but they can't carry a movie. And Owen isn't nearly a good enough actor to carry a man-of-few-words part off. The lack of dialogue also prevents the relationship between Arthur and his knights from developing as it should. Thus, we don't feel the emotional impact when Arthur and the men part ways, or when Lancelot and others are killed in the final battle.
The romance element of the story doesn't feel right, either. The Lancelot-Guinevere affair, which adds so much tension and tragedy to traditional Arthurian accounts, is reduced to a few lingering exchanges between them. The fact that Arthur and Guinevere aren't married until the end, after Lancelot is dead, doesn't help matters.
In the quest to create a "historical" Arthur, the creators have cut out most of what makes the story so endearing--and so enduring. We don't get a sense that this man was of such stature that he could inspire a legend spanning 15 centuries. All in all, the film is just a mediocre piece of historical fiction that claims the name of the king to get recognition and pull in viewers.
I give it a 4 out of 10.
posted by Jeff at 10:30 AM
<< Home