Review of King Arthur (2004) by Eric M — 04 Mar 2015

"King Arthur" is a daring reimagining of the Arthur legends, that dares brilliantly in parts and stumbles in others. As an epic, unfortunately, the film stumbles due to this inconsistency, never quite reaching its astounding potential. The realistic take on the tale lends itself to the introduction of some great questions of faith, duty, and idealism that aren't as well developed as they could have been, which could have made this the definitive film adaptation of the legend.

First, the good: the cast is phenomenal. Clive Owen is an incredible choice for Arthur: mysterious, aloof and idealistic, and a Roman of all things, for me it was a nice and fresh take on the legendary figure. His questions on the interrelationships of faith, morality and duty are intriguing. I love Keira Knightley as Guinevere, even if her grace is underutilized, she is perfectly cast for the strong, assertive character. The rest of Arthur's knights are also likable and interesting. Also, the battle sequences, particularly the final battle at Baedun Hill, are well filmed and exciting, coupled with an epic score from Hans Zimmer, they are filled with legendary Arthurian moments that offer glimmers of the classic it could have been.

Second, the average: the cinematography is solid for an epic, but nothing too extraordinary. It has some great moments at Baedun Hill, and never detracts from the film. The character development ideas are superb, but they are never fleshed out to their true potential. Relationships are occasionally rushed, and the film might have benefited from some more meaningful dialogue to develop the film's more interesting premises. Also, some of the meaningful dialogue feels a tad too modern. The Saxon villains are satisfactorily evil and imposing, but never developed enough to be truly menacing.

Finally, the bad: after introducing some fascinating ideas about religion and faith, those ideas are derailed by an utterly fanciful and simplistic portrayal of Christian theology. Now, I'm not a historical stickler, and the Medieval Church had manyyyyy problems, but the Pope never directly ordered Roman legions around (seriously, what?) and the idea that monks would torture Celts so that "their souls would be saved by their sacrifice, and I will lead them to the promised land" is an utter theological invention with no basis in reality or any meaningful theological ideas. This hurts the depth of many key themes. The historical setting also strives to be realistic, but occasionally feels slightly off, or too fanciful, and the difference can be jarring. Finally, the final frame is just bizarre and kind of lame, though the battle preceding it is phenomenal. Is Arthur a pagan? I was just confused. And the imagery wasn't that great. The alternate ending is far superior, with a nice visual cue to the Kingdom of Summer.

Granted, I haven't seen the unrated director's cut, which I'd love to see, and I'll definitely revisit this for the phenomenal cast and epic battle sequences, but true greatness eludes the film due to inconsistency in its creative decisions. Gloriously realistic and compelling at some moments, painfully inaccurate and thus unintelligent in other moments, "King Arthur" is worth watching for fans of the epic genre and Arthurian legend, but will tantalize viewers with dreams of what could have been with a stronger directorial hand and a few rewrites.