Review of King Arthur (2004) by Spangle — 19 Apr 2017
Considering that I am entirely unfamiliar with Arthurian legend, the fact that this apparently has no resemblance to its source material is hardly a concern. Unfortunately, however, it seems as though the film has received quite the unfair shake because of its inaccuracy. Many reviews upon its release and to this day lament the fact that King Arthur (Clive Owen) was a Roman officer in the film stationed in Britain, though he was born a Brit. It is this historical inaccuracy that seems to have led many people to write it off and, unfortunately, it is not helped by the fact that it is directed by Antoine Fuqua and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, who are certainly not names that inspire hope. Yet, somehow, King Arthur turns out alright in the end if you approach it will a clear mind. Featuring excellent cinematography, terrific battles, and good performances all around, the film may have an occasionally clunky script, but it remains a terrifically structured action film.
The film's greatest weakness has to be its characters. As with many action films of this type, King Arthur suffers from not developing its characters nearly enough on an individual level. Yet, it makes up for this with great group dynamics. The brotherhood between Arthur and his knights - Lancelot (Ioan Gruffuld), Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Bors (Ray Winstone), and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson) - is always top-notch. The friendship flows readily and any jokes play well due to the chemistry shared between the men. Yet, where this group development really works is in the action scenes as we see one of them engaging in battle. No matter who it is, we want to see them win or be rescued just before their certain demise due to the impact their death would have on their others. This film is much about the Knights of the Roundtable as it is about Arthur as there is no Arthur with his Knights and no Knights without Arthur. Together, they combine to form an excellent group of people that begin to falter when looked at on an individual level.
The film's dialogue can also be quite clunky and its narrative is not always the best, particularly the awful narration at the beginning and end delivered by Lancelot that tries to communicate the legend of King Arthur because the rest of the film missed the mark on the topic. If there is any fault of the film it is the attempt to try and make it appear like a legend, even if the film itself is incredibly gritty and dirty. It tries to doll up a film not built to be dolled up and winds up missing the mark on the magical side of things entirely, while worsening the gritty side. This narration is the source of the issue and tries to tie the events we have and will witness into some overall legend that, during many sequences in the film, seems to be complete background noise compared to this gritty tale.
That said, where this film truly soars is in the visuals. Fuqua's go to move here is to juxtapose the cold blues, greens, whites, and grays, of Britain with gorgeous bright orange fires or skies completely absorbed by a yellow ray of sunlight. Shots of Arthur and his men walking through the forest with snow falling and everything in the forest washed out in blue with just a hint of yellow peaking out from above is one such highlight. By the time they reach the camp, shots of the camp from a hill as it burns or of the Saxon army led by Cedric (Stellan Skarsgard) shown trampling around the green hills or entering the burning village with smoke billowing all around them, also create a sense of awe as we see not just beautiful images, but the size of the attacking army. Finally, shots of Woads, as led by Guinevere (Keira Knightley), shooting flaming arrows that, juxtaposed against the blue sky, seem to be falling from the sky itself, is incredibly striking. King Arthur's knack of stirring imagery, emphasized by an excellent blending of warm and cold colors, is what cements it is as a gorgeous film that really captures the eye.
The film also greatly benefits from excellent action set pieces that make great use of Fuqua's astute eye for gorgeous images, while also crafting unique battles that entertain terrifically. Such scenes as the battle on the frozen lake show a keen sense of strategy and how to make a battle tense and well-staged. Taking its time to get everybody in position and not rushing through the scenes, the battles show a lot of attention to detail, even if they can get a bit absurd (breaking the ice with an axe). Where it gets silly, King Arthur manages to still entertain via excellent special effects and that aforementioned choreography, which simultaneous highlights the brutality of war, but also shows the grace and odd beauty of watching two armies clash.
This review of King Arthur (2004) was written by Spangle on 19 Apr 2017.
King Arthur has generally received positive reviews.
Was this review helpful?
