King Arthur, a Review
Wednesday, July 7, 2004The latest entry in the world of cinematic Arthurian legend is the boringly-titled King Arthur. The film begins with a disclaimer: “You may of heard of a King Arthur from the Dark Ages. Well, we’ve heard different.” In other words, this is not your father’s King Arthur.
How do they differ? For one thing, this Arthur is totally a Roman. At the start I was willing to go along with it. After all, director Antoine Fuqua (whoever he is) must clearly be some sort of brilliant auteur. How do I know this? The film’s trailer machine-gunned it into my head: “AN ANTOINE FUQUA FILM!!”
Clive Owen plays Artuo, the virtuous commander for the Roman Empire. Sounds familiar already, doesn’t it? And if Arthur’s not King of the Britons, what, you ask, of all the other familiar elements pertaining to the legend of Camelot? Well, for starters there is no Camelot. But Artie’s band of merry men, the Knights of the Interchangeable, are all accounted for. All your favourites are here. There’s G’Wayne, of course, followed by Gyllenhaal. Then we have Falco, Bumpo, Jesus, Curly Joe, and finally Lancelot as portrayed by Survivor-winner Ethan Zahn.
Sean Connery plays Police Chief Germanius, and on the eve of their retirement he sends the Knights of the Shiny Displaced Round Table out on one last mission: to rescue the Governor’s daughter who has been kidnapped by the dirty Saxon drug cartel. (If you were expecting the quest for the Holy Grail, you’ll have to wait for the musical I’m afraid).
On the way to Scotlandia they also rescue a small boy named Guinevere, played by Keira Knightley. Gwen is a spirited little lad who fancies himself a warrior like the bigger men and he fights alongside them through many a poorly-edited battle scene.
The familiar love triangle between Artie, Lancelot, and the prepubescent Guinevere has been replaced with some subtle man-glancing between knights Gargamel and Garfunkel. And old wizardy faithful Merlin even pops into the story, but not as the white-haired mystic you usually find in modern day blockbustery. This time around he’s a crunchy little dirt-covered man who hides in the forest with his ragtag misfits (because the movie needed more confusing divisions apart from Brits, Romans, Roman Brits, British Romans, Saxons, Safrons, Alsatians, Samosas, Sarmatians, Orcs, and Fraggles).
In a surprise twist, reprising his role from The Last Samurai (reviewed here) as the leader of the Mexican banditos, is Eli Wallach. The final gory, bloody, violent, PG-13 battle scene between the banditos and William “Braveheart” Wallace is one of many between ‘people with armour’ and ‘people with no armour’, a sort of Roman Empire shirts-and-skins game, if you will.
The main baddies take their turns dying in the order dictated by cinematic law, and similarly, Artorius and Guinevere get married despite never sharing a single conversation (besides the sweaty horizontal kind).
All in all, it is just what you’d expect from a movie called King Arthur that doesn’t actually have any kings in it. And if you like the “movies with ‘king’ in the title that don’t actually have a king in the movie” genre here are some others you might enjoy:
- The King of Comedy
- The Fisher King
- King Kong
- King Solomon’s Mines
- King of the Rocket Men
- Stephen King’s It
One of them even features the Holy Grail, which is something that can’t be said for King Arthur.
To end this review, I believe Clive Owen said it best, several times in the movie: “ARGHOOOUUGGHHHOOUGHHH!!!”
Fink says:
King Arthur set in Roman times?!
What’s next? Setting Romeo and Juliet in 1950’s New York with a bunch of singing and dancing teenage gangsters?
Forsooth!
-----
Zombie Claire says:
Johnny I have the HISTORY DEGREE, let me correct you on some major points from yesterday’s movie experience.
Arthur wasn’t saying
“ARGHOOOUUGGHHHOOUGHHH!!!”
it was
“ROME!!!!!!!!!!”
or
“ARTURIUS!!!!!!!!!!!”
I think he was saying his own name when the “6 Knights of Hadrian’s Wall” started shouting his name in that part where they decided that although all movie all they talked about was going home to Samoa, they would die for “Britain” (except it was Scotland, really).
It was the Saxons that said “ARGHOOOUUGGHHHOOUGHHH!!!” which in Necromonger means “GO SAXONIA GO”
Now the hobo elves who lived in the forest did grunt a battle cry: “OoooRRRRRRRRRRRRGH” It doesn’t mean anything in particular.
Because they are pagans, they don’t use words like civilized people, the Romans.
You know this because the Romans totally built Camelot at the end of the movie, except that it was Stonehenge & didn’t have any walls, and was on the ocean somehow.
Also Johnny, recall the giant round table that confused the bishop ... This was another canonical error as we know Jesus invented the dinner table. (100 yrs prior to King Arthur being set)
kevin says:
my favorite is that Cerdic, the leader of the Saxons, sounds like an old Texan while his ‘son’, Cynric, sounds like he’s from Germany
Robot Johnny says:
How could I forget the cliffside Stonehenge!
Let’s also not forget Guinevere wearing pants that weren’t even invented yet—now THAT’S a feat!
Zombie Claire says:
I know, I felt like saying Hello, if they had the technology to make pants surely the men would wear them not women.
What do women need pants for anyway, Guinevere? How will the babies plop out of your body if they are trapped inside pants??
kevin says:
any girl who can shoot a bow like that is a-okay in my books.
Zombie Claire says:
It’s only because she hasn’t got any tits. If she was a real girl, with a hot body, she wouldn’t be a good archer, but the trade off would be that she wouldn’t look like a boy.
Lloyd says:
It’s not that she doesn’t have any, it’s just that they aren’t huge. But I’d still play Target Practice with her.
Ryan says:
Tim Curry will be playing King Arthur in the new “Monty Python Spamalot” Broadway show of The Holy Grail.
Hank Azaria (Simpsons voices, Scuba Instructor from “Along Came Polly” among other noterieties) will be playing Sir Lancelot.
And filling the cod peice of Brave Sir Robin will be David Hyde Pierce (Niles) from “Frasier”.
Thought I’d share.
whatever says:
the biggest mistake of all was that a knight was beheaded, but when they heaved the body over the shoulder, the head is there!!!
Jeff says:
It is pretty shocking to read these comments an drealize what an uneducated mass most people are.
1. Almost all historians now agree the origin of the Arthur legends come from the period around the Roman exodus from Britain.
2. Pants were not only invented but what all Celtic Peoples wore and had for at least 1500 years. Get a clue.
3. The costuming in the movie was the closest Hollywood has ever gotten to correct period Roman and Saxon Garb.
That said the story was not so hot. Too bad so much money spent on authenticity could not have included a decent story. Bernard Cornwells Warlord series would have been a much nicer albeit lengthier adaptation.
Posted by: Jeff on August 6, 2004 05:14 PM
Cristina says:
I agree with Jeff here....
the real ‘Arthur’ probably lived in the C5th although there are differing opinions on who he really was.
The early Celtic peoples wore trousers or braccae.
Aside from the occasional ‘hollywoodism’(ie Keira Knightley’s bondage,Bor’s cockney accent etc) most of the props, costume and armoury was fairly accurate and authentic looking..bearing in mind, not much remains from the time period that is not Roman.
This film was the nearest to the possible truth of our ‘Artos’....and I loved it...!
regards
Cristina