Review of King Arthur (2004) by Matt N — 26 Dec 2009

Jerry Bruckheimer should just retire with all the money he's made and spend the rest of his days playing videogames. I'm not saying that it's his fault that all his movies tend to have rather one-dimensional characters, but it is one hell of a coincidence, with all the movies he's made. Every once in a while some actor manages to breathe a little bit of life into their character, but let's face it, if filmmakers could count on all of their actors being on Sean Connery's or Johnny Depp's level, making brilliant movies would be very easy.

Clive Owen doesn't have Connery's charisma nor Depp's talent. With good writing and directing the situation might not be that bad, but unfortunately, mr. Owen had neither of these advantages playing for him. King Arthur is supposed to be a legendary leader, but personally, I wouldn't follow this movie's Arthur through a revolving door to a supermarket, much less to battle.

I find both the tale of King Arthur and the early Medieval period (though the movie is set technically a teeny while before that period) fascinating, and the theory of Arthur actually being a Roman commander is interesting. However, these themes require some finesse to do them justice, and looking for finesse in a Bruckheimer movie is not exactly time well spent. The cheesy pathos is nothing short of boring, and it's an accomplishment in itself to depart so much from the classic story and still make the plot as predictable as it is.

The 21st century is still waiting for a competent movie of the Arthurian myth. Maybe if someone capable made a movie of Cornwell's Warlord-trilogy. Won't hold my breath waiting, though.