King Arthur

Apparently this film isn't that good, but find out why in Piaras' full review, while looking at pictures of Keira Knightley.

King Arthur marks a move away from the fairytales and a step towards the history books as Hollywood seeks to reinvent one of the world's most popular stories. The mystical tales of Arthur, Excalibur, Merlin and the Round Table have captured the world's imagination for hundreds of years now, spawning numerous adaptations and few people across the globe are unfamiliar with the legend. New historical evidence has apparently been uncovered which gives an insight into the true history of King Arthur and this latest film seeks to dispel the myths by showing us what really happened. However if there is one thing I have learnt from watching movies, it's that they rarely ever tell the whole truth and instead give us some romanticised version that sells tickets. So would this new adaptation be any different or would it be another case of half truths which make the original story seem like scripture?

David Franzoni of Gladiator fame has written the script for this latest historical tale and he has stripped the legend of most features that we would be familiar with, leaving us with a whole new angle to look upon the story at. According to Franzoni, Arthur was a soldier in the Roman army and the knights of his round table were fellow conscripts. As part of their service they had to serve for fifteen years and they are about to receive their discharges when they have to complete one final mission for Rome. If any of this is actually true then it seems that history books are big fans of action movies because low and behold things get messy. Arthur is left with some tough choices to make and has to choose between his loyalties and his moral beliefs, what ensues sets the ball rolling for the creation of his legend. By new evidence, what those folks in Tinseltown should really have said is 'We figured out what timescale Arthur is said to have existed in, plonked him into the surroundings and made up the rest!' If the tagline 'The untold story that inspired the legend' is to be believed, then it is with good reason that the story remained untold for so long.

The people that made this movie seem to have gotten their wires completely crossed; they have taken out all the appealing elements of the original tale and thought that the name itself would sell this movie. As the box office figures are showing this isn't the case and if this film is anything to go by then we should be worried by what Franzoni's next project, the story of the Carthaginian general Hannibal, will be like. What we are left with is a shell of a movie, King Arthur is devoid of any of the charm associated with the legend and we are forced to put up with this new interpretation. In this respect Clive Owen is the perfect way to describe this film: he lacks any emotion or endearing qualities and the public are forced to love him whether they like it or not. The thing that is most perplexing about the project is that despite trying to distance itself from the myth, the movie constantly has an underlying feeling that runs all the way through it linking it back to the original story. This only confuses the viewer more because at times you are left thinking that the film is going to go in one direction, when in fact it goes the complete opposite.

As an action movie King Arthur is enjoyable enough to watch; it isn't the most original thing in the world, but if it is blood and guts you're after then your quench should be dissolved. In terms of the production stakes it is quite evident that a lot of effort went into this film, the scenes are well put together and it is impressive enough to watch. Having been filmed in Ireland I was left envious at how well the place looked with snow, as a native of the country I know how rare it is to ever see snowflakes falling. Apart from the scenery, one only need watch any of the action sequences to see how elaborate they are. However it is a case of all style but a lack of substance, there doesn't seem to be a clear direction in which the movie is headed and it left to wander in points. For example King Arthur purports to be a gritty realisation of what actually happened, but the way the violence is shot the viewer only gets a partial idea of this. Arrows soar across the skies, swords slice through enemies and horses trample those unfortunate underneath but it isn't that graphic to watch; the final blows are often out of the picture and it turns into Braveheart lite. It is funny that I should bring up Mel Gibson's film as it shows King Arthur isn't against senseless violence as such because it even blatantly rips off the Scottish medieval epic at one point.

The problem with this movie is the title character himself, if anything he is reminiscent of Shakespeare's Brutus in Julius Caesar. Arthur is blinded by his ideals and isn't appealing at all, the audience really struggles to connect with him and are only infuriated by the other characters seemingly throwing themselves at him for no apparent reason. I can't seem to decide whether this is Clive Owen's fault or Franzoni's poor script, but either way the mind boggles as to how Owen's name is being linked with the Bond franchise after this poor showing. Arthur has all the charisma of a rock, if staring at people is meant to portray emotion in some way then celebrity stalkers may find themselves in a new line of work up on the big screen. His relationship with Guinevere is off-putting to say the least, he longs after Kiera Knightley's character like a pervert and the only excuse I can think of from her reciprocal feelings is some weird version of Stockholm syndrome. The movie ultimately flops because Arthur is far from an inspirational character; there is no sense of sacrifice as there was with Maximus in Gladiator and as a result he fails to inspire the audience.

Character inadequacies are not only evident with Clive Owen's character but with most of the supporting cast. The only thing ignorant about Bors (Ray Winstone) was the fact that the makers of the film thought that the viewer would actually like him. I am constantly left without a clue as to how Ray Winstone manages to get away with playing the same tough 'geezer' in every film, all he manages to achieve is to come out with some terrible dialogue and look for a bit of argie-bargie. His inclusion in the film is so out of context that you are left constantly glancing over his shoulder for Grant or Phil Mitchell from Eastenders to appear, as the soap wars are currently indicating the day of the East End wideboy's appeal is finally over. The rest of Arthur's knights are a bunch of misfits, the movie tries to give us some updated version of the Seven Samurai but the characters are so indistinguishable that the viewer is left struggling to identify with any of them. What perhaps is most perplexing about the film though is the portrayal of the lead villain Cedric, played by Stellan Skarsgard. You don't really get that much of a chance to hate him, it's only in some of the final scenes that he gets to show most of his dark side as most of his early heat is stolen by his on-screen son Cynric (Til Schwiger).

It's not all doom and gloom however as there are some positives to be drawn from this movie, Kiera Knightley proves once again that she is a star on the rise and newcomer Ioan Gruffudd is also one to look out for. Both actors are held back by the script somewhat but they each have great screen presence, I don't seem to be the only person to hold this opinion as both of them have some tasty roles lined up for the future. Knightley is the most impressive person in the film, despite looking completely out of place at times due to her slight frame she manages to display a tremendous amount of ferocity in the fight scenes. Her movement and expressions in battle make her look like more of a Harpy than one of Hollywood's most beautiful actresses. She quickly snaps in and out of her fighting stance transforming back into this alluring screen presence, further reaffirming her tremendous acting ability. As for her co-star, Gruffudd, one wishes that he had been cast in the lead role instead of Owen, his character Lancelot is far more endearing and you feel more for him than King Arthur by the end of the film. It is these qualities that have seen him land the lead role as Reed Richards in the upcoming Fantastic Four movie. There is a rather questionable undercurrent that seems to run through Arthur and Lancelot's relationship, but it is purely Gruffudd's on-screen devotion to his comrade that leads the audience to have any sympathy for the main hero.

If the recent success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy was an influence for this movie being made, then the makers of King Arthur should have paid heed to the fact that fantasy is more appealing than action at the box office these days. Perhaps household names should have been cast in the main roles as Clive Owen is out of place as King Arthur, instead of bringing an inspiring character to life he creates a mind-numbing preacher who you would prefer to see knocked off in an early scene. Kiera Knightley shows that she is a rising star to watch out for, but she is unable to support the film by herself and few of her co-stars do anything to aid her. In the end King Arthur proves to be more historically inaccurate than the original legend, leading to rising speculation as to whether some blockbusters are penned by a room full of monkeys with typewriters. King Arthur turns out to be far from the untold story that inspired a legend; instead it is a reminder of the old adage, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it!'

Piaras Kelly
Film Critic, Kikizo Movies