King Arthur

Despite the reputation that precedes this film, it is certainly not an epoch disaster. True, the screenwriter is bad. He didn't realize that if he put the film's introduction on the "according to the latest archaeological findings" plane and then provided the plot with cheap fantasy props, the result would be dubious to say the least. Likewise, he should have realized that the actual dismantling of the mythical system would not be enough if he did not replace it with a different one. It wasn’t replaced. King Arthur is a film about nothing, it's a journey from nowhere to nowhere. There's no legendary tension between the characters, or rich fabrication. All that remains is an epic journey around Albion and a majestic rambling before battles. Fortunately, director Fuqua got his hands on a high-quality acting ensemble headed by the really great Clive Owen, who is not stopped by the fact that his Arthur is basically total psychological nonsense, a hero so impulsive and eclectic that at times he seems ridiculous. But thanks to the presentation, also charismatic. As well as the performance of the other knights of the round table. The film is even exciting in places, unfortunately mostly just when the viewer realizes that this is IT, that it will not go any further, that the plot will not develop anywhere. End. It's a great shame, because the characters had the potential, they just needed story. This bare, wide plain can't be more captivating than the fateful fantasy epic Excalibur. I'm sorry, the real history game really isn't convincing. (09/22/2005)

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. (02/16/2006)

After watching Ritchie's King Arthur, I had to check out this film from 2004, which faced a fair amount of criticism. Firstly, you can't take the film too seriously. While it may seem more believable compared to this year's fantasy Arthur, you should still take it with a grain of salt (but I get it, there aren't that many legends preserved about him, so creativity and wit are key). I want to praise the casting—no one felt completely out of place, and each actor handled their role exceptionally well. Clive Owen made his way to Hollywood as Arthur, as did Ioan Gruffudd, who probably wasn't well-known before this. The story isn’t particularly innovative; at times, you might feel like you've seen it all before, but it’s still a perfectly executed historical film with all the necessary elements. I'm disappointed I didn’t see the director’s cut, which apparently doesn’t hold back, but even in the regular version, you can enjoy the battles, as there’s no reliance on CGI effects. The film, after a very fast-paced first half, gradually started to lose momentum, which was noticeable, but I’m still thrilled with the result, which doesn’t match the rating here. I give it 76%. (10/01/2017)

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. (02/01/2005)

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. (03/31/2015)