Some filmmakers make a living directing all sorts of different films across various genres with different tales. Others, however, basically tell the same tale, albeit sometimes in different genres, locales or settings, and/or time periods.
It's still too early in director Antwone Fuqua's career to say how he'll eventually be viewed, but following "The Replacement Killers," "Bait" and "Training Day," he's now told the same story twice in a row. First there was "Tears of the Sun" where Bruce Willis plays a solider who goes to rescue a chosen person and then ends up taking along the entire village all while having to battle the bad guys who want all of them dead.
He's now done the same with "King Arthur." No, it's not the story of dance instructor Arthur Murray rescuing dance students from mean critics who want to kill their professional careers. Rather it's about the Arthurian legend that includes Lancelot, Guinevere, Excalibur, Merlin and, of course, the Round Table. Yet, it just about has as much in common with that mythological tale as does the idea of Mr. Murray getting medieval on those mean critics.
Speaking of medieval, Fuqua and screenwriter David Franzoni ("Gladiator," "Amistad") have opted to do a little, okay a lot, of storytelling revisionism with the tale. Rather than taking place as usual in the Dark Ages, the filmmakers have moved the story back a thousand years or so to Roman times.
Historians have long debated whether Arthur really existed, was based on someone else or was a composite of real historical figures. Not surprisingly, the dates of such existence are also subject to debate, with historians usually thinking it's around the 5th century A.D. and literary types favoring the "romanticized" notion of the Middle Ages. The filmmakers chose the former, but that should be taken with a grain of salt as they're quoted in the press kit as saying that this is "King Arthur as The Wild Bunch."
Now, for those whose only knowledge of King Arthur et al. comes from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," the Peckinpah reference might not seem like a big deal, and it's common nowadays for filmmakers to take artistic liberties with source material.
Much like this year's earlier "Around the World in 80 Days," however, this seems like storytellers simply using a title for its name recognition, rather than being interested in telling the tale the way it's been known for centuries. And unlike Monty Python's effort, there's no comedy to be had (no favorite colors, killer rabbits, knights that say "Ni!" or even the appropriate "It's just a flesh wound" comments). Instead, we have what's essentially an opportunistic rip-off of the "Lord of the Rings" films with lots of large-scale battle scenes.
Like those pictures and other period warfare flicks, there are numerous clashes featuring armies rushing toward each other and smashing, bashing and otherwise pummeling their opponents. Naturally, they allow for various personal battles to occur, including the obligatory leader duel where everyone on both sides conveniently part ways to allow for the mano a mano moment.
Had we never seen such footage before -- in countless film -- this might have seemed exciting. Since that's not the case, however, and despite some otherwise decent stunt and action choreography, all of that material comes off like old hat. It doesn't help that such moments contain way too much of the seemingly obligatory slow motion footage or that the filmmakers apparently rented every smoke machine available at the time of the shooting.
Beyond the obvious and some would say glaring similarities to the basic plot of "Tears of the Sun," the film's script is nothing particularly remarkable. Simply put, Arthur and his men try to get a group of people to safety while avoiding the repeated attacks of the Saxons who are apparently mad that none of their characters have been fleshed out in the script or film.
There's some internal conflict as well, and even a brief bit of romance and steamy -- but PG-13 rated -- sex, but all of the magic and mystique of the old Arthurian legend is noticeably MIA.
All of which is too bad, especially since there's a decent array of performers as well as others who simply look the part. Clive Owen ("Beyond Borders," "The Bourne Identity") is actually rather good as Arthur, although his character seems to have replaced his quest for the Holy Grail with that of a better script.
Ioan Gruffudd ("Black Hawk Down," "102 Dalmatians") is okay as Lancelot and Keira Knightley ("Love Actually," "Bend it Like Beckham") looks good as Guinevere, but with their affair subplot excised, they don't get much material with which to work. Of course, Knightley wouldn't have had the time anyway as she abruptly turns from a damsel in distress into a scantly clad, Xena warrior babe (I guess she doesn't need thick leather or armor like her wimpy male counterparts).
The rest of those playing the Knights of the Round Table are pretty much indistinguishable from one another save for Ray Winstone ("Cold Mountain," "Ripley's Game") who plays the gruff comic relief. Stellan Skarsgård ("Dogville," "City of Ghosts") is okay but otherwise miscast as the Saxon leader, while Til Schweiger ("Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life," "The Replacement Killers") does his best to play his part just like the number two villain in any James Bond film.
While the effort isn't horrible, it's clearly not great either, especially compared to the likes of other related films such as "Excalibur." And the changes made to the period story, setting and characters do nothing but ruin the Arthurian legend. "King Arthur" rates as a 4 out of 10.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
