King Arthur (2004) Movie Information:

King Arthur (2004) Directed by: Antoine Fuqua King Arthur (2004) Written by: David Franzoni King Arthur (2004) Cast: Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Mads Mikkelsen, Joel Edgerton, Hugh Dancy, Ray Winstone, Ray Stevenson, Keira Knightley, Stephen Dillane, Stellan Skarsgard

King Arthur (2004) U.S. Distributor: Touchstone Pictures King Arthur (2004) U.K. Distributor: Buena Vista

Our Rating: User Rating:  Log in to rate this movie

King Arthur (2004) Synopsis:

Historians have thought for centuries that King Arthur was only a myth, but the legend was based on a real hero, torn between his private ambitions and his public sense of duty. A reluctant leader, Arthur wishes only to leave Britain and return to the peace and stability of Rome. Before he can head for Rome, one final mission leads him and his Knights of the Round Table, Lancelot, Galahad, Bors, Tristan, and Gawain to the conclusion that when Rome is gone, Britain needs a king--someone not only to defend against the current threat of invading Saxons, but to lead the isle into a new age. Under the guidance of Merlin, a former enemy, and the beautiful, courageous Guinevere by his side, Arthur will have to find the strength within himself to change the course of history.

King Arthur (2004) Movie Review:

On the verge of gaining their freedom after serving Rome for fifteen years, Arthur (Owen) and his Knights are given one last mission that would see them face their most aggressive foe yet, the invading Saxon army. As he moves north, he discovers that the people of Britain need a leader, someone who could save them from the marauding hordes as the Roman Empire prepares to leave. Against the wishes of Lancelot (Gruffudd) and the rest of his Knights, Arthur decides to stay and fight for the people who he has sworn to protect.

As fantasy films enjoy a resurgence at the box office, revisiting the Arthurian legend must have seemed like an excellent idea. The Sword in the Stone, the Lady of the Lake and all the other myths and magic associated with the tale could be brought to life brilliantly as CGI now allows filmmakers to achieve anything. So why did they decide to forgo all of the mystical elements of Britain’s most famous royal fable?

Jerry Bruckheimer and Antoine Fugua’s version of tale of King Arthur and his Knights takes a more historically accurate approach to the legend and this is to the determent of the film. This account sees Arthur as the leader of a Roman garrison, stationed on Hadrian’s Wall in the 4th century A.D. Never defeated in battle Artorius, a half Roman, half Britain, commands a group of Sarmatian Knights whose deeds are legendary amongst the people, as tales of Arthur and his knights spread across of the country. The Sarmatian Knights are enlisted men who gain their freedom after fifteen years of service to Rome. So Lancelot, Gawain, Galahad and the rest are the equivalent of the Special Forces for the Roman Empire. Guinevere and Merlin are Woads, rebellious pagans who fight against the Roman occupation but the real enemy is the invading Saxon army that threatens to engulf the country as the Roman army leaves Britain. So everything you know about the legend, whether it be from film or books, is wrong and this is really how the story was born. This is all fair and good but the end result just isn’t as exciting as the mythological approach.

The battle sequences are nothing new and they lack the blood and gore that you’d expect from a confrontation involving swords, arrows and flaming catapult fire. The ice face-off and the final fight are impressive but you have the feeling you’ve seen it all before. The leader giving a rousing speech on horseback and driving the troops into battle seems to be the stalwart of all historical dramas of late.

The script doesn’t really push the acting talents of the ensemble cast but they do quite a reasonable job. Keira Knightly sounds overly posh as Guinevere but she does get stuck in during the battle sequences. Ioan Gruffudd doesn’t really have much to do as Lancelot, as the love triangle involving Arthur, Guinevere and him is never really explored. Ray Winston is his usual rowdy self as Bors and Joel Edgerton and Hugh Dancy are fine as Gawain and Galahad. Stellan Skarsgård is seriously underused as the Saxon leader Cerdic. The character just ends up looking like he really doesn’t want to be there.

Clive Owen performance as Arthur is the main problem however. He just doesn’t have the presence to pull of such a commanding role. This is supposed be a man who the knights would die for and a leader they would follow into hell itself but Owen just doesn’t project this in the slightest. Clive Owen is an excellent actor but you might have to question his ability to be a strong leading man.

King Arthur would have been a better film if the filmmakers had gone for a more mythical approach. The Sword in the Stone, the Lady of the Lake, Merlin the Wizard and the power of Excalibur would have made an amazing fantasy adventure now that the technology can do it justice. This historical retelling is still watchable and quite entertaining but you can’t help but think you could have been watching a much better film.

Our Rating: User Rating:  Log in to rate this movie

King Arthur (2004) review written by: Jamie Kelwick