Review of King Arthur (2004) by Alex R — 28 Sep 2011

King Arthur is another mediocre action film by director Antoine Fuqua, who isn't that skilled as a director to begin with. I felt that the films action scenes were well done, but unfortunately that's about it going for it.

The plot is under developed, and never really interesting. I think it's a great shame because King Arthur could have been quite an epic film, unfortunately, it isn't. Fuqua's direction is clumsy and unfocused, and the film suffers because of it.

Under a different director, the film could have succeeded, but the film is a mediocre attempt at a historical epic, and the end result is a film that doesn't really make you satisfied. The casting choices for this film are very questionable as well.

Aside from Sin City and Shoot Em' Up, I'm not a fan of Clive Owen, and in this film he's pretty bad. So is Keira Knightleey, who usually is a good choice for period pieces, but this isn't a period piece film that she should've starred in.

Most of the cast are not right for the part, and Fuqua doesn't know how to craft an action epic, and the flaws are apparent on-screen. The film could have been much better; unfortunately the result is a film that is a badly acted and plot mess that will make you lose interest halfway through the end of the film.

King Arthur could almost be seen as a guilty pleasure; however, I think the mediocrity of this film is too much for me to see it that way. I don't view King Arthur as an awful film, but almost. The film could have been much better with a better, much developed storyline and a better cast.

Oh well, don't get overly excited before watching this film, you may end up disappointed, I was.