Review of King Arthur

King Arthur (2004)
7/10
Better historical treatment of the legend
25 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Having been a scholar of the period, I find that this film represents a much more plausible explanation for the source of the Arthurian legend. The general plot is historically accurate, although the fleshing of the characters is no more realistic than the next best historical treatment, namely Excalibur, by John Boorman, which I find to be a much superior cinematic experience.

My greatest quibble with King Arthur is the presence of and performance by Keira Knightly. Who doesn't adore her? I certainly don't. But she is miscast here, and has absolutely zero chemistry with Clive Owen, who is superb in the role and in the many stunts he performs. I would say that Keira is not feral enough for the plot, or that she could have been invested as a successor to Merlin to explain her presence as a Pictish princess worthy of dynastic union. The ending wedding scene is quite contrived, though foreshadowed, and ultimately unbelievable.

The stunts and fight scenes are first rate. The camaraderie of the knights is believable, as is the "Sarmatian" element as a plot device. The interjection of Pelagius, and his doctrine, which is the evocation of free will, is perhaps the most redeeming quality of the script (see the wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius).

Idea: 10 Script: 7 Director: 8 Producer: 5 Cast (except Keira): 10

I adore Keira, but this just was not her vehicle--but remember, too, this was when she was 17 and her first film after "Bend it Like Beckham".
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed