King Arthur (2004)

*** This review may contain spoilers ***I was expecting to see a really good (big budget) reworking of a classic tale about King Arthur and the nights of the round table, and Merlin the Magician, Exacilur,Camelot,Sir Lancalot having an affair with Queen Genevier and Sir Galahad's quest for the Holy Grail........This was not the King Arthur I thought I was going to see....**************possible spoiler ************* In fact Arthur isn't even a King, He is a Roman commander (yes you heard me correct) and he leads his knights into the Saxon northern occupied territory of Britain to retrieve a family of High Roman Pedigree - none of which resembles the King Arthur story I was familiar with It's not a bad movie - I just think they should've called something other than KING ARTHUR - the studio that made this film should've used all original characters in this film, because the title and the use of the Arturian characters give one a false impression of what this movie is about.However this film has a battle scene on a frozen lake (and of course the ice cracks) --this is perhaps the best mid-eval/fantasy battle scene I have ever seen (that scene is worth watching the movie for) Its a good movie but I still only gave it 4 stars out of 10 because the studio should've never linked this movie to the King Arthur legend because this film has nothing to do with it! ! ! ! !

Claiming to tell the true story that inspired the legend, Antoine Fuqua put forth a gritty version of King Arthur. Narrated by Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), the story tells of young men recruited by the Roman Empire to fight along the wall splitting Britain. Arthur (Clive Owen) leads a group of men, played by recognizable actors, as they fight barbarians alongside the Roman soldiers. These attackers are led by Merlin (Stephen Dillane). The knights Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), Bors (Ray Winstone) and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson) all prove to be brave and brutal warriors as they fight an advancement encouraged by the impending exit of the Roman Empire from Britain.The knights do sit at a roundtable and look forward to returning home for some peace, but one last mission brings them North to fight the Saxon hordes and rescue a family. Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgård) leads the Saxons with his son Cynric (Til Schweiger). Arthur and his knights find a settlement of Christians punishing pagans. The knights free some of the tortured people and find Guinevere (Keira Knightley) trapped behind a wall being put to death. They free her and leave the priests to the Saxons. Check out more of this review and others at swilliky.com

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.

This is one more of those films that, under the popular saying "behind a lie there is always a true origin", seeks to reinvent a classic story, giving it new surroundings and new characters seemingly more realistic and historically accurate. It is a high but calculated risk because if there is a myth about which many alleged historical origins have been pointed out is the King Artur legend. The film is set in the final centuries of the Roman Empire and depicts the abandonment of Great Britain and Hadrian's Wall. Artur is transformed into a hired knight who serves the Romans and that it has the duty to protect a pope's favorite (at that time Christianity was already the official religion of the empire, although Celtic paganism still prevails In the British Isles) from the Saxon incursions. Obviously there are historical errors, more or less obvious, but this is not as glaring as the absence of epic sentiment in a movie that tries to be epic and never succeeds. There are even some scenes that have been ruined by minor details such as incomprehensible battle cries or cries in Latin that are never properly translated or subtitled, and which end up appearing ridiculous.Clive Owen is good at action scenes but lacks the presence and charisma that his character demands. Arthur's knights are never developed individually except for Bors (Ray Winstone) and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson) although they are usually played by talented actors, eventually becoming highly secondary characters. Keira Knightley, an actress used to period films, played Guinevere, a character who does not suffer from the same lack of development but has been poorly thought out, overly masculinized, very stereotyped and sometimes sexualized, in a development line that ruins later attempts to make credible her wedding with Arthur, a character who spends the entire movie without any romantic chemistry with her. The film is slow and boring at times, but I dealt very well with it.In conclusion: it is a film with an interesting story, which entertains the audience, but that is far from good.