This item is currently not available. If you have this item,
Join and post it to share with others.
It's got a round table, some knights, and a noble warrior who rises to become King Arthur, but everything else about this revisionist legend is pure Hollywood. That's not such a bad thing if you enjoyedRob Roy,Braveheart,Gladiator, andTroy, and there's some intriguing potential in presenting the "real" Arthur (played by Clive Owen) as a 5th-century soldier of Rome, assigned to defend Roman-imperial England against a hoard of invading Saxons (led by Stellan Skarsgård in hairy villain mode). As revamped history and "archaeological findings" would have us believe, Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is a warrior babe in face-paint and Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is a nonentity who fades into the woodwork. Never mind! Best to enjoy the harsh, gloomy atmosphere of Irish locations, the ruggedness of Owen and his hearty supporting cast, and the entertaining nonsense of a Jerry Bruckheimer production that strips battle-ready Guinevere down to leather-strap S&M gear while all the men sport full-body armor. Hail to the queen, indeed!--Jeff Shannon
Hollow Heroes Hollywood has always been at war with itself when it comes to historical blockbusters. On the one hand, it is obsessed with historical accuracy, down to the last detail on armor; on the other, it is determined to produce a story that will draw in the crowds.
King Arthur tries, but fails, to reconcile the two pulls. The drama takes place at Hadrian's Wall in Northern Britain, as the Roman Empire begins its retreat from colonial outposts. The Romano-British commander Arthur, played by Clive Owen, leads a band of Sarmatian knights in protecting the abandoned people from the hordes of invading Saxons.
You can't argue with the basic premise of the underdog versus the evil attackers. Director Antoine Fuqua and his cinematographer Slawomir Idziak are at their best in scenes where the warriors are either expecting battle or in the midst of it. The crack of ice and the fire of arrows have a beauty in of themselves - never mind the people within it.
The letdown comes in the script. To believe in a historical hero, you must build audience empathy, and Arthur is unfortunately a little too noble for any human man. His band of men are a joking lot, but also sketchily drawn, and Guinevere appears to act as a spokesperson straight out of an American independence tract. Gone is any tension between Arthur and Lancelot, replaced by a disappointing coda to the action.
The legends of Arthur may well have been founded in historical facts, but the legend of Arthur is resilient for a number of themes that strike deep: betrayal of a friend for love, courage in the face of certain doom, and the limitations of violence to contain violence. King Arthur could have been improved by playing up these elements - the death of Arthur and a retreat of survivors to Wales would have retained historical truth - without losing its vision.
Not your typical King Arthur movie I would have to say I enjoyed this movie and historical version of an Arthur we don't know. Let's face it, although the original version of Arthur is a good one it seems more like a tale of fantasy than historical acuracy. This version to me at least exept for Guinevere in the leather strap warrior bikini, seems more likely to have some accuracy. They did leave in the part about pulling the sword out, except it was out of a grave and not a stone. But I think it is more possible that Arthur was indeed just a captain appointed by the Roman Empire on a far outpost, the knights were more like a band of warrior brothers conscripted from the lands and were a little rougher on the edge than the clean cut knights of arthurian tales.
As for the whole Christian bashing thing people need to just chill. Arthur did not give up on his christian beliefs to become a pagan, he did give up on believing in a Rome that was just an idea and not a reality. Can you honestly say that what history points out about ancient Rome being a little sinister, greedy, a little inhumane maybe is wrong? Did they not set out to conquer the world. Did they not use religion as a tool? Does the Roman Catholic church have a few blemishes on its record?
So overall realize that the story of Arthur or Arturius Castus in this movie is not the Arthur you know. But according to some recent findings and in my mind a "whats most likely" reasoning I think this movie can prove to by more accurate. I think Clive Owen did a good job in this movie playing a character whose in torn between duty, brotherhood, and a belief system which is challenged and broken down piece by piece.Historically Correct? Maybe. Entertaining? No. I would have definitely walked out of this movie had it not been that I was being paid to watch and review it for a newspaper. I was not being paid enough. This was a truly terrible movie, and many people I saw in the theatre passed the time by chatting amongst friends or visiting the lobby to play arcade games.
Whether it is historically accurate or not really won't matter to you by the end of the movie, because you will never want to hear about the Arthurian legend ever again - this movie truly murders it. Within moments you gets bogged down with such a dull storyline, leaden acting and rotten script that you completely lose interest. And if you are forced to sit through the whole 2 hours of this vapid, mind-numbing mess until it reaches its horribly tedious climax, then if anyone mentions Arthur to you again you are highly likely to want to punch them in the teeth.
Clive Owen deserves a special mention for putting in one of the worst performances of anyones career. He plays a terminally bored Roman soldier who appears permanently on the verge of falling asleep.
