|
|
KING ARTHUR
The beloved story of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round table
and Camelot has been around for centuries, filtered through time
and augmented with probably the most famous love triangle in literature,
along with a magic sword, sorcerers, incest, the Holy Grail, blood,
violence and all kinds of good stuff. Jerry Bruckheimer's King
Arthur re-imagines the epic tale of the Once and Future
King and somewhere along the way the decision was made to keep the
blood and violence and cut out the famous love triangle, the magic
sword, sorcerers, incest, the Holy Grail and the rest of the good
stuff. Then, likely after watching movies like Braveheart
and Gladiator, another decision was made: Let's make our
King Arthur movie like that, only more boring.
Then the final stroke of genius: Let's have a horse narrate the
story to the audience. I'll get back to the talking horse in a bit.
Clive Owen is King Arthur, a mopey, pouty Roman knight who defends
the Roman interests in 5th century Britain from the native Woads
by keeping them on their side of Hadrian's Wall. The Woads are taller, angry Smurfs, who live in the trees and have
catapults but somehow haven't thought to use those catapults to
knock the big wall down. Also, their leader is Merlin, who is said
to be a magician but no, he isn't. Arthur has his Knights of the Round Table (Lancelot, Galahad, Gawain,
Tristan, Charlie, and Bluto, as best as I could tell the names),
who are all from different parts of the Roman Empire and of different
faiths. Which faiths? The movie never says, although Lancelot believes
in a story he heard as a boy that every knight's horse was once
a knight that fell in battle reincarnated.
The Knights of the Round Table fight until the day Rome officially
discharges them. They look forward to the day they can go home from
the godforsaken land they inhabit. But Rome has betrayed them; on
the day they are to be discharged, they are instead forced into
one more quest, to march right into Woad territory and rescue a
Roman boy who may or may not be the next Pope, maybe. The Knights
are pissed and so is Arthur. This mission is suicide, they feel.
To march right into Woad territory just to find one Roman kid would
surely mean death! But like our troops in Iraq, the Knights have
to do their jobs even though it stinks. So off to the Woads they
go.
Meanwhile in the north come the evil Saxons, led by the evil Stellan
Skarsgard's beard. Skarsgard wants Britain for himself and his beard
won't stop until he has it.
After an overnight camping trip that was largely uneventful,
Arthur and his knights arrive at the home of the Roman boy, his
evil Roman father, and his indifferent Roman mother. These Romans
have been lording it over the local people, coverting them to Christianity
one slave at a time. Arthur, a man who believes in the inherent
right of all people to be free, finds this all distressing and takes
control of the situation. Uncovering a hidden torture chamber, he
finds a lot of dead pagans, a young boy with a broken arm, and the
hottest little Woad in Britain, Keira Knightley. Arthur packs them
all up and marches them back to Hadrian's Wall, with the evil Saxons
hot on their heels.
Then there's a betrayal, a battle, an even bigger battle, a surprising
death, and then it's over. Somehow seven knights and a big pack
of Woads killed thousands of Saxons using fire and catapults. By
turning back the Saxons and working with the Woads, Arthur has united
Britain and becomes their king. He also gets to marry Keira Knightley,
a big bonus for him.
This is all well and good but it's not King Arthur. Who is this
movie for? Anyone with knowledge of the story of King Arthur will
walk away irritated or genuinely pissed off. Director Antoine Fuqua worked hard to create some exciting battles but it's nothing we
haven't seen before. There is one terrific sequence midway through
involving Arthur, Guinevere, and the Knights taking on a battalion
of Saxon barbarians on top of a frozen lake that was pretty exciting.
But after the last few years of similar types of movies, there isn't
much thrill left in seeing men on horses with swords and shields,
clashing, blood drawn, limbs torn, battling to the death. It's all
been done, and done better, elsewhere.
The perfomances ranged from wooden and disinterested
(Arthur) to snarly (Skarsgard) to community theatre hyper-overacting
(Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot.) Gruffudd graduated from the Joseph
Fiennes school of acting, over-emoting when it's not necessary and
hammering his obvious feelings with lots of wild gestures. Skarsgard
lets his beard to all the talking and acting. Some of the other
Knights fare better. A good deal of time is spent getting to know
the knights and they are engaging cookie cutter action figures.
But man, Arthur is a bore. Clive Owen is an actor I admire, but
an action hero he isn't. He is too laid back and melancholy to be
an action hero, much less a legendary king who inspires noble knights
to fight and die for him. Keira Knightley stands before him, gorgeous
and willing, and he smirks with disinterest. He'd rather frown than
f -- uh, cuddle with her. There's no friction, no spark, no chemistry
between them.
But the fellas in the audience don't care about any
of that anyway. If you come at all, you came to see Keira Knightley.
In King Arthur she kills with a bow and arrow, is practically
naked in leather straps, painted blue, and fights like a feral animal.
There isn't quite enough of her practically naked
in the leather straps while painted blue; it's only in one sequence
towards the end, the big battle. She is beautiful and stunning,
but her Guinevere lacks a spark, and she isn't getting it from Arthur.
She arrives halfway through the movie and isn't given that much
to do. There are some googoo eyes Lancelot sends her way, but the
movie isn't much interested in exploring it and "re-imagines"
a much different solution to the adultery problem.
This is no epic tale either. By jettisoning the mythology of Arthur,
we end up with a much simpler, far duller story. The Knight's quest
to save the Roman boy doesn't take more than a couple of days and
getting in and out of Woad territory was hardly dangerous. The whole
span of the story is maybe four days start to finish. The history
is shoddy at best. And there are parts of the trailer that aren't
in the movie at all. The scene where Arthur says "Excalibur,
I am ready!" and where Merlin does magic and calls forth a
storm - all gone. "Re-imagined" right out of the final
cut.
It's tough pill to swallow that this long weekend of Romans fighting
barbarians is the story "that inspired the legend of King Arthur"
as the hype trumpets. Change the names of the characters and you
have a good-looking but uninspired sword and horse action picture.
It's decent action, but bad Arthur.
Okay, the talking horse. So Lancelot's voice narrates
the whole story in the past tense, except Lancelot doesn't make
it through for the sequel that ain't gonna happen. But remember,
Lancelot believes that every knight who falls is reborn as a horse.
Cut to a final shot of a white horse galloping, and we have our
narrator, Mr. Ed. If I'd known a horse was going to tell me a "re-imagined
but true" story about King Arthur, I wouldn't have shown up
at all. Will you?
- John Orquiola (reviewed on 7/1/2004)
|
