King Arthur (2004)

Jesse Hassenger

This generically gritty and solidly PG-13 King Arthur isn't even much of an action picture.

King Arthur

Director: Antoine Fuqua
Cast: Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Keira Knightley, Hugh Dancy, Ray Winstone, Stellan Skarsgård, Stephen Dillane, Joel Edgerton
MPAA rating: PG-13
Studio: Touchstone
First date: 2004
US Release Date: 2004-07-07

As Jerry Bruckheimer's production of King Arthur begins, a title card informs us that "historians agree" the legend of Arthur and his knights is based in fact. While this attempts to speak to the film's veracity, mainly it sounds like a toothpaste commercial. Was it eight out of 10 historians who agreed, or nine?

Set in the fifth century, the film aims for a more "realistic" King Arthur, sans sorcery and before he was made a king. Here the Knights of the Round Table are forced by the Roman Empire to fight battles in its name for 15 years, at which point they're set free. But when their time comes to walk away, Rome adds an asterisk: they must rescue the Pope's favorite godchild from the invading Saxons. So Arthur and his crew become just another dirty half-dozen called out on a last mission. Director Antoine Fuqua and writer David Franzoni haven't figured out how to make this high concept work as entertainment, though, much less something that re-paints the Arthur legend as more relatable.

This tactic might have worked if the knights had more chemistry with one another. They're an agreeable, ramshackle bunch, but without defined personalities, except Bors (Ray Winstone), who jokes about his wives and bastard kids, as if he's wandered in from the Dark Ages version of a CBS sitcom. The other knights engage in discussions about their place on earth; though they're not set in medieval times, Franzoni gives them plenty of Ye Olde Dialogue.

Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) and Arthur (Clive Owen) seem the closest to one another, possibly because they share an understanding of the value of dark and sexily mussed curly locks. Indeed, their bickering occasionally spills into couples therapy: "Why do you always talk to God instead of me?" Lancelot whines. Only hints of the famous Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur triangle remain, but Lancelot and Arthur, at least, occasionally smolder for each other.

But this is not a campy King Arthur, even if you wish it was. Rather, Arthur and Lancelot's relationship is indicative of an unfortunate mini-trend in recent movies, reshaping classic stories into stoic action epics. Removing the fantasy elements of tales like Arthur's or The Iliad only allows filmmakers to indulge in their own fantasy that they can recreate the dubious triumphs of Braveheart (1995) or Gladiator (2000). How many times can one heroic man save his corner of Europe?

This generically gritty and solidly PG-13 King Arthur isn't even much of an action picture. There is one terrific, well-paced standoff on an icy lake, but most battles feature Arthur riding through crowds on horseback, swinging his sword mightily. At first, this looks cool; after the third time, you think, "Hey, he'd be pretty good at polo." Owen can smolder opposite man, woman, or horse, but the quality that initially defines his Arthur, a sturdy grimness, eventually traps him in a charisma-free part.

Tellingly, the more interesting Guinevere, played by erstwhile pirate Keira Knightley, is often left to the sidelines. The only woman of note in the movie, she proceeds through what appears a guided tour of Designated Female Roles: damsel in distress, native girl, voice of reason, and at last, bloodthirsty warrior. The warrior bit is the one healthy byproduct of this gritty story; Guinevere is never more disturbingly beguiling as when she's in the thick of battle. Unfortunately, this becomes clear only at the climax, when she contrasts mightily with her accompanying knights. The wear serious expressions, but Guinevere's face is alive with bloodlust. With her warpaint and skimpy battle gear, she looks ready to charge into another, more thoroughly re-imagined movie.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.