|
Directed by: Antoine Fuqua
Written by: David Franzoni
Starring: Clive Owen, Ioan
Gruffudd, Mad Mikkelsen, Joel Edgerton, Hugh Dancy, Ray Winstone, and Keira
Knightly
Rated:
Rated PG-13 for intense battle sequences, a scene of
sensuality and some language.
Theatrical Release: July 7th,
2004
|
|
The director of Training
Day and writer of Ridley Scott's hit, Gladiator, comes the new
King Arthur blockbuster. Forget all the magical fairy tales of the once
and future king, an yes...even discard Disney's version of The Sword in
the Stone. Antoine Fuqua's King Arthur is the realistic version
of the old tale with a backdrop of England, as ruled by the Roman Empire.
The reluctant "Captain"
Arthur (Clive Owen) has been the leader of a group of knights, drafted as
young men into the Roman Army and stationed in Great Britain. Lancelot,
Galahad, Bors, Tristan, and Gawain and even Arthur himself are disenchanted
with Roman rule, and when orders come to serve one final mission for the
empire before it relinquishes its hold on England, the band of knights are
left to question what they have been fighting for all these years. The
gorgeous Keira Knightly also starts as a bow and arrow slinging Guinevere.
So if this little synopsis
leaves you questioning, "What the...", you're not alone. Apparently this
historically accurate tale has raised quite a few eyebrows while the term
"revisionist" tacks itself on the front of history, and rears its ugly head
from the opening frames of the film. The story is extremely confusing from
the beginning, probably because people try and reconcile what they have
always known about King Arthur stories since grade school with
this...garbage.
That really is what this
picture ended up to be...garbage. It suffers from terrible writing. I can't
even believe this is the same David Franzoni responsible for Gladiator!
It doesn't make sense. The editing is not compelling, the acting is so bland
it makes rice cakes sound good...the unflavored kind. The battles are way
over the top with blood splatters, probably because they knew the action was
the only thing the film had in it that could be decent.
I left the film
wondering...who is responsible for this disaster? Could the studio not keep
their fingers out of it? Or is it worse...does King Arthur suffer
from an extreme directorial lack of vision? While Training Day was
compelling, this sure is not. In fact, my stomach is knots with the news
that Fuqua is making a prequel to the classic, The Untouchables.
This film
demystifies an entire legend. No romance exists between Arthur and
Guinevere, except for a tawdry, lewd sex scene. The strong friendship
between Arthur and Lancelot is severely lacking, and no betrayal for the
lovely Keira Knightly exists whatsoever. Merlin appears as a shadowy tribal
leader who is more rival than mentor to Arthur.
Finally, King
Arthur rips off every single epic film made to date. For one instance,
what is with the blue, Braveheart looking war paint smeared all over
people's bodies? Every epic film has the "arrows flying through the air
shot," it could almost be stock footage. Flamed arrows igniting an oil
soaked field, burning their opponents alive. It just gets ridiculous.
However, one good sequence is the battle on the ice, with Arthur and his
knights on one side, and the savage Saxons on the other.
Ultimately I do
have to be fair in rating the film. King Arthur gets one, single,
lonely star for being original, however deeply flawed the film is. That
said, I do not recommend this film, even if you are trying to find the worst
film ever. I mean, if you're looking for a bad film, you should at least be
entertained...right? |
