King Arthur (2004)

Purely Joyful Movie!

Powerful

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

(Flash Review)The director amazed me….he managed to squander a massively stellar cast with the pathetic execution of a big budget movie. From the first few scenes, there were blatant lighting continuity problems with different lighting tones, contrast level and intensities. During some big battles with camera angled up, to accentuate battle drama, there was a mix of smoke and heavy clouds and then some shots it was just partially cloudy with blue sky. That lack of quality ran into the script as well with cliché moment after cliché moment which muted any impact the music score had on eliciting emotions from the audience. Onto the plot, King Arthur and his loyal knights are deceived and forced into one last mission to officially receive their freedom papers from the Roman Empire. Will they follow through? If so, how many will survive the final mission? Another abrupt moment was when Keira Knightley's character is rescued from a dungeon and later she unexpectedly goes from being shackled to a highly skilled tribal warrior. Avoid at all costs!

I find this movie incredible good. And the funny part is, I can't even tell exactly why. But it draws me back, again and again. I watched it 4 times now, which is not something I do normally. First, the story is believable, at least, for me it is. Where the common story of King Arthur is a mythic story, this one could be for real. I can actually imagine, being there, in that time and place and see it happening. Second, I like the people, all of them. They are also for real. They are not all good and not all bad. And even the bad ones are not all bad. This is such a good cast for this movie. As said, the story draws me in, in a way that I actually would like to be part of it.

There are many types of filmgoers. There are those choosing the cinema as a safe bet for a date, to film buffs who just enjoy everything about the movie experience. My least favorite people are the avant garde psudo-sophisticates who drain the life out of everything like some vampire of joy. They don't like certain films because it makes them feel superior to say so. These are the same viewers who feel the need to prove just how smart they are by posting flaming reviews. Asshats often feel obliged to set fire to the actors, plot, music, or in the case of King Arthur historical inaccuracies. Then these self-appointed grand marshals of film post their bile on line. If you look at their reviews their hate extends to movies you probably liked. I suppose indie films are more to their liking because only someone who trashes mainstream movies can run with this crowd.It would be difficult to tell the actual story of Arthur because that individual, if such a person existed, is lost in antiquity. This film just has a different take on a legendary character. There are references to actual historical figures, but is it necessary to have the dates just right to move the story along? Probably not, unless you are a Middle Age historian. If Merlin had appeared in a Land Rover there would be room for complaint. I don't recall anyone complaining about Tarantino's history butchering Inglorious Bastards.Merlin turns out to be a leader of people more closely resembling Picts than Britons but the key take away is that he is not the mythical wizard many people expect. This Merlin is more like a mystical druid. At first I was not crazy about this character but I appreciated the fresh take of dispensing with magic altogether.Guinevere and Lancelot have a different chemistry than the myth. The Knights of the Round Table definitely have a band of brothers vibe going on because Arthur is just one of the boys. I thought it was a nice touch that the true Romans had Italian accents and the invading Saxons had German and Swedish accents.Clive Owen's performance was called wooden but he used the same style of acting in Sin City. I liked him in both roles. Owen strikes a noble figure as King Arthur. As a leader, it is obvious why he commands the loyalty of his fellow knights.This is Antoine Fuqua's first venture into a historically driven epic. Fuqua did an amazing job. I am only sorry that more people did not appreciate his treatment of subject matter or the characters. The film overall was worth the admission. The visuals are excellent. The locations are eye catching and the frenzied battles are well choreographed. It is a movie worth watching more than once. If it's the job of film and actors to entertain, then this movie delivers. Those who say it was the worst movie they ever saw better be careful in the rain, they may drown with their noses turned up so far.

Watched King Arthur Feauturing Clive Owen(Closer) as Arthur ,Ioan Gruffudd(Titanic) as Lancelot ,Joel Egerton(Star Wars:Attack Of The Clones) as Gawain , Ray Winstone(Cold Mountain) as Bors The Younger ,Hugh Dancy(Tempo) as Galahad , Ray Stevenson(Serenity) as Dagonet , Mads Mikkelson(Rejseholdet) as Tristan , Kiera Knightley(Pirates Of The Carribbean:Curse Of The Black Pearl ) As Guinevere ,Stephen Dillane(Hamlet) as Merlin ,Stellan Skarsgard(Good Will Hunting) as Cedric , While film had a solid cast and acting it was disappointing to see the Legend Of King Arthur as part of the Rome when it really was set in middle ages though it did manage to save itself somewhat with some of the best sword fights and action.Fantastic Cinematography by Slawomir Idziak(Black Hawk Down), Production Design By Paul Cross(B.U.S.T.E.D) Costume Design By Penny Rose(Mission:Impossible) ,Amazing Writing By David Franzoni(Gladiator) , Amazing Score from Hans Zimmer(The Last Samurai) and Direction By Antoine Fuqa(Training Day) An OK Retelling of The Legend of King Arthur 7/10