King Arthur (2004)
6/10
I thought it was decent...
19 June 2011
This King Arthur is flawed, that I agree with, but I don't think it is a bad movie as such. Okay it is historically inaccurate and the traditional elements of the Arthurian legend are missing such as wizardry, love triangle or even Camelot, but they weren't the problems for me of this film.

What didn't impress me much about King Arthur were a few things, especially the pace. The length was fine, but there are some scenes where it feels very pedestrian. The obligatory love scene also fell flat for me, well-shot, well-scored, but it interrupted the flow of the movie, and when it came to the dialogue and acting, this was one instance of the film being at its least effective. The script is rather hackneyed in places, and that is including the rousing speeches, and Keira Knightley despite looking gorgeous isn't really believable as Guinevere.

Flaws aside, the film does look fantastic, the scenery, sets and costumes are wonderful and I loved the camera work, while the battle scenes are well-staged and more than convincing, the film is well-directed by Antoine Fuqua and Hans Zimmer's score has a real majesty about it. Knightley aside, the acting is good without being outstanding. Ioan Gruffudd is just okay as Lancelot, though I liked how his character was written and Gruffudd himself looks dashing. Clive Owen is a suitably subdued King Arthur, Stephen Dillaine is also pretty good and while all the knights look the part it is Ray Winstone who steals the film.

Overall, decent if unspectacular film. 6/10 Bethany Cox
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed