King Arthur
King Arthur Review Formula = Braveheart - Everything that was good about Braveheart
King Arthur is the latest project from Jerry Bruckheimer (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor). A tale of Dark Ages knighthood, this movie is a formulaic clone to the many other films where a noble, freedom seeking, small collection of warriors fight overwhelming numbers of faceless aggressors led by one evil henchman.
The British legend of The Sword in the Stone and the Knights of the Round Table takes a beating as this film follows the alleged archaeological evidence of the story, rather than the fairy tale most people will be expecting.
Unfortunately, Jerry Bruckheimer was heading up the expedition, but instead of digging through the rubble of an archaeology site, he uncovered only the clippings left on Braveheart's cutting room floor.
Here's some information about the changes made from the legend to the film.
#1: Guinevere is a hermit-warrior-princess.
#2: Arthur is Roman.
#3: Excalibur is largely ignored.
#4: The film is boring.
Giving King Arthur some credit is the fact that it is actually stacked with British actors, which is fitting considering the heritage of the story. Clive Owen plays Arthur, and does a decent job at his task. There not a surplus of one liners, or even horribly lame writing. The problem is that a perfectly entertaining story has been re-told in a most boring and empty fashion. Speaking of fashion though, the costumes are pretty good, but good frames won't save bad paintings.
King Arthur Review, Trailer & Cast
Starring: Clive Owen, Stellan Skarsg'rd, Keira Knightley, Ioan Gruffudd
Directed by: Antoine Fuqua
Produced by: Jerry Bruckheimer
Duration: 130 minutes
Release Date: 7/07/2004
MPAA Rating: PG-13
See the King Arthur trailer here
This entry is filed in Action, Adventure.« The Day After Tomorrow | Art & Design Leaders Attend Academy of Art University »
I just came from seeing King Arthur. Seeing it with my young son made me appreciate the lack of blood and extreme violence which could have been present. The author of this site is correct however, the film is so very boring. Almost a formulaic magnificent seven of Arthurian Knights. The main thing that bothered me though was the glaring mistakes in tactics the hero made. Most obviously not making full use of the Olympian archers at his disposal. The historic mistakes also were a bit of a peeve. Considering crossbows and trebuchets were not used or invented in 500 AD. But it was an alright way to spend two air-conditioned hours in the summer.
Posted by: at July 13, 2004 03:39 AM
