King Arthur

Release Date: July 7, 2004
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense battle sequences, a scene of sensuality and some language
Directed by: Antoine Fuqua
Starring: Clive Owen, Stephen Dillane, Keira Knightley, Hugh Dancy, Ioan Gruffudd, Stellan Skarsgard, Ray Winstone, Valeria Cavalli, Charlie Creed-Miles, Joel Edgerton, Sean Gilder, Pat Kinevane, Ivano Marescotti, Mads Mikkelsen, Til Schweiger, Ray Stevenson, Ken Stott

Plot:
As the Roman Empire crumbles (circa 450 A.D.), the British Isles are thrown into a loose anarchy as errant knights are entrenched in years of territorial battle. Then, one king emerges to unite them, Arthur, with his concept of a Round Table of united knights.

Review:
If there's something to remember about the summer of 2004 then it will be the disappointments for epics and legends. Just a few months back there was The Alamo which didn't manage to even be a bit memorable. And there was also Troy which I did recommend because it was visually stunning and had some solid cinematography, but even that film had its share of flaws.

One of King Arthur's biggest problems is in clearly not showing enough of the enemies. In the entire running length of the film, in one way or another we are following the character King Arthur which is played by actor Clive Owen. Constantly following the heroes and the allies which include Lancelot and Guinevere, only makes this film seems like its telling us the story rather than showing us.

A film is made to experience the actual events that have occurred with the legendary story, but this film falls into a trap of simply reading off the book. This is a troubled thing to do, especially when the tiny bit of background that we are receiving from the characters is when they talk to one another about their parents and leaders.

What happened to naming each character with their rightful level of leadership? This film forgets to acknowledge that you certainly don't call Lancelot, just plain Lancelot. It is Sir Lancelot and the same is with Arthur, its King Arthur. There is maybe one time in King Arthur's running time that a character calls Arthur by his right name. Sir for Lancelot is never mentioned.

It seems like King Arthur just missed the minor flaws, but why even begin producing a film when the names are mistaken. With that aside King Arthur has some strong acting and some interesting dialogue. If there's one impressive action that the script for this film had, then that would certainly be the dialogue. It doesn't erupt into an all out action film and instead it takes the time to develop its characters.

The characters are developed well, but its only by the very small subjects we know them. Guinevere whom is played by actress Keira Knightley is rescued by King Arthur to only receive a partial lesson on her past. Its recognized from the beginning of the film that we are not given a backstory to the questions that surround the Whats and the When and the Who, but the film is overall rushed and too short at only two hours and five minutes.

I mentioned earlier that it took its time to develop, it certainly did. For the characters, but not for what they are all about and not for what is ahead of them. We get the dialogue treatment with nothing that advanced the story. Any person that at least knows a bit of the legend would know that romance plays a big part in the books and in the legend.

It has always been Lancelot and Guinevere who become attractive to one another. Its a shame because that doesn't happen and Ioan Gruffudd who plays Lancelot is underused. Instead Arthur takes up Lancelots wanted screentime and has simply one love scene with Guinevere. One that came out of nowhere and was not hyped to happen. It seemed almost forced for them to make love.

There was no love climaxing it and just one simply kiss of saying hello and goodbye. There are some strong scenes with Guinevere in which Keira takes her acting to another level and even the silence it has is impressive. Clive Owen for one thing is a good Arthur, not a great one, but he gets the job done. The best cast choice would probably have to be Keira as Guinevere and her acting and battling are some of the films highlights.

The battles in epics are important and take a big piece of a films time. King Arthur's battles are good to the eyes and even features some solid cinematography to boot. From high shots to ground shots and even shots that follow their weapon as it collides with the enemy, the battles are good ones. And the outfits are well made and makeup is on track to make it seem right for its time.

Director Antoine Fuqua has it right in some notes and offers a chance for the public to understand dialogue and the interactions between the characters. The script written by David Franzoni is just suffering here and is not entirely true to the legend. If anything, Antoine should have toned down the comedy and excel the romance and drama.

The flaws are at times major and the comedy it demands is annoying and unintentional, but King Arthur is not a total waste. I am not recommending for the fact that its obvious it is suffering and still is with storytelling. This is not a lazy film though, its just mispresented and it sure needed more time at the works. If you take a big legend as such, don't yell "that's a wrap" until you know the final product will be worth it.