Directed by:
Antoine FuquaScreenplay:
David FranzoniCinematography:
Sławomir IdziakComposer:
Hans ZimmerCast:
Clive Owen, Stephen Dillane, Keira Knightley, Ioan Gruffudd, Joel Edgerton, Stellan Skarsgård, Ray Winstone, Hugh Dancy, Til Schweiger, Mads Mikkelsen (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
Historians have thought for centuries that King Arthur was only a myth, but the legend was based on a real hero, torn between his private ambitions and his public sense of duty. A reluctant leader, Arthur wishes only to leave Britain and return to the peace and stability of Rome. Before he can head for Rome, one final mission leads him and his Knights of the Round Table, Lancelot, Galahad, Bors, Tristan, and Gawain to the conclusion that when Rome is gone, Britain needs a king--someone not only to defend against the current threat of invading Saxons, but to lead the isle into a new age. Under the guidance of Merlin, a former enemy, and the beautiful, courageous Guinevere by his side, Arthur will have to find the strength within himself to change the course of history. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (2)
Reviews (8)
Hans Zimmer has already elevated many good films to unforgettable and many mediocre ones to decent. And no movie can be as grateful to him as King Arthur, which without his brilliant musical accompaniment would have remained just a story trimmed of magic with a historical subplot. Instead, it has become a decent historical spectacle where Clive Owen clearly dominates the acting, with his Arthur being a dignified and courageous leader even in civilian form. 70% – a bit shaky, but otherwise quite positive.
()
Placing the Arthurian legend within a "historical" framework is just a mess, and not even Keira with her small breasts can help it. This is an incredibly boring movie that just shows how Hollywood tries to turn anything into modern action. There's even an attempt at some depth here, but it fits about as well as a soccer ball in a golf hole.
()
An interesting idea to approach the legend of Arthur, trying to imagine how it might have been in reality. Unfortunately, the screenplay is the greatest weakness of the movie, which could have been saved by the director, if he weren’t the second weakest link here. A movie that isn’t fundamentally bad, just dime-a-dozen in all respects. The only significant plus point here is Zimmer’s music, despite being adapted from things he wrote before this, but still it works well in this movie.
()
Not even a PhD in the Arts would have prevented the eventual director from making a film under Jerry Bruckheimer's production whip that looked at history from the "proper" and universally accepted side. True, drilling a dollar bore in classic English mythology is a brave act, but why not? Antoine Fuqua is, on one hand, a skillful craftsman, but unfortunately, he struggles with handling the given material. The narrative of the film is quite fragmented, stripping away the classic mythology, and while it is supported by impressive set design (the $130 million budget is evident), the director fails on all fronts when it comes to dialogues and the overall dramatic structure of the story. The film showcases talented actors, and the pairing of Skarsgård and Schweiger is one of the best casting choices of 2004. In technical disciplines, however, King Arthur is an above-standard spectacle (hence also a listening spectacle). The masterly cinematography by Slawomir Idziak (Oscar-nominated for his cinematography in Black Hawk Down), supported by interesting tonality that matches the bleak climatic conditions of the northern English Highlands, clearly dominates the film. Zimmer's music is a concentration of the most heroic motifs, preserved within synthesizer instruments. It would also be unforgivable to overlook the brilliant work of the sound designers who, together with the cinematographer, unleashed their creativity during the battle on the lake with cracking ice. Yes, it may be cliché, but I was never bored for even a moment during those two hours, which does not happen all that often.
()
I watched the director's cut version, so I have no idea how much the cinema version is different, either for the better or the worse. For fans of, for example, Boorman’s classic, this is not it. The filmmakers have trampled on the established mythology as much as possible, completely removing its attractive mythical elements and creating a pseudo-historical patchwork that is completely out. This film could have been called “Frank Smith” and it would have been the same. Looking back from this sad reality, what is left filmmaking-wise? The first half is surprisingly passable. The opening brutal and solidly bloody battle is inviting, the winter scenes are beautifully atmospheric, the dialogue doesn't drag, Clive Owen is a very charismatic guy, and Stellan Skarsgård's long wig and beard really suit him. But as the Saxons approach the defensive wall, the film slides into kitsch and unbearable pathos, and some scenes raise the question of whether the filmmakers really meant it. If it wasn't for a botched last act, I'd be willing to go to three*. Otherwise the production design, an essential ingredient of any proper historical spectacle, isn't great, you can't really see the 120 million.
()
Ads