*** Official KING ARTHUR Review Thread

Discussion in 'Movies' started by Tim Glover, Jul 7, 2004.

  1. Tim Glover

    Tim Glover Lead Actor

    Jan 12, 1999
    Likes Received:
    Monroe, LA
    Real Name:
    Tim Glover
    Couldn't find the official King Arthur thread so I thought I'd start one.

    Just returned from seeing this.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] out of [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    and that's being a little generous.

    Not a bad film, but not a very good one either. There are some nice moments and some good scenes. The best being the battle that takes place on an icy lake. This is the best scene in the film and is very well done and original.

    Other than that, it's just average with some outlandish stuff that seems to override any momentum the film tries to gain. Clive Owen as Arthur is good though. Keira Knightley is always nice to look at so that made me feel a little better about the experience.

    All in all I suppose I'm glad I saw it but have no intentions of seeing it again.

  2. Zen Butler

    Zen Butler Producer

    Jan 24, 2002
    Likes Received:
    Real Name:
    Zen K. Butler
    Tim, I just got back myself. I will go

    [​IMG] [​IMG] 1/2 out of
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Some good personalities developed, marred by some miscasting. I didn't care for Clive Owen and the leader of the Saxons was horrid(did he even try an administer an accent). I liked the variation on Merlin. I agree with you, the best scene is the icy lake battle. I wasn't expecting much, so I wasn't too disappointed.
  3. Alex Spindler

    Alex Spindler Producer

    Jan 23, 2000
    Likes Received:
    It was very oddly uninvolving. I'd probably rate it somewhere around [​IMG] [​IMG] (out of four), being a bit generous I suppose. Which is so odd because I like so many people involved in it. I love Clive, I've admired most of Antoine Fuqua's work. Heck, I even like Bruckheimer more often than not.

    But this was such a bizarre experience. It was like watching a TV movie on the USA cable channel about King Arthur. The whole film feels especially sparse. I'm not complaining that it doesn't have the sometimes bloated feeling of recent epic films, but it never really feels very alive at all. Which is a shame because to make the story presented work, you kind of have to care about the characters and environments they're in, but it all came across as strangely amatuerish.

    What I liked was the aforementioned ice field confrontation, I liked some portions of the loss of Arthur's moral center, and sort of watching some very nice actors in some very strange situations. Seeing Stellan Skarsgaard play the heavy is something to see, and I think Clive Owen is able to get the most out of the title role. The others do from fair to good considering, but it still never, ever really works.

    As with all films like this, there has to be a final battle. This one is pretty well by the numbers, but there are a few nice bits of fight choreography. But, there are some large logic gaps and unsupported conclusions that harmed it in retrospect.

    I guess I was hoping for more from those involved and found that what they came up with to be lacking. Nothing anyone involved should be embarrassed with, but certainly not movie that will be remembered in the next few weeks. A shame.
  4. Ed Moroughan

    Ed Moroughan Second Unit

    Mar 10, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Star Lake, NY
    Real Name:
    Edward R. Moroughan
    Just got back from a matinee. I'd give it [​IMG] [​IMG] of four. I enjoyed the ice lake scene as well but the rest just left me feeling empty.
  5. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator

    Dec 9, 1998
    Likes Received:
    Real Name:
    This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "King Arthur". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

    Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

    If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.

  6. MattGentry

    MattGentry Second Unit

    Apr 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    It was alright. 3.4 out of 5. Roughly a B-.

    The acting was fairly good, and there were some scenes that stood out (namely - the ice field scene), but overall, there was nothing really great about it.

    Arthur was severely underwhelming. Don't get me wrong, great acting on Owen's part. However, his character just didn't seem like a big enough focus, considering the movie was called "King Arthur." I felt that the secondary characters were just as, if not moreso developed, than Arthur.

    Lancelot, to me, seemed almost the main focus of the movie. Opens with him, narrated by him, etc.

    Plus, Kiera, while attractive, didn't really look great in this movie. Also, I've never gotten the appeal of seeing a movie strictly because someone looks good in it. Just seems like a pointless reason.

    Merlin, being a major part of Arthurian legend, was merely a footnote in the movie. The casting was poorly done for him, as his presense didn't have the impact that a character of his history and grandure should have.

    The fight scenes weren't too bad, nothing new. The deaths of the knights were fairly predictable, and didn't have quite the wrench that they could have had.

    Overall, it was an alright movie that, while having decent scenes, couldn't quite seem to find it's focus.

    (And I, for one, am glad to see a movie that didn't have a traditional love triangle. By not having any direct romance occur between Guinevere and Lancelot, you have Lancelot's death at the end mean that much more. Plus, there was a bit of parallelism in it.

    -Arthur: Fighting for a Briton that may never come to pass.

    -Lancelot: Fighting for a love that would never come to

    Made for an interesting dynamic.)
  7. Patrick Sun

    Patrick Sun Moderator

    Jun 30, 1999
    Likes Received:
    This film suffered from inadequate setup, an uninvolving first act, that sprung into a second act that was slow moving, but got a bit better, and finally when we get to the 3rd act, the action is ramped up, but if you never get too attached to the characters, you don't get invested in the outcome as much either.

    I'm not sure I've ever seen an action sequence like I did in the middle of the film. While it was cool, it was also clumsily staged and conveyed to the audience. As a viewer, I got a little lost in the action in terms of spacing for the conflict.

    The last battle scene in the 3rd act reminded me of The Knights of the Roundtable teaming up with the Smurfs to ward off the Saxons to gain a foothold in Britain.

    I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
  8. StevenFC

    StevenFC Second Unit

    Aug 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Pretty disappointing. It's not the kind of movie I think of when I think of the King Arthur legend. I was looking for something more literate, with more scope. It just seemed to wander in terms of story and didn't have a real focus. I felt like I was watching a cheap version of a combination of Braveheart and Gladiator. You know, the flaming arrows flying through the air, the stirring speeches and the female wailing voices on the soundtrack etc. Been there done that.

    I never felt any sympathy for any of the characters either. It just seemed desultory, plodding and too familiar. And the battle scenes were pretty ho-hum. Someone needs to step up and break the mold again concerning this type of film.

    However, I didn't hate it. Maybe I was asking too much from it. It's probably more suited for a Saturday night DVD viewing for some simple entertainment. It's not gonna make you forget Ben-Hur or the like. But it's reasonably entertaining for what it is. Just don't expect too much from it.

Share This Page