There is no doubt that King Arthur is a very much known character in our culture today. His story has spawned movies, a vast array of literature, and he has become an icon for the dark ages. Thus, it is no surprise that his story has been taken again to the cutting room floor and posted for summer viewing; however, this time with a different twist.
The filmakers, through advertising and a brief paragraph that precedes the movie, are pushing their movie as the true story of King Arthur (or at least as true from what we know today). Whether this claim is true or not, the legendary King Arthur has been seen in better days.
This is not because the premise of the movie is bad. The attempt to make the film have a real and authentic feel as opposed to a fantasy feel was done decently well. We have the commoners fighting for their land, the noble knights, and the savage Saxons. However, what is missing is a little more plot depth and a more engaging development of the premise.
The movie finds Arthur's knights about to depart to their homes until a final task comes for them, to save a family from the Saxons. Fromt there the movie rocks back and forth between the marching knights and the marching Saxons, with a little conversation.
As far as the characters go, they appear rather two-dimensional and dense. Only one of the knights seemed to have a real personality, and it was not King Arthur. Keira Knightley, although not great, did help give a variety being the only female in the movie with more than two lines. Although none of the acting is bad, I would have liked to see more personality behind the characters.
In all, KING ARTHUR is not a total loss. There are some fast-paced battle scenes, and it seems the filmakers put out a good effort to make something out of this film. With just a little more personality, and a quicker pace KING ARTHUR could have been great; however, as it stands I give it a 5/10.
The filmakers, through advertising and a brief paragraph that precedes the movie, are pushing their movie as the true story of King Arthur (or at least as true from what we know today). Whether this claim is true or not, the legendary King Arthur has been seen in better days.
This is not because the premise of the movie is bad. The attempt to make the film have a real and authentic feel as opposed to a fantasy feel was done decently well. We have the commoners fighting for their land, the noble knights, and the savage Saxons. However, what is missing is a little more plot depth and a more engaging development of the premise.
The movie finds Arthur's knights about to depart to their homes until a final task comes for them, to save a family from the Saxons. Fromt there the movie rocks back and forth between the marching knights and the marching Saxons, with a little conversation.
As far as the characters go, they appear rather two-dimensional and dense. Only one of the knights seemed to have a real personality, and it was not King Arthur. Keira Knightley, although not great, did help give a variety being the only female in the movie with more than two lines. Although none of the acting is bad, I would have liked to see more personality behind the characters.
In all, KING ARTHUR is not a total loss. There are some fast-paced battle scenes, and it seems the filmakers put out a good effort to make something out of this film. With just a little more personality, and a quicker pace KING ARTHUR could have been great; however, as it stands I give it a 5/10.