Review of King Arthur (2004) by John V — 07 Jan 2010

The Arthurian legends have been the subject of continual debate and revision, historically this Antoine Fuqua adaptation based upon 'true archaeological findings' is interesting and fresh if not scholarly-sound. However to criticize 'King Arthur' for its historical accuracy would be unfair, there are plenty of other things which make it a disappointment.

The problems all reside or originate with executive decisions. Visually the landscapes are compatibly bleak, however not artistically enough so and subsequently lack the artistic spice that would add a stronger flavour to the uninspiring landscapes. The plot is simple and uncomplicated but not offensively so, maintained by impressive action sequences and well-delivered character (well, only Arthur) development, imbued by a simple philosophy providing sufficient reason to the various turmoils.

Whilst the acting is admirable, the thematic failing of the executive elements of the film continues with the poor casting in some roles and inability to capitalize on others. Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is not as prevalent as his legendary inspiration or acting potential justifies. Guinevere is another admirable revision in the form of Keira Knightley's fesity Pict princess, yet despite her confident performance she just doesn't seem correct for the role and is never entirely convincing. Ditto with Clive Owen's Arthur.

Its entertaining and the talent on display does its best to produce a worthwhile display. However they are hampered by a series of poor decisions from above which therefore hamper the potential power of a film which descends into a drag from one battle scene to another.