What can I say about King Arthur? It's an attempt to conform a well loved myth to a historical account. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. As someone who's grown up loving the stories of King Arthur and his knights, it's weird to have it "historicallized". AKA: the magic was taken away. It's a mediocre film -- so I'll give you the pros and cons right here:
PROS: The battle sequences are indeed beautiful. There are some absolutely stunning shots of the Saxon army marching over the ice. I love the smoky affects used in the final battle as well. They are rather drawn out (it takes a LOT to bring the main characters down, they just keep going, and going and going, which eventually becomes something of an annoyance). Keira Knightley -- she does a good job, despite her small and rather weird role. Mads Mikkelson as Tristan, he's the only knight I really wanted to survive. The cinematography is interesting to say the least. There are pretty much 3 colors in the entire movie: green, blue and red.
CONS: The script is crap. No buts about it, it sucks. So I guess that there is only so much that the actors could do with their characters. I've read reviews that say Clive Owen is uninspired as King Arthur. And I have to agree. But I'm not sure it's his fault, the character is horribly written. Instead of being a fiery, heroic knight, Arhtur's a wimpy little bible-thumping Catholic. Clive borders on brilliance a couple of times, but he never puts enough fire into the rather drab Arthur. I totally did not understand any of the relationships involving Lancelot. Did he and Guinevere have a little spark, or not? And if Lancelot "knows Arthur best" and is his truest friend, than why do they never get along?
King Arthur is nothing spectacular. In fact, it's right forgettable. To Clive and Keira, why did you pick this movie?! You both have so much potential and both of you should learn to pick your scripts better. I cannot believe that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this. But it's okay. It won't blow your socks off, but it's fine -- mediocre. 5/10
PROS: The battle sequences are indeed beautiful. There are some absolutely stunning shots of the Saxon army marching over the ice. I love the smoky affects used in the final battle as well. They are rather drawn out (it takes a LOT to bring the main characters down, they just keep going, and going and going, which eventually becomes something of an annoyance). Keira Knightley -- she does a good job, despite her small and rather weird role. Mads Mikkelson as Tristan, he's the only knight I really wanted to survive. The cinematography is interesting to say the least. There are pretty much 3 colors in the entire movie: green, blue and red.
CONS: The script is crap. No buts about it, it sucks. So I guess that there is only so much that the actors could do with their characters. I've read reviews that say Clive Owen is uninspired as King Arthur. And I have to agree. But I'm not sure it's his fault, the character is horribly written. Instead of being a fiery, heroic knight, Arhtur's a wimpy little bible-thumping Catholic. Clive borders on brilliance a couple of times, but he never puts enough fire into the rather drab Arthur. I totally did not understand any of the relationships involving Lancelot. Did he and Guinevere have a little spark, or not? And if Lancelot "knows Arthur best" and is his truest friend, than why do they never get along?
King Arthur is nothing spectacular. In fact, it's right forgettable. To Clive and Keira, why did you pick this movie?! You both have so much potential and both of you should learn to pick your scripts better. I cannot believe that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this. But it's okay. It won't blow your socks off, but it's fine -- mediocre. 5/10