King Arthur

I watched the director's cut version, so I have no idea how much the cinema version is different, either for the better or the worse. For fans of, for example, Boorman’s classic, this is not it. The filmmakers have trampled on the established mythology as much as possible, completely removing its attractive mythical elements and creating a pseudo-historical patchwork that is completely out. This film could have been called “Frank Smith” and it would have been the same. Looking back from this sad reality, what is left filmmaking-wise? The first half is surprisingly passable. The opening brutal and solidly bloody battle is inviting, the winter scenes are beautifully atmospheric, the dialogue doesn't drag, Clive Owen is a very charismatic guy, and Stellan Skarsgård's long wig and beard really suit him. But as the Saxons approach the defensive wall, the film slides into kitsch and unbearable pathos, and some scenes raise the question of whether the filmmakers really meant it. If it wasn't for a botched last act, I'd be willing to go to three*. Otherwise the production design, an essential ingredient of any proper historical spectacle, isn't great, you can't really see the 120 million. (01/23/2005)

Not even a PhD in the Arts would have prevented the eventual director from making a film under Jerry Bruckheimer's production whip that looked at history from the "proper" and universally accepted side. True, drilling a dollar bore in classic English mythology is a brave act, but why not? Antoine Fuqua is, on one hand, a skillful craftsman, but unfortunately, he struggles with handling the given material. The narrative of the film is quite fragmented, stripping away the classic mythology, and while it is supported by impressive set design (the $130 million budget is evident), the director fails on all fronts when it comes to dialogues and the overall dramatic structure of the story. The film showcases talented actors, and the pairing of Skarsgård and Schweiger is one of the best casting choices of 2004. In technical disciplines, however, King Arthur is an above-standard spectacle (hence also a listening spectacle). The masterly cinematography by Slawomir Idziak (Oscar-nominated for his cinematography in Black Hawk Down), supported by interesting tonality that matches the bleak climatic conditions of the northern English Highlands, clearly dominates the film. Zimmer's music is a concentration of the most heroic motifs, preserved within synthesizer instruments. It would also be unforgivable to overlook the brilliant work of the sound designers who, together with the cinematographer, unleashed their creativity during the battle on the lake with cracking ice. Yes, it may be cliché, but I was never bored for even a moment during those two hours, which does not happen all that often. (02/16/2006)

An interesting idea to approach the legend of Arthur, trying to imagine how it might have been in reality. Unfortunately, the screenplay is the greatest weakness of the movie, which could have been saved by the director, if he weren’t the second weakest link here. A movie that isn’t fundamentally bad, just dime-a-dozen in all respects. The only significant plus point here is Zimmer’s music, despite being adapted from things he wrote before this, but still it works well in this movie. (02/01/2005)

Despite the reputation that precedes this film, it is certainly not an epoch disaster. True, the screenwriter is bad. He didn't realize that if he put the film's introduction on the "according to the latest archaeological findings" plane and then provided the plot with cheap fantasy props, the result would be dubious to say the least. Likewise, he should have realized that the actual dismantling of the mythical system would not be enough if he did not replace it with a different one. It wasn’t replaced. King Arthur is a film about nothing, it's a journey from nowhere to nowhere. There's no legendary tension between the characters, or rich fabrication. All that remains is an epic journey around Albion and a majestic rambling before battles. Fortunately, director Fuqua got his hands on a high-quality acting ensemble headed by the really great Clive Owen, who is not stopped by the fact that his Arthur is basically total psychological nonsense, a hero so impulsive and eclectic that at times he seems ridiculous. But thanks to the presentation, also charismatic. As well as the performance of the other knights of the round table. The film is even exciting in places, unfortunately mostly just when the viewer realizes that this is IT, that it will not go any further, that the plot will not develop anywhere. End. It's a great shame, because the characters had the potential, they just needed story. This bare, wide plain can't be more captivating than the fateful fantasy epic Excalibur. I'm sorry, the real history game really isn't convincing. (09/22/2005)

Children playing in a sandbox and I’m glad to join them. Because there is always something smoking spectacularly and Zimmer’s music is more heroic than in The Rock. And because the kids include Keira Knightley and Clive Owen, who are a joy watch even if they are reciting Shakespeare while wearing clown noses. King Arthur is the most endearing bad movie in at least a year. I highly recommend the Director’s Cut, which is significantly bloodier. (08/08/2004)