King Arthur (2004)
It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous
and stupefying historical epic that Michael Bay and
Antoine Fuqua's "King Arthur." Then again, could there
be a more obvious sentence than that? With Bay and
Fuqua at the helm was anyone really expecting something
worth critiquing?
The first five minutes of the film,
with text and narration setting up the story, only
serve to begin the confusion. Arthur here is put into
context as a legend from the Middle Ages in Europe
based on an even more ancient warrior. So Bay, Fuqua
and scripter David Franzoni move the Arthurian legend
to the Dark Ages, somewhere around 492 AD, and make
the king, his knights and his lover, Lady Guinevere,
look like rejects from TV's "Beastmaster" and "Xena
The Warrior Princess." Keira Knightley, obviously
too young and inexperienced to pick a good script,
is really the most mistreated by this film. The horrid
slutty costume she is forced to wear in battle is
truly the biggest embarrassment in a film full of
ridiculous moments. She looks like she's wearing a
costume left over from a S&M adult film.
The knights themselves, supposedly
the most gallant men imaginable, are reduced to pre-civilization
frat boys. Within the first five minutes of the film,
the knights have already discussed urination, fornication
and the size of one of their member's member. That's
right, within the first five minutes of this atrocity,
you know you are seeing a really, really stupid film.
The plot here is pointless but at
least when they get to the heart of it, it involves
a really hot young man wearing a toga. We know he's
supposed to be young because he is clean shaven while
all the knight's sport sporty post-modern facial hair.
I'm sure there are some men and women out there who
found looking at the guys in this film a drooling
experience while the rest of us only found it grueling.
This little hottie, playing someone who may be the
Pope someday, it really cute. He's the only thing
that makes the midsection of the film bearable. (Nothing
makes the beginning or end worthwhile).
It's obvious that Fuqua thinks he
is making an epic here. His film is filled with huge
special effects, epic battles with lots of shaky camera
movement, tons of extras and a plethora of costumes
and props. But the point seems to be ridiculous as
there is almost no blood in the film, this being a
PG-13 Disney affair. There's absolutely nothing to
engages us in the film. Albeit, one battle scene on
an icy lake is quite well-done and compelling but
its far to little to recommend the film.
"King Arthur," if he truly had existed,
would be spinning in his grave due to this cinematic
dreck. Rent "Camelot." Hell, rent "The Sword in the
Stone." But avoid this nonsensical film at any cost.
Notes:
With Clive Owen, Ray Winstone, and
Stellan Skarsgard.
The typical score is by Hans Zimmer.
Dawn Bradfield sings a song on screen. Moya Brennan
sings a song over the end credits in that Celine Dion/"Titanic"
type of end credits song that has become so fucking
annoying in period films. I say we cut the throat
of the next fucking female singer that agrees to sing
a song over the end credits of a epic period piece
film in hopes of getting an Oscar nomination.
Filmed in Ireland and England.
The film fared poorly at the box
office adding to a string of misfires by Disney in
2004 that began with "Home on the Range" and "Hidalgo"
and wasn't broken until "The Village."
Viewed in Austin in August 2004
