King Arthur
Cast
N/A
Rater #1
Has Not Seen Movie.
Rater #2
6/10. I come from a place where many Americans are-"All I know about King
Arthur I learned from Monty Python and the Holy Grail." But, it
doesn't matter, because almost none of the movie has the King Arthur
that most people know. Instead of doing the legend of King Arthur,
King Arthur is the supposedly "true" story of Arthur and the Knights
of the Round Table. It's rather ironic because there has been no
evidence that Arthur even existed. Methinks that this was just a
huge marketing ploy that backfired. I've barely seen any marketing,
and it's not one for the teen demographic anyway. It'd probably bore
them, anyway.
Knowing that this is a Jerry Bruckheimer film, it kind of put me in
the right mindset. I'm just biding time until Anchorman comes out,
so I see this. I try to keep an open mind going into it, but I find
that it's hard to do. Bruckheimer's films are known to be showy and
big-budget, but lacking in cinematic elements, such as script and
plot. And when you have a movie that's based off of something well
known, such as the legend of King Arthur, you need those elements.
Unless, of course, you change what you say "actually happened". Then
you can get away with it, and Bruckheimer continues his streak of
mediocre films with large budgets.
Instead of focusing on anything that people know about Arthur,
Arthur (Clive Owen, from the wonderful Croupier) and his Knights of
the Round Table have to go out to Britain and get a boy who will
become bishop (or Pope). There are supposed to be many dangers.
Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is rescued about halfway through, and
becomes a fearsome warrior a few times before going to the
background. There's also some stupid animal symbolism and morals
thrown in, along with neo-feminism and Stellan Skarsg�rd with a
braided beard.
The battle scenes were quite good. Unlike so many other movies out
there, they never got old or repetitive. They were pretty exciting
and involving. It seems like the whole movie was leading up to the
final battle scene, with good reason. But that leaves no room for
any real relationship to develop with Guinevere and Arthur (and
Lancelot, as the story goes), and it basically makes the first half
useless, since it's resolved so early. It's almost like two separate
movies there. Also, there's almost no character development. Merlin
comes in once, and Skarsg�rd, as a random Saxon warrior appears
randomly. WHO is he? The Knights' names are barely mentioned. I wish
I knew who played the large, ax-throwing guy, because kudos to him.
He's the comic relief.
Although not as much as Eric Bana did in Troy, Owen puts a good
performance in his widest film yet. He's not amazing, but he doesn't
let the movie down. Knightley, besides being in the film for about
20 minutes, puts in a one-note role and now seems to be a teen idol.
I liked her better when she was in things like Bend It Like Beckham.
She's just here to draw in audiences. And Skarsg�rd, who I'm looking
forward to seeing in Exorcist: The Beginning later this summer, has
fun with his role. King Arthur is an unmemorable but entertaining
movie that plays faster and looser with facts than Michael Moore.
But it's worth a visit if you're bored.
Rated PG-13 for intense battle sequences, a scene of sensuality and
some language.
Running time: ? minutes
Back Home