KING ARTHUR: DIRECTOR’S CUT
**1/2 out of *****
Reviewed by Finger_Of_DOOM

Genres
Action
Adventure
War

2004
Directed by
Antoine Fuqua
Written by
David Franzoni
Cast
Clive Owen .... Arthur
Ioan Gruffudd .... Lancelot
Mads Mikkelsen .... Tristan
Joel Edgerton .... Gawain
Hugh Dancy .... Galahad
Ray Winstone .... Bors
Ray Stevenson .... Dagonet
Keira Knightley .... Guinevere
Stephen Dillane .... Merlin
Stellan Skarsgård .... Cerdic

Antoine Fuqua blew me away with his 2001 film Training Day, a film that earned Denzel Washington his second Oscar (his first for Best Lead Actor, the previous was for Supporting). The film was energetic, intense and featured some excellent performances from the film’s stars. It was a film that marked the arrival of Fuqua as a serious player in the industry, although he directed two films prior and many music videos it was Training Day that really got people’s attention. Mega-producer Jerry Bruckheimer was one of those people and joined with Fuqua to bring the blood and guts epic King Arthur to the big screen, a film that was at one time in the hands of the maestro of the quick-cut Michael Bay. This re-telling of the myth brought together a gigantic budget and an international cast that includes Clive Owen playing the title character, as well as Bruckheimer alum Keira Knightley, tough-guy Ray Winstone, and the always excellent Stellan Skarsgård, to name a few. However, the massive budget, the amazing cast, and a script from Oscar-winning scribe David Franzoni (Gladiator), couldn’t save this mediocre-at-best attempt at epic filmmaking. Although the film does have some fine moments, occasional vignettes of coolness do not a solid film make.

Set in 300 AD Britain under the control of the Roman Empire, Sarmatian youths are taken and trained as warriors to fight as Knights for the Roman army. After fifteen years of service to the Roman Empire, Arthur (Clive Owen) and his Knights are to be set free, however they must complete one final task. They must find and rescue a Roman priest and his family, as the Romans are leaving Britain and the priest is in danger from the invading Saxon hordes. Arthur and his Knights reluctantly accept this final challenge, one in which they face much danger from an ever increasing and fast moving Saxon army that they must face or die at the hands of.

Going by my childhood history, and having grown up on films such as Excalibur and the Disney animated film The Sword in the Stone, I was more in tune with Arthur as a child and the freeing of Excalibur from the stone, a story which has been covered a lot in many different mediums. So for this big screen shindig Fuqua decided to focus on the later events, Arthur as an adult but not yet King. Supposedly this is a more accurate telling of the story, or so says the marketing blurbs and sound bites you hear from writers, producers, etc. They can say whatever they want to sell the movie, at the end of the day this isn’t really a historical epic as one would be led to believe, it’s more an adventure film with kick-ass knights, amazing battle scenes, and Keira Knightley wearing what appears to be straps of leather so skimpy she may have just as well worn shoelaces for a bra. So how does a film with these elements not live up to the expectations?

Well it’s mainly to do with the story itself. It paints Arthur as a mercenary in the beginning, sure he was under Roman rule to be one but the jump from mercenary to do-gooder is a leap that requires at least some character arc development, the transition in this film is rather quick and unconvincing. The dialogue is another area that suffers on occasion, steeped in one-liners and the genre requirement of at least two ‘hero soliloquies’ that are entirely forgettable and don’t really evoke the emotion they are meant to but rather a slight chuckle instead. In terms of the characters, aside from Arthur and Bors played by the wonderful Ray Winstone, the other Knights of the Round Table weren’t as distinctively different as I’d imagined. They may have all just been one person and the first time I watched the film I found myself confusing one for the other, this is perhaps a weakness in casting. When dealing with several key characters that make-up an ensemble it would seem best to cast strong character actors to fill those roles or take a route much like John Sturges did when casting The Magnificent Seven in looking for established performers that each add something different and unique to the characters to make them stand out.

Of course the only prominent female character we see throughout this film is Guinevere, played by Keira Knightley, who is introduced as a weak and tortured character that suddenly leads an army of forest-dwelling people, firing arrows and taking the blows among the men. Now I understand her character was written as an empowering female character that is not your traditional damsel in distress, but seeing a woman of Knightley’s size take a hit to the face with the same force as one to Arthur and still be able to stand up is a bit much in my books. There are other far more believable ways for a character like that to be empowering and impressive - how about writing her character with a shred of intelligence, that’s far more powerful than taking a hit to the face isn’t it?

This ‘Director’s Cut’ supposedly restores 15 minutes of additional footage not seen in the original ‘Theatrical Cut’, including additional violence in the battle scenes, which is really why you should be watching this film in the first place as the battles are tremendously exiting; the battle on the frozen lake and the final battle among the burning fields are two of the film’s most memorable sequences. The music and photography are also expertly crafted and add to the raw energy Fuqua was after, if it wasn’t for battle scenes this film wouldn’t be any fun at all.

King Arthur doesn’t seem to capture the same spirit of the classic mythology of the boy who would be King or, for that matter, there’s no magic either. In this telling Merlin is portrayed more as a crazy forest dwelling witch than a magician. Well that’s no fun! If it wasn’t for the over the top battle scenes and the edge-of-your-seat pursuit of the Knight by the evil Saxon hordes this film would have been an entire waste. Then again it’s not a whole lot left to keep it above water either. If you’re not planning on taking this flick seriously then it’s an ok way to kill a little over two hours, if you are finicky about your epic films I’d say you’d be rather disappointed with this one.

Finger_Of_DOOM's reviews also appear on DVD Compare, where they include details of the DVD release. For this review click here.

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)