Le Roi Arthur

I initially was content with King Arthur's medieval atmosphere and tone, given that I don't mind grey films, which was one criticism. In this case I didn't care that the violence was PG. The acting was adequate although Ray Winstone (Bors) reminded me more of a British Soccer Hooligan.

The film eventually dragged for me and strained my credibility on a number of points. Firstly, I just couldn't see Arthur and his seven or so "knights" single handedly being asked to traipse around the British landscape like some bad gun-slinger/Conan movie (I identified more with Arnold in Conan by the way). Secondly, it made no sense that Arthur kept referring to his cronies as "my knights" since he never actually became king until the end of the movie. Who knighted them and how can an indentured soldier of the Roman Empire have the status of knight? Even a squire has higher status than a slave-soldier. How pretentious can you get?

In the end the movie dragged and I didn't feel the sense of connection Arthur had for his people. It seemed as if he hardly knew them, but was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. The Excalibur explanation also seemed weak and devoid of the meaning that the legend gave it. It seemed almost pointless to include it. I also expected more of Merlin, who really didn't say much or earn his "sorcerer" title. It's unclear, other than Merlin's influence, why the Britons even bothered to make him king. I guess it's possible that he organized the final battle, but you didn't see that in the movie. The only ones he seemed to be motivating were his own buddies, the handful of knights, who for some reason were the only ones who had horses.

In short this film needed more depth and more of a connection between the myth and fact. Instead the screen writer just used the ambiguity of history to make up his own film based on a smattering of general historical facts.

Jerry Bruckheimer's yearly contribution to the annual `Low on Plot High on Style' Movie Fair that is the Summer Blockbuster Season is `Kind Arthur,' whose tag line is `The Untold true story that inspired the legend.' I guess when a movie claims to be telling the `true story' of a man that historians can't even agree ever existed, I get suspicious. And when this movie that claims to be telling the `true story' features current `it-girl' Keira Knightly wearing a belt for a top (and a cinched up belt at that), I determine that this movie is based on about as much fact as a grocery store tabloid. And I'm talking about those `Woman marries Werewolf and has a Bat Boy' tabloids too.

The `true story' claim is really just code for `no magic, no singing, just lots of dirty guys.' Arthur (Clive Owen), a general for the rapidly declining Roman Empire, and a group of knights protect one of the farthest and most vulnerable Roman posts. At the end of their tenure, a snarky Roman Bishop sends Arthur and the handful of remaining Knights on one last suicidal mission to retrieve a Roman family living living in hostile territory on the brink of being invaded by the Saxons (why they're living so far into non-Roman territory is a mystery to all). At the Roman estate, Arthur is determined to saved a few dozen villagers from the Saxons in addition to the Roman Family (he also rescues Guinevere who was in a dungeon being punished for her pagan ways). Arthur, though he had a Briton mother, considers himself a Roman above all and is eager to return to Rome. But, after learning his beloved Rome is on the brink of being sacked and Guinevere uses a little gentle persuasion, Arthur begins to care about the Britons he once fought.

Question: What would the story of Arthur be like without the Sword in the Stone or the Lady in the Lake? If Merlin was a rebel Briton leader rather than a wizard and Arthur's mentor? If Lancelot and Guinevere weren't lovers, and if Arthur's illegitimate child Mordred never came to crash the party? Answer: A big, gloomy movie that often feels like little more than a wannabe "Gladiator" and "Braveheart." "King Arthur" is one of those frustrating movies that had the potential to be good, but thanks to some missteps and mistakes only ranks as average. Some of the missteps are small, for example, Guinevere's little war outfit that just makes me giggle, or how her fingers were mangled in the dungeon she was kept in but Arthur resets them and by the next day she's shooting an arrow with deadly accuracy. "I see your hand is better," Lancelot quips. Glad to see someone in the movie itself found it ridiculous too.

My biggest grip with the movie is the way they handled Lancelot, well, I should really complain about all the knights since they were all cardboard cutouts at best. I figured since they went to trouble of starting the movie with a clip of Lancelot as a child that he would be a larger factor in the movie. But as an adult (played by Ioan Gruffudd, who I'd cheat on Arthur with any day) his role is relegated to some one-liners and a couple bitch-sessions with Arthur about how to much he doesn't want to do whatever. In what is probably the worst move in the movie, the love triangle between Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot is completely absent. Lancelot and Guinevere's relationship consists of Lancelot staring at her a lot, and it's hard to tell if he wants her, or if he's angry at her for taking Arthur affection. Now it's not because I was eager to see some Ioan/Keira make-out sessions, it's just Guinevere's betrayal has always been a core part of the Arthur legend, how when things seemed so perfect, Arthur's wife and best friend betray him and ultimately bring down Camelot.

With it already falling to 6th place at the box office in it's second week of release, King Arthur will likely go down as the big flop of the Summer of 2004. It's sometimes hard to figure out why some movies flop while other similar movies (Troy and Van Helsing, neither a box office smash but at least reached the $100 million level that King Arthur will never reach) enjoy moderate, and even great, success. "King Arthur's" problem is that the makers were so eager to demystify the legend that they stripped away all of the elements that made it a legend. All that's left are some uninspired battle scenes, a few mundane speeches about being born free, and footage of Keira in that outfit that talk-shows hosts will probably tease her about for the rest of her career.

When I heard that this film was coming out back in the spring, I was excited. I had finished an entire session of analyzing "Le Morte d'Arthur" in my AP British Literature class and I wrote a 35 page paper about the topic. So, I was thinking, "What a great way to apply my knowledge to this film!"

Of course, that's not how it turned out.

1. The action scenes could have been done much better. Sure, the strategies that the archers used were interesting, and Artorius' attack against the Saxons seemed to be well-planned out, but there wasn't enough blood to be convincing. When a sword is pulled out of the body, there should be blood coming out of the body, right?

2. This particular King Arthur was based on the Roman general Ambrosius, whom existed several hundred years earlier than the more popular King Arthur. After doing a fair amount of research on him, I concluded that the battle was in the right place, but there should have been a reference about Arthur being the recorded Ambrosius.

3. Guinevere and Merlin didn't live as Pictis. Period. I liked that Guinevere had a more powerful part as an action hero rather than a damsel in distress, but she seemed to come out of nowhere.

4. The acting could have been better; Owens' lines were cheesy at times and choppy at others, but he did make the best of it. Ioan Gruffud was a good choice to be Lancelot; the relationship that he and Owens had as their characters was done with as much as they could give it.

Overall, it could have been done better. I give this a 6/10.

This isn't as bad a movie as many critics and viewers who write critiques have made it out to be, but isn't anything like a blockbuster that hasn't been matched or bettered before. Nice summer movie to watch when the heat wave breaks and you have a long rainy day. I have several complaints, but I'll start with the virtues:

It was well filmed, with good settings (although there is nothing like those Alpine mountains in Britain, except maybe in the Scottish Highlands during mid-winter). The battle scenes were fine, except to the extent they were toned down to get the PG rating (wait for the DVD) -- especially a really good one that takes place on the surface of a frozen lake. The depiction of Hadrian's Wall and its ancillary fortresses and villages -- with taverns and hooker joints -- was archaeologically and historically accurate, even if the purported site of the Battle of Badon is imaginary (could be presumed to be modeled on Housesteads combined with Vindolanda). And yes, the Romans did have draftees in the legions from other parts of the Empire in posts like the Great Wall, and they were inducted for 15 to 20 years before being granted civilian status and pensions. That Arthur's traditional knights were Sarmations, we'd call them Ukrainians now, has to be taken with a grain of salt. In these senses, the movie is a good approximation of the latter days of the Roman Empire in Britain, but it certainly doesn't break any new 'archeological or historical ground'. I have no imaginative problems, as some people with that kind of interest do, with the technology of the battle scenes -- the Romans had catapults and naphtha bombs (Greek fire), even if they were unlikely to have been used in the sort of battle shown here against a marauding horde of barbarians, and manned by another horde of barbarians, those so-called Picts who become Arthur's allies.

Doubtful elements: As I said, the Ukrainian Knights -- and in fact I was fooled into thinking the kid drafted from the steppes to join the Roman cavalry was supposed to be Arthur, but turns out to be Lancelot, and well, that just won't do. First of all Lancelot was French, an interpolation from the Middle Ages. Galahad was also a Norman French invention. The more traditional Arthurian characters, going back to the original Welsh legends, as close as we'll ever get to historical 'reality', were Gawain and Bors -- who were certainly not Ukrainians! Tristan or Tristram has his own mythology, involving the Irish princess Iseult, as we know from Wagner's opera and other sources, so why is he killed off before he can accomplish this? (Besides, it is Gawain who supposedly had a connection with hawks, not Tristan, and is also said to have killed giants.) It is likely that the historical Arthur was a Roman officer, perhaps related to the historical Ambrosius Aurelianus, who commanded a 'rapid reaction force', and in any case was definitely British -- that all fits. What the screenplay doesn't explain at all, probably because of very poor editing, is that bit about the sword in the stone and the burning of the young Arthur's house by raiders led by, presumably, the British (Welsh) Merlin, who by the way was not a PICT. Here I was, thinking he was the kid from the steppes, then all of a sudden we get this thrown in, and was that really supposed to have been his father who broke the ice on the lake to drown the Saxons, at the cost of his own life? Say, what? Where did this come from out of the blue? Cerdic and Cynric, the Saxon leaders, were definitely historical characters, but they were the founders of WESSEX in the south of England and had nothing to do with the Saxon invasion north of the wall when the Northumbrian kingdom was established.

Totally wrong and misleading elements: Even the historical sources mention several great battles of the Britons against the Saxons and Scots, which took place over several years, led by a great war leader. Many of them took place in Lowland Scotland and the Border country, but the famous battle of Mount Badon is generally considered to have taken place south west of London. Hadrian's Wall had been abandoned several years before. There was no one great decisive routing of the invaders before Badon. The so-called Pelagian heresy took place before these times and is one of those silly arguments whereby Christians killed other Christians over trivial matters -- the Victorians made Pelagius into a hero because he was British, but as far as I can figure out, his 'heresy' had nothing to do with Freedom and All Men Are Created Equal. Arthur is more likely to have been a Mithraist, like other legionaries, even if nominally Christian.

As for the script, all I can say is that it is muddled beyond easy comprehension. That could have as much to do with the way the film was finally edited as with any original deficiency, even granted that it is not a strong script to begin with. The acting is generally very well done -- again allowing for the fact that the roles and lines were chopped up for whatever reasons. One very laughable bit concerns the lovely Keira (Guinevere), who is rescued from a dungeon where everybody else has starved or been tortured to death, has Arthur treat her maimed hands, then a day or so later is an Olympic class archer. 'I see your fingers are better now,' says Arthur.

But this movie is anything but misunderstood. The beautiful scenery and brooding atmosphere don't make up for the poor writing and formulaic plot.

Clive Owen is great. He's a subtle, powerful actor. His eyes alone are capable of showing strength, experience, sorrow, and amazement, all at once.

He epitomizes the strong, silent type. No one better to be cast as the legendary King Arthur. His character arc is one of the only believable aspects of the film. I owe it mostly to Owen's nuanced performance, as the writing unfortunately does not support him adequately.

According to the script, Arthur's allegiance to Rome is fueled, not by his love of the military, but rather his love of Roman philosophy. Apparently this love informs his compassionate approach as a leader, and turns his loyalties further away from Rome. But this motivation is only given cursory explanation. Repeatedly, Arthur shouts out, 'This is for freedom,' or 'We are all equal.' Even though his passion is believable, we never learn much more about the reasoning behind these generalized statements.

Guinevere, played by Keira Knightly, is given some 'girl power' as a rebellious pagan, capable of fighting with the men. But her story is undermined by her laughable romance with Arthur. True to formula, Arthur 'rescues,' her, and within minutes her attempts at seduction begin. Happily this is undercut by a shift in the plot involving fellow rebel 'Merlin,' but unfortunately this part of the story is also under-written. We are given no information about Guinevere's connection to Merlin, especially considering the character's young age. Knightly is barely 20, and it shows. This is nothing remarkable by Hollywood standards, but her performance shows a lack of life experience.

Costume and make-up choices for Guinevere were equally laughable; she wears full glamour makeup for the majority of the picture. Later she appears in the costumer's interpretation of pagan warrior garb (a few leather straps and some blue face paint), which is equally unbelievable as effective coverage for battle.

The formulaic screenwriting undermines the supporting cast of knights as well. It uses the typical action film technique of giving each knight their obligatory character highlight, or sympathetic moment, so we can be sure to spot them when they fall.

In triumphant moments, the underdeveloped theme of 'freedom' returns. Considering England's history, this so-called freedom would be in question for centuries to come. It would have been far more interesting to see how Arthur actually united England in the years that followed. Unfortunately this film instead shows Arthur massacring many Britons, spouting this 'talking point' as an afterthought.

I was really disappointed, given the claim about historical accuracy. For an hour and forty minute film, too much time given to battle scenes (which, apart from one scene on ice, were not very memorable). Not enough time was spent fleshing out the script. Or to be fair, perhaps those parts of the script ended up on the cutting room floor. But you could get just as much out of watching the previews of this movie; there's just not much more to it. If you're a fan of Clive Owen, then by all means... But otherwise, don't waste your time.