Review of King Arthur (2004) by Jenny P — 20 Aug 2011

Stories about King Arthur have been around for a helluva long time. Aging back over a thousand years. Documentary's about this legend are really common. Then a theatrical movie came out in 2004. Well, I saw it and wasn't very impressed. That is to say I didn't hate it, but I wasn't a big fan of it. After Ridley Scott's Gladiator (Which I really like) came out, many historical epics came along. Like Troy and the God forsakenly abysmal Alexander. I'll get to those two sometime later this year, but let's look at this. The movie is essentially an action-drama movie about King Arthur. There are many inaccuracy's (I had to look that up, but I knew there would be quite a few) throughout the movie. The same can be said for the others I mentioned before, but that's beside the point for now. The main focus is King Arthur, so let's just get right into the review.

Well, the story is about King Arthur, his Knights of the Round Table, and pretty much all hell breaking loose and war is declared. A lot of the historical epics (That is gonna get really annoying to say) followed the same pattern, so it really comes as no surprise that King Arthur isn't that original. But the biggest flaw is, of course, the inaccuracy's. I'm not gonna bash the movie for this, because a lot of these movies suffered from the same thing. King Arthur's I read about (Because I'm not up to par with my history on these historical figures like King Arthur and Troy), and they appear to be the same thing as all of the other movies like this. Most of them coming in the form of political inaccuracy's, but I'm not gonna focus on that. Moving on, the story really just goes along with action and talking. It isn't really anything special. The pacing is... well, the movie's theatrical cut was a little over two hours. The directors cut adds about another twenty minutes, with makes this movie pretty much a little bit 2 hours and 30 minutes long. I seen both, and lemme tell you... it isn't a decently paced movie. An epic movie alone normally isn't a fast paced adrenaline rush like your average Summer blockbuster. But I still expect more from King Arthur. There where times where I thought the movie was stuck in neutral, and wasn't moving along. This effects a lot of things in the movie, especially the character development. I'll get to that later, but wow... this movie is slow. So much of the talking in the movie will begin to drone over you, while the action will begin to feel a little bit mindless. Frankly, it isn't a bad story (Aside from whatever inaccuracy's there may be if you are interested in King Arthur a lot), but its pacing brings down the excitement or any drama the movie raises. Is it bad? No, but it isn't really that good either.

I enjoyed the acting. It felt like there was a lot of effort put into it, though the accents seemed a bit off at times. Sometimes, there was somewhat of a convincing accent coming out of Clive Owen and the rest of the cast. The other times, I felt like it was rehearsal. I'm not saying it was a bad, though I got the impression that the actors where just rehearsing their accents and the director said it was time to film. That's a minor nitpick though, but it was noteworthy! The acting itself was, for the most part, really good. A lot of effort seemed to be put into it, and there was a lot very well done dramatic acting. But when it came to parts where there was action, I couldn't help but feel like the acting just dropped down to mediocrity. I dunno why, but I felt like everyone just sorta failed to really impress. There's parts of action where it's good, but more than half the time, it feels meh. The delivery of the dialogue throughout the movie (Aside from the occasional hiccup in the accents) is really dang good. While the acting itself isn't as good as it usually is during the action sequences, the delivery of the dialogue is. There is a lot of enthusiasm during them. I really felt some sorta sense of tension and excitement during those sequences, and it really made up for whatever flaws I had during the entire movie. The acting as a whole is really good and makes up for a lot of the boredom of the main story. It is, as a whole, really dang good.

Now, the directing in this is actually quite good. It captures most of the dramatic feel and action feel. There's some parts where the camera felt shaky, but it wasn't bad enough to annoy me. Many of the moments where it is shaky are during the action sequences, and it did amp up the action-feel. though. Another plus towards the directing is the fact that it sets a very dramatic tone, which helps a lot because King Arthur is mostly a drama movie and not an action movie. One negative is the focusing on something. The movie is focused very well, but the director can focus on something and pretty much begin to make it feel like he's milking the drama/tension/suspense/action for something for a long time. I began to eventually wonder if we where nearing the end of the movie and that we where gonna to end on a cliff hanger. Well, the actual focusing of the movie is very solid. We don't wander off into something totally different (I'm looking at Alexander). Though it's that we just can focus on something for a long time and eventually feel like we've been here for 3 hours. Is it bad? No, but it can feel weird. To make up for that, the shots of the sets are very, very good and feel very well shot. To be totally honest, those are some of the best shots in the movie. The shots of the action sequences coming in at a close second. Honestly, the directing has some very good shots and captures the dramatic tone nicely. Just don't expect to move onto something different very quickly.

Dialogue isn't that bad. Not to good, but you could do worse. Most of it is dramatic and attempts to raise tension. The dramatic part of it works very well, but the attempts to raise any sort of tension fail miserably. I really felt like each time they wanted to raise tension, they wasted it all on something really small. It feels like the writers where dumbfounded at the idea of intensity/tension. They where out sick that day I guess. Well, anyway, the dramatic part is extremely well handled. It is very well far being anything worthy of an award, but it is worthy of being praised. It is easily the high light of the movie. Since the movie is two hours and thirty minutes (Directors cut, remember?), you get a lot of dramatic moments with the characters talking about, well, whatever the script tells them to talk about. Since a lot of the movie is based around that (Whenever there isn't any weapon swinging), you'd better expect a lot of damn good dramatic talking. Now the character development... oh boy. Now, in this two hour and thirty minute historical epic..... there isn't a lot of it. The characters come out as two-dimensional cutouts that could be used as target practice. Aside from just feeling nonexistent, there is so much dramatic talking that it actually becomes a problem. There isn't much room to introduce you to these characters. King Arthur feels like it was meant for people who know the tales, legends, and lore behind Arthurian Lore. That's what I got and could fathom from this movie. Don't know Arthurian Lore? Well, you aren't gonna learn who these people are much then! These writers had two and a half hours to development these friggin' characters, and they did jack-squat to help us learn who these people are. Now, I know a bit of Arthurian Lore, but not enough to know this movie's story fully. Thank you writers, you may now get a good ass whoopin' when you get home. To be fair, the dramatic dialogue is extremely well handled... but the rest feels mediocre and the character development could use a good pistol whip.

Feels like I'm repeating myself, but the characters themselves are two-dimensional cutouts. They don't have much to them unless you really know the lore, legends, tales, and other stories about King Arthur well. If you don't, you are left abandon as King Arthur movies on. You won't be entirely lost (Let's say the movie leaves a bread crumb trail), but you aren't gonna feel like you are fully in on the story. Let's say I let that slide... there is still the matter of the actual characters personality's. They feel a bit generic. You're cocky, you're a whiny annoyance, and you belong in a Summer blockbuster similar to Battle: Los Angeles. They don't feel very interesting in that aspect either. Is it bad? Well, not to the point that I would flip out at them, but it still feels sorta bad. They do, however, feel likable. We can thank the cast for that. As I said, they embrace there roles and try very hard (And succeed) at really bringing to life the characters. Well, while the characters may not be all that good, the actors do whatever they can to bring them to life. They pull them off to be likable, and make the villains unlikable. However, the end result is a mishmash of two-dimensional, lackluster personality's, though likable characters. It isn't all that impressive to say the least. If you do know Arthurian Lore, you'll know who's who and there story most likely by heart. So if you do you know, the main problem would be lackluster personality's. But as it stands, I do not know much Arthurian Lore, and as a result... I don't like the characters. Even if I did, I'd still nitpick at the fact that they don't give general audiences a very good intro into our heroes.

Okay, onto the drama aspect of King Arthur. This is actually very good and really kept me interested for the movies long running time. If it wasn't this good, then I woulda complained about the movies bloated running time. This pretty much saved a lot of the movie, so I clap for the writers. The movie has a lot of heavy, well written, and very well constructed drama that really worked and kept me entertained. It's hard to explain as to why it works. King Arthur's drama isn't that original as far as movies of its kind go, but it works in some way or another. Maybe its fact the movie has very good dramatic dialogue or it's the cast, but this was the part that kept me interested in watching the movie. During an action sequence, most of the drama sorta takes a break on the side lines, and returns after it's done. Talking about the action isn't worth it since, well, I can describe it in one word: Good. Anyway, as the movie goes on, the drama becomes higher and higher. That is until the end where it pretty much is used in one big blast of what I can only describe as a very well pulled off climax. Honestly, I think I said enough about the drama. It is far from some of the best in a movie (Let alone a historical epic), but some of it only works due to the fact that the dialogue and cast are very good too.

King Arthur has a lot of good things and bad things about it. But I don't think it could get better than it already is. The movie, as a whole, works with what it has. Even if some of it isn't that impressive. There are a lot of moments where it could be better. Other times, it worked and I was happy with it. It isn't as good as Troy, but it is a helluva lot better than Alexander (Then again, it doesn't take much to surpass that piece of trash). As a historical epic, King Arthur has historical inaccuracy's that I could less for. As a drama movie, it defiantly works. As an action movie, there isn't a crap ton of action that will please you in the end. If you want a good historical epic with good drama, then watch this. For anyone else, King Arthur might prove to be a borefest with the occasional cool action sequence. I score King Arthur a 6 out of 10. If you want a truly good historical epic, I recommend Gladiator and/or Troy over this movie.