ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2






(Review originally written at 15 July 2005)

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Seriously, why is this movie even named "King Arthur"? Arthur doesn't become king until like the last 3 minutes or so.

I had serious doubts whether I should watch this movie or not. I'm quite fond of the legend of King Arthur and I heard that this movie totally ignored almost every aspect of the legend, to so called, tell the 'true' story of King Arthur and the knights of the round table. Still I decided to give this movie a chance. The story simply has too many historical inaccuracies to call this movie the true story of King Arthur but if you're able to ignore this things, you might be able to take the movie for what it is; pure and simple entertainment.

It's not just the story that makes this movie a bit of a disappointing one, it also is the treatment of the characters, or maybe not the characters but more the actors that portray them. Clive Owen was about the worst choice they could make with casting Arthur. Owen is incredibly boring in his acting and he has absolutely no charisma. This is not a man I would follow in battle! And there is absolutely no chemistry between him and Keira Knightley (Guinevere). It's totally unbelievable that a girl like Guinevere would fall for a man like Arthur, who also looks about three times her age. Their love story was portrayed poorly, the movie made it seem like the only reason for Guinevere to fool around with Arthur is so that he would fight for her people and defeat the Saxon's so that her people could rule Britannia. It was also a totally wrong choice to make Guinevere a Woad warrior and quite frankly Keira Knightley is far too beautiful to be a believable rebel warrior that is used to living in the forest and sleeping in the mud. And why is Merlin suddenly the bad guy? The rest of Arthur's knights role is too limited to get emotional involved with any of them (With the exception of Lancelot, who disappointingly gets killed at the ending, which also makes it even weirder that the story is somewhat told from Lancelot's perspective and even begins with his character narration followed by his youth.) and I still don't know who is who exactly.

The actors give the best they got but the dialogs are just plain weak at times, which makes their acting performances also look silly at times.

But still as entertainment this movie is perfectly watchable. It's obvious that Antoine Fuqua is a great action movie director. The battles are looking good and spectacular but unfortunately the story and characters make sure that this movie is also a forgettable one. The atmosphere was better than I expected. I don't know but for some reason I expected this movie to be full of far too bright colors (Maybe it's because of the movie its reddish cover?). The musical score by Hans Zimmer is good on its own but isn't really ever able to sparkle in the movie itself. 

If your able to ignore all the inaccuracies and poor character treatment, you might be able to enjoy "King Arhur" as pure entertainment.

6/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top