King Arthur

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)

Hans Zimmer has already elevated many good films to unforgettable and many mediocre ones to decent. And no movie can be as grateful to him as King Arthur, which without his brilliant musical accompaniment would have remained just a story trimmed of magic with a historical subplot. Instead, it has become a decent historical spectacle, in which Clive Owen clearly dominates the acting, with his Arthur being a dignified and courageous leader even in civilian form. 70% - a bit shaky, but otherwise quite positive. (04/10/2007)

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)

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)

Placing the Arthurian legend into a "historical" framework is simply ridiculous, and not even Keira with her small breasts can help it. This is an incredibly boring movie that only shows how Hollywood tries to turn anything into a modern action. There is also an attempt to add depth, but it fits about as well as a soccer ball in a golf hole. (03/31/2015)