Given the choice to fit into the mold of either standard Arthurian legend adaptation or run-of-the-mill, hack-and-slash action movie, the latest Arthur rendition’s creators unfortunately chose the latter.
Antoine Fuqua’s “King Arthur” is based on the premise that the mythic Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table were based on actual heroes who lived 1,000 years before the legends take place. This sets the story around 450 A.D., during the last years of the Roman Empire.
The writers use this shift in time to take great liberties not only with the Arthur legend, but also with history itself. Arthur is a Roman officer with a Briton mother, and his knights are no more than Roman conscripts.
Since the film is supposedly a “historical representation” and not a depiction of the legends, the story is completely different, but the astute Arthur fan will probably recognize several names. Lancelot, Galahad, Gawain, Merlin, Guinevere, Bors, Tristan and Dagonet are all present. Sadly, half of them simply seem to be placeholders who have little-to-no dialogue, screen time or character development.
The departure from regular Arthurian fare and from the realities of history might be forgivable if the writing and acting were good. Of the actors with any significant amount of lines, only Kiera Knightley as Guinevere and Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot show any significant acting prowess. Clive Owen’s Arthur is passable but not outstanding, and Stellan Skarsgard’s Cerdic, leader of the Saxons and chief villain, is almost apathetic to everything throughout the film.
From beginning to end, “King Arthur” is just an action movie cashing in on name recognition of the legend. Spurts of action are infused throughout the entire movie, though most of them are so forgettable and average they could be just stock footage from various other movies set in medieval times.
Arthur faces his share of hero’s trials, both physical and moral (as per action movie guidelines), loses friends, has a love scene with his attractive romantic interest and makes an epic speech that attempts to stir the audience before the final battle.
After watching “King Arthur,” the viewer gets the impression Antoine Fuqua has seen “Braveheart” one too many times and wanted to make his own version of it. Indeed, simply renting “Braveheart” is a better option for most people than going out and paying for a ticket to see Fuqua’s disappointing update of one of the most celebrated legends in western civilization.
