Overblown 'epic' production of King Arthur abandons all that makes story engagin

Articles: Overblown 'epic' production of King Arthur abandons all that makes story engagin

Posted by admin on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:10 AM

The opening crawl in King Arthur hints that this version of the oft-told tale has more basis in fact than previous ones. If that's the case, then chalk one up for exaggeration and inaccuracy - because this would-be summer blockbuster is a thorough drag.
This version, the latest mega-production from producer Jerry Bruckheimer, forgoes mysticism and magic for a grit, a grandeur and an attempted ferocity inspired as much, it seems, by Braveheart (1995), Gladiator (2000) and the Lord of the Rings films as any of the previous Arthurian legends. No surprise, then, that Gladiator scribe David Franzoni is credited with this film's script. Clive Owen plays the title role here, conceived as a fearless warrior who's been waging war in Britain on behalf of the Romans in the 5th century. Arthur and his men - among them such familiar names as Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Gawain (Joel Edgerton) and Galahad (Hugh Dancy) - are ready to pack it in. But when the powers that be back in Rome decide to pull out of Britain, it looks as if the continent will be up for grabs. During a final mission on behalf of Rome, Arthur slowly begins to consider staking his own claim as ruler. He rescues the fair maiden Guinevere (Keira Knightley), and their blossoming relationship takes shape when he snaps her dislocated fingers back into place after she's been tortured. Ahh, romance! The principal antagonists here are the grubby Saxons, led by Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgard, a dead ringer for Gregg Allman here). The Saxons so outnumber Arthur's forces that they tend to stand around in bunches during battle - thereby making it easier for the smaller army to more readily reduce their numbers with each encounter. This being a Bruckheimer production, no expense has been spared; you've got all the battle scenes, sweeping vistas, fog and computer generated-special effects that money can buy - but no heart, no soul. The story's revisions lack interest. Owen, Knightley and Gruffudd are charismatic and attractive performers, but there's only so much they can do, given Franzoni's wayward script. Owen brings to mind the young, virile Richard Burton - and Burton himself slogged through a few costume epics in his time. Knightley is, as always, fetching - but is woefully unconvincing as a feral, teeth-gnashing warrior capable of dispatching opponents considerably larger than she is. Gruffudd's Lancelot just seems along for the ride. The famed Knights of the Round Table have been reduced to faithful followers, their motivations dictated by the cliches of screen camaraderie. Ray Winstone provides the film's ostensible comic relief as the grizzled and lusty Bors, whose multiple illegitimate children provide a running joke throughout the film. Stephen Dillane plays Merlin, who does no magic here. Magic is a component sorely lacking in any aspect of this film. King Arthur marks the fifth feature directed by Fuqua, who has yet to make a good film. His only notable one to this point is Training Day, a vastly overrated 2001 cop thriller notable only as the film for which Denzel Washington finally won the Oscar as best actor. The first half of King Arthur, in which Arthur and his knights are sent on a rescue mission, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to Fuqua's 2003 war film Tears of the Sun, which is hardly a film to be imitated any under circumstance. Chivalry may not be dead, but if King Arthur is any indication, it's on life support.

· 107 Reads ·