King Arthur DVD > Reviews > Not too Artful Arthur

Author's product rating:   

Did you enjoy it?	Indifferent to it
Story	Good
Characters / Performances	Satisfactory
Special Effects	Standard
Soundtrack	Good

Advantages:	Good cast, interesting story, nice costumes
Disadvantages:	Dodgy script, lacking in oomph

Recommend to potential buyers:

yes

Full review

As the Romans prepare to leave Britain, Lucius Artorius and his elite cavalry squad are sent on a final suicide mission north of Hadrian’s Wall. They must rescue an important Roman family before the marauding Saxons sweep in from the north. The quest makes Arthur question the Empire and seals his fate.

For those of you expecting a roister-doistering swashbuckling epic full of valiant jousting knights and beautiful maidens, prepare to be disappointed. This is not the King Arthur legend as we know it. It is what Hollywood execs term a “re-imagining”. That is to say that apart from the names of a few key characters, little remains of the traditional story. For one thing, it’s been transplanted from the middle ages to the tail end of the Roman occupation of Britain. For another, there’s no magical sword in the stone, no Lady in the Lake and Merlin is now a Catweazle-alike rebel strategist, who lives in the woods with his guerrilla fighters. “Camelot” this is not. But if you can get past the tampering with our oral traditions, there’s a strong story in there.

It is unsurprising that the team taking liberties with our heritage is largely American. Screenwriter David Franzoni was the man behind “Gladiator” and apparently hasn’t spent his enthusiasm for the Roman period yet. Unfortunately the script for “King Arthur” is not as tightly plotted as Franzoni’s earlier work and the script contains dialogue that will make you cringe (“Burn me and scatter my ashes to a strong east wind!”). There are too many characters with similar motivations, so character development has suffered. It doesn’t help that many of the actors resemble each other, so often appear interchangeable.

Director Antoine Fuqua is best known for helming Denzel Washington’s Oscar-winning turn in “Training Day”. Thankfully that was good practice for directing fast-paced action scenes. That being said, directing gunplay is very different to directing swordplay and especially battle scenes that incorporate hundreds of extras engaged in hand-to-hand combat. The main difference is that guns are relatively accurate and tidy when it comes to killing people and swords are anything but. So why is there so little blood in this film? Surely the killing fields would be drenched in the stuff? Much of the dramatic impact of the combat sequences is lost because we don’t see the damage inflicted by the weapons. It is all too sterile to be believable. I’m not suggesting there should be geysers of claret at every turn, but a little more gore would make it more realistic. The fact that all the warriors are fearless adds to the sense of unreality. The main problem with this film is that it is neither realistic nor fantastical enough to truly satisfy. Modern epics set out to instil awe into their audience and this film fails to do so. Happily, Fuqua has assembled a strong cast that makes up for some of the movie’s shortcomings.

As Arthur, Clive Owen is stern and humourless, which makes him a convincing military leader, but not a terribly sympathetic hero. His lack of warmth makes his relationship with Guinevere seem highly unlikely and gives the impression that it is a strategic rather than spiritual or sexual union. It also makes it a little hard to believe when he breaks down and cries over the bodies of his fallen comrades.

Keira Knightley continues her push to be woman of the hour as Guinevere. She is more than a match for her male co-stars on the battlefield and consequently convinces as a Woad warrior. However, her relationships with Arthur and Lancelot are hampered by a lack of chemistry. It is unfortunate that the on-screen ice maidens greatest strength (her apparent unattainability) turns out to be her greatest weakness. She appears so distant that it makes a mockery of her big screen love affairs. Perhaps age and experience will help in this area.

Ioan Gruffudd makes up for Arthur’s dour demeanour with bags of charisma. It is therefore unfortunate that we see relatively little of him. His attraction to Guinevere is criminally underplayed; a few yearning glances do not equal a burning passion. Though his relationship with Knightley lacks spark, his rapport with the other knights is spot-on, especially when he’s teasing Bors about his son’s paternity.

Consummate scene-stealer Ray Winstone is the star of the show as bawdy Bors. His is the only character that has been developed sufficiently to feel real. Much of this is down to Winstone’s performance. His years as a boxer and all that time as Will Scarlett on “Robin of Sherwood” have clearly stood him in good stead. He is the only cast member I could believe as a battle-hardened soldier. He really weighs into his fights and woe betide anyone that gets in his way. Bors is the only character to get a decent chance to show his softer side in the scenes with his wife and family. So he is often the most watchable person on screen. He is also adept at the use of a good old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon expletive!

The rest of Arthur’s knights give solid, unshowy performances, although Ray Stevenson (as Dagonet) has some touching scenes with a child he rescues from the despicable Marcus Honorius.

Stellan Skarsgård gives good evil as ruthless Saxon leader Cerdic, albeit in a peculiar American drawl. He makes the best of a stereotypical bad guys who kills his own men, puts his son in perilous situations, sends troops on suicide missions and saves women from rape because he would rather they were executed than sully the Saxon gene pool. He comes across as a leader who rules by fear and will brook no mutiny. I certainly wouldn’t cross him.

Til Schweiger backs up Skarsgård as his hatchet-faced son and lieutenant Cynric. Carrying an impressive facial scar and a chip on his shoulder the size of Norway, he feels like a moodier, more mercurial version of Cerdic, fuelled by revenge rather than politics or logic.

Merlin is presented as a largely silent, distinctly non-magical pagan leader by a straggly-bearded Stephen Dillane. It is a hard performance to quantify because Dillane spends most of his time staring into the middle distance and muttering in some form of Gaelic. At least he doesn’t spout cod-mystical rubbish.

The cast is rounded out by a series of dependable character actors, including a puzzlingly Scottish Ken Stott as the cruel and odious Roman Marcus Honorius and a slimy Ivano Marescotti as the double-dealing Bishop Germanius.

In terms of effects, Antoine Fuqua must be congratulated on bucking the current trend and favouring reality over CGI. It is refreshing to see battle scenes populated by hundreds of extras dressed up and hurtling towards each other with swords drawn. But if he was that bothered, why didn’t he supply the guys with blood packs and capsules? There are some impressive displays of archery and horsemanship from all concerned and the production designers have even gone to the trouble of recreating some serious trebuchets (big catapult-type war engines). However, I must bring the effects team to task for the poor quality snow they use, that doesn’t melt on contact with people, or turn to slush after being trampled by horses, carts and soldiers. I’m surprised that nobody bothered to put in any breath vapour for the scenes set outside in the freezing cold.

Hans Zimmer is back to his best with a stirring score that features Celtic pipes, strident strings, roaring horns, more percussion than a drum ’n’ bass marathon and his now trademark exhilarating choral harmonies. Believe me, it would be a far duller film without it. The costumes, though well designed, left me wondering whether there were enough cows in England to furnish all the leather in evidence.

Well, another film has been added to the canon of new epics, but how does it fare in comparison? Antoine Fuqua was a brave man taking on such a well-loved legend, but his work may have been for nought. “King Arthur” is not a bad film, but it is lacking in wow factor. It suffers from variable pacing, a lack of chemistry between the leads, some unbearably trite dialogue, a pointlessly sentimental ending and a pervasive air of self-conscious worthiness, which makes for a rather dour film. Had Fuqua let go a little more and allowed himself and his actors a few more laughs and some flights of fancy it would have been a more entertaining movie. As it is, you really feel the 126-minute running time.

Go and see it by all means, but don’t expect any of the flash and sparkle Hollywoodishness you would normally associate with a Jerry Bruckheimer production.