Noble intention, poor execution *MINOR SPOILERS*
Logic dictates that taking Britain's most well known and oft told myth and stripping it of everything that makes it memorable is a bad idea. This did not deter the makers of 'King Arthur', and while the premise is interesting, it's execution is sloppy, leaving behind a film doomed to reside in the shadows of such great predecessors as the film 'Excalibur', and the TV min-series 'Merlin'.
Historians have long speculated over the real identity of the mysterious King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table and, as the prologue of this film tells us, recent archaeological discoveries point to him being a descendent of Sarmatian knights. As it stands, this is only speculation, but gives the film its premise. As the film opens, the Romans are pulling out of 'indefensible outposts' such as Britain, leaving the native people to defend themselves against the bloody thirsty and murderous Saxons. Artorius (Arthur to his pals) and his knights are eagerly awaiting their deeds of emancipation so they may return to a home they barely remember after fifteen years of service in Britain. But he and his knights are handed one final mission - to rescue an important Roman family who have settled, for reasons best known to themselves, on the other side of Hadrians Wall. This is the film's first misfire - it makes no sense. If this family are so important, why have they been allowed to live in such a dangerous place? To reach them, Arthur and his knights are forced to travel through territory controlled by native Britons, known as 'Woads', making their task a virtual suicide mission. Except it isn't. Because Merlin, paying lip service to the Arthurian legend as the leader of the Woads, knows that the rampaging Saxons will shortly be on their doorstep and Arthur and his knights could be their only hope against a much stronger enemy.
After a strong first act, the film becomes a gloomy, murky stew. The characters founder - Arthur's knights are virtually interchangeable and have surprisingly little of the screenplay devoted to them. Ray Winstone's rambunctious Bors is memorable, but all the others, even Lancelot, are as dull as ditch water. Keira Knightly adds her own sparkly charm as Guenevere but her character is woefully underwritten. Her only purpose is to let loose a few arrows - Orlando Bloom showed her a thing or two on the set of Pirates of the Caribbean, it seems - and throw a spanner in the works as Arthur's love interest. But this only paves the way for what is, in my mind, the biggest disappointment in the film - the fabled love triangle between Arthur, Guenevere and Lancelot has been scrapped. Oh sure, Lance spies Guennie looking fetching while bathing and there are a few meaningful looks, but the ultimate opportunity to create a drama with the potential to actually suck us into this world and make us care about these characters has been abandoned.
Still, that may be no bad thing because the fewer occasions on which Clive Owen is required to emote the better. Clive has his own physicality that serves him well in the fight scenes, but speaks his lines as though reading from a cue card. This is disastrous - like Russell Crowe's Maximus in 'Gladiator', Arthur is the foundation this whole house of cards is built on.
Oh, if an actor of Russ's caliber had taken the helm, it could have been a completely different film. Without a charismatic leading man, the film steadily crumbles as it heads towards a climax you just don't care about.
But, hey, it doesn't matter if the hero is a big dull dud as long as you have an interesting villain, right? Ehm, wrong. As the leader of the Saxons, the usually serviceable Stellan Skarsgard looks bored and gives the impression that he is working on another much more interesting movie during the week and only mucking in on 'King Arthur' on his days off. We only know he is a baddie because he issues orders like "Burn every village, kill everyone" and, in a confusing sequence, saves a woman from being raped and then orders her death.
So the film lumbers on to the inevitable final climactic battle. Guenevere reappears in a costume (well, if you can call two strips of leather a costume) that Xena, Warrior Princess would blush and back away from and Arthur and his knights get to look cool while silhouetted on a hill top - the filmmakers apparently confused as to whether they are retelling the Arturian legend or paying homage to 'The Magnificent Seven'. The battle that follows is confusing, choppily edited and uninvolving. Some of the fighting is impressive, but pales in comparison to the far superior swordplay in previous epics such as 'Troy'. Like much of the preceding film, it's dark, dour and gloomy. When it's finally over we are treated to the prerequisite happy ending, which contrasts too much with the rest of the movie not to throw the whole thing off balance.
The look of the film is another major downfall. Yes, this is a 'realistic' retelling of the story of King Arthur, but why must it be so gloomy? Sitting in the cinema I felt like somebody needed to turn the contrast up. It lacks an epic feel that you might have expected in this sort of movie - there is a stunning paucity of sweeping aerial shots and stunning scenery. Instead, it gives the impression of being made on the cheap, with one section of forest standing in for a variety of locations. Everything is dark - the sets, the costumes - nothing stands out as remarkable. There is none of the punch or dazzle usually associated with a Jerry Brukheimer film.
'King Arthur' would have benefited from a tighter storyline and more focus on the central characters. I would have liked to see the relationships between Arthur and his knights better developed. We find out nothing of their motivations or why they are so attached to Arthur that they will follow him to almost certain death instead of beating a path to the utopia of Rome like sensible people. That's the film's biggest mystery - why would anyone want to follow the sour faced Mr Owen ANYWHERE?
Overall, it's a pleasant way to waste a Sunday afternoon. Much of the fun is in seeing the filmmakers' imagining of where the classic hallmarks of Arthurian legend - the round table, Excalibur - originated. Remove the familiar elements and you are left with a gritty and sour period piece that is ultimately disappointing.