Review: King Arthur
July 8, 2004; Regal Falmouth #1
* 1/4 (out of 4)

Depressing. Just depressing. There are some things in this world that just shouldn’t be screwed with. If a filmmaker can come up with an original twist for a classic story, by all means, give it a go, but if in the process of “twisting” the source material will be mangled, spit on, mangled again, and tossed aside like garbage, please don’t bother. That is what King Arthur amounts to. It is an abomination, a black mark on one of the most well-known and well-loved stories in human history. To even claim to be associated with Le Morte d’Artur is shameful. Truth be told, Monty Python and the Holy Grail gives a more appreciative look at the legend than this disaster.

King Arthur claims to be a retelling of the events that gave birth to the legend of Arthur, Camelot, and the Knights of the Round Table. Arthur (Clive Owen), a Roman military commander, is eager to return to Rome after a grueling campaign in Britain. When asked by a bishop to complete one more mission, Arthur must inform his knights – Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Bors (Ray Winstone), Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson) – that they must rescue a Roman family on the outskirts of Rome’s territory when all the knights want to do is return home. Naturally, something goes wrong, and the knights find themselves knee deep in a civil war between the Saxons and local tribes. One tribe, led by Merlin (Stephen Dillane) and Guinevere (Keira Knightly), desire Arthur’s help in repelling the Saxons to free Britain from any tyrannical rule.

The problem with all this is that by eliminating the fantastical elements, this story turns into Braveheart, just not done as well. The fantasy is what makes Arthur what he is – the mystery of Merlin, the wonder of Excalibur, the comfort in believing that men like Gawain and Lancelot coveted chivalry above all else. Showing this side of the story holds the same fate as seeing a magician’s secrets; you’ll never be able to look at the trick with the same awe and amazement ever again, and that was what made it fun.

This movie isn’t fun anymore. Yes, Owen, Knightly, and Gruffudd try as hard as they can, but even of those three, only Owen comes out of the movie well. That’s not even because he is playing King Arthur; it’s because he does a good job at showing a basic moral conflict – a soldier’s duty to follow orders vs. a religious man’s duty to help his fellow man. So much is written in Owen’s eyes during every decision he makes. It’s obvious he does not want to further endanger the lives of his men, but this mission is the only way out for them. He’s a caring person, and a good leader… but that doesn’t make him Arthur, nor does a sword that they happen to call Excalibur once or twice during the course of two and a half hours.

Beyond Arthur’s basic internal struggle… I couldn’t care less for anyone involved here. The knights are supposed to be the embodiment of chivalry, and yet they are presented for the most part as normal, self-serving humans. Also, Guinevere, in legend the representation of why chivalry came to be, is presented more as Xena than anyone in need of that kind of devotion. What made these characters special was that they were so far beyond anything that could ever exist in real life. Take that away from them, and there’s nothing spectacular – or even terribly interesting – left.

Unfortunately, hidden under all this crap are good directing, some good performances, and some beautiful scenery. It’s all marred by the bastardization of something a good many people grew up loving. The filmmakers want to give a possible realistic, historical context to the legends of King Arthur, to ‘demystify’ the legend. I don’t see the need in that. What makes Arthur so special is the magical elements, the ultra-romantic love story, the exotic backgrounds of each night, the tragic hero’s fall by Lancelot. It is a story that can only be good if told correctly. This is not the correct way to do it.