start, this movie has some of the coolest looking knights I have ever
seen. Every major character is truly awesome in stature and style. However,
this was not enough to make the film, King Arthur, anything to
remember after leaving the theatre.
though this film offers up a nice serving of action and entertainment,
it fails to encompass its viewer from a lack of character build or story.
film, King Arthur, supposedly covers the 'true story' behind
King Arthur and his noble knights. The film does not accomplish any of
this as there is really no story at all; the film rather covered a single
event or weekend at best. The only attempt to have any back-story involves
a poorly done segment where Arthur 'forces' a flash back of his childhood
where we see him take the sword, Excaliber, from his father's grave.
film actually begins with Arthur serving as a noble knight to Rome as
it occupies Britian [Arthur's homeland]. There is a pre-curser to the
film that explains that the knights of Britain, along with their children,
are sworn to alliegance to Rome that they must fulfill by serving for
fifteen years. Hence, we find Arthur and his knights closing out their
terms of service and getting ready for ordinary life away from the battlefield.
However, they must complete one last quest [a quest that the entire movie
is about] in order to save some Roman noblekid and introduce a starved
Keira Knightley to the scene.
quest forces Arthur to confront raiding Saxons who are attempting to take
Britain for their own. Therefore, the quest ensues, the forces meet, and
a big battle begins and ends.
particularily enjoyed the beginning of the film more than the end. At
this point we are introduced to some of the coolest looking knights I
have yet to see on film with an idea of each ones personalities. However,
none of the knights really have a story but the fact they have been hanging
out with Arthur, killing for Rome.
the film continues the viewer is made to realize that Arthur is the ultimate
knight in that he is extremely noble and is more than willing to sacrifice
himself for a better cause. And, just as the rest of his knights, this
is where his story remains as well since there is very little additional
input on who Arthur is or where he came from.
the end, the film has some cool action sequences, a cool cast, and Keira
Knightley. The conclusion of King Arthur, one which reminded
me a lot of Troy, is a simple narration puting a quick end to
the story of King Arthur and his knights. The film is worth seeing for
what it is but can be easily forgotten after you leave the movie theatre.
cast was easily the largest strength to this film. Besides a few common
faces, the set is made up of almost entirely fresh or unseen actors [which
was actually kind of refreshing]. Clive Owen, who I first encountered
in the Bourne Identity and the BMW films, played the character of King
Arthur. I would assume that most of the movie-going public have yet to
see Clive in a starring role such as this. Clive is accompanied by other
actors such as Hugh Dancy, Ioan Gruffudd, Mads Mikkelsen, Joel Edgerton,
Ray Winstone, and Ray Stevenson. All of whom fit their roles extremely
well with each actor offering a unique look to being a knight in the Dark
Ages. The two coolest being Joel Edgerton [Gawain] and Mads Mikkelsen
[Tristan] as they are definately the most distinct of the knights.
the bad guys are cool. Stellan Skarsgård [played an impressive role
as leader of the Saxons, Cedric] and Til Schweiger [Cynric] were a great
addition to the group of cool looking bad-asses.
the casting agent will pick up these guys again for another movie with
an even better script, enabling them to really shine.
Judgement: If you want some mild entertainment go see King Arthur,
at least if you have already seen Spider-Man 2. The film has a few perks
but not enough to engross its viewers. B-