King Arthur (2004)

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Movie Review: "King Arthur" (2004)Running overly-ambitious with a 120-Million-Dollar production alongside a mixed freestyle-pop-culturing-script on English Mythology by Academy-Award-nominated screenwriter David Franzoni, when supreme Hollywood producer Jerry Bruckheimer entrusts director Antoine Fuqua with a capable cast from leading actor Clive Owen in the title role as Arthur, inhabiting a great screen presence, but then again hardly finds decisive beats that will stick with any, presumingly a teenage boys intended target group, who even with a prestigious 4th of July "Independence Day" release in Summer of 2004, did not go for unimpressingly executed cut-down sword fights, yet remain high-standard received production values in art direction and costume design by Penny Rose, leaving me satisfied in an overall visual reception.But I stay nevertheless emotionally restraint with no awes giving but a few moments with actress Keira Knightley in a mesmerizing portrayal as the infamous sensual character of Guinevere, who as history says descended from a noble Roman family dynasty, abducted by an envious completely left-out character of "Maleagant" which just gets dramatically twisted in the best minutes of "King Arthur", when the "Guinevere" must get rescued from mud-striking, mist-atmosphere-indulging stagecoach imprisonment by Arthur strolling with his faithfully-follwoing no-conflicts-given knights, almost aimlessly through an unless beautifully-captured English countryside by cinematographer Slawomir Idziak in tints of green, earthy brown and hints of red wind-swaying fabrics as this movie fails to succeed by focusing on all-too simplified moments of late 5th century English history, when an invading tribe of "Saxons", led by unfortunately misdirected in brute force, no-virtues sharing character of Cerdic, here portrayed by unless always ready-to-amaze actor Stellan Skarsgard, left utterly alone by director Antoine Fuqua in heavy rag ice-age defying costume with somehow misplaced vikings-recalling heavy bread.Production designer Dan Weil and composer Hans Zimmer do their best to elevate this disappointment of an event movie, wasting countless cast members in badly staggato cut editorial of 120 Minutes, including Ian Gruffudd as Lancelot, Mads Mikkelsen as Tristan, Joel Edgerton as Gawain, Ray Stevenson, Ray Winstone and Stephen Millane as behind expectation portrayal of famous wizard Merlin, when only Guy Ritchie's highly-underrated take on King Arthur's myth "The Legend of the Sword" starring Jude Law and 36-year-old Charlie Hunnam as "Arthur", premiering at Waner Bros. Studio owned Hollywood location in again misunderstood marketing efforts by another Hollywood major after Disney Enterprises' affiliate Touchstone Pictures confronting a troublesome recurring cinematic remaining magical character theme of a historic king figure with Hollywood going down into its knees at least for a day on May 8th 2017 to recoup some solace on a haunted "King Arthur" story with no major world audiences given approval to let at least director Guy Ritchie's version of an "King Arthur" movie become a motion picture classic in time.Copyright 2018 Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC

A movie is a fantasy presented to allow an individual the pleasure of escaping the real world for an hour or two and yet her I observe many who have not quite realized that simple fact. There are too many verbose analysts presenting critic level opinions while lacking any credentials. The Movie was very enjoyable, the music score was outstanding. A suggestion go immerse yourself in the presentation and leave your stupid hat at home. IT IS A MOVIE. When I go to a movie I take no baggage, if I enjoy the presentation I am satisfied. Also if you can do better pack your bags and accomplish the challenge, if not your opinions have no merit. I found this movie an enjoyable experience. After all nothing on this planet is perfect, much less poor reviews

to criticize this film seems be so easy than a good idea represents to looking for its virtues. and the first is the idea to present Arthur different by cartoons representations or literary portraits. the second, the good intentions to imagine the atmosphere. sure, only good intentions because the historical accuracy is lost from the start. not the last, a good point is the effort of actors to do a decent job. the effort only could be admired. because the feeling is clear - wrong cast for a film who desires be so credible than becomes amusing. the entire story becomes fake. the dialogues, the costumes, the porpoises of the characters. Clive Owens is out of his role and Keira Knightley tries to demonstrate her good intentions than her Guinevere seems be a shadow. the real virtue of film - the convincing pledge for return to the legends about Arthur and his followers.

If there is any historical truth to the legend of king Arthur, it probably originates a romano-British warlord fighting the Saxons. Then we have to accept the centuries of exaggerations, mixing with other legends, re-writes to fit the times and so on. This is a still living tradition, because we continue to re-purpose and retell the story. Excalibur, for all it's faults, managed to get this point across pretty well. What the filmmakers set out to do here is to try to relocate de- myth the story and try to tell what might have actually happened. To bad they did not do that.Instead we get an absurd and confused "historical" mess. Very well, at least it's sometimes necessary to salt history for the sake of a good story? Right? I mean, the cast is great. We have Clive Owen, Stellan Skarsgård, Hugh Dancy, Ray Winstone, Joel Edgerton, Ray Winstone, Keira Knightley, Til Schweiger and Mad Mads Mikkelsen. What could go wrong? A lot. Sadly, these actor's has to work with a frightfully dull script. Clive Owen only has to stand around and hold speeches. Everybody keeps talking about what a great leader and warrior he is. He has no faults, makes no mistakes. He's just a flat character. Skarsgård walks around sounding like he just woke up and is bored by everything. The character of Cerdic comes off as a stupid evil character. Schweiger just snarls and glares. These villains are generic and duller than carpenter's thumb. As a supposedly historical film, it baffle one that the Saxon land in Scotland, north of Hadrian's Wall. Why? It's far from the closest part of the Saxon homeland and just plain dumb. An why are the woads/picts/(scotsmen?) fight the heavily armored Saxons wearing leather bras? How is that a sustainable means of protection? Why are the Saxons not shooting back at the heroes when they are fired upon. They do have crossbows.The cheesy music keeps pumping over the film, and is little more than noise in the background. It sounds like any other Hans Zimmer score. I could not tell which film it was from if I heard it on it's own. Through the cinematography is pretty competently done. And through many of the costumes are pretty unhistorical, they look pretty good for the most part. I liked Ray Winstone, even through gobbled the scenery I enjoyed him. At least he put some personality into his performance. This is a dull, dull, dull and generic "retelling" of the story. Every other decade there is another Arthur-movie. Let's hope we get a better one. The characters are flat and dull, the story is unimpressive and boring, the music is forgettable and the script is dumb.