Ancient Britain’s dream team (image: ImpAwards website)
Wot, no Excalibur?
It’s unclear why the filmmakers have chosen to name their swords and sandals saga, ‘King Arthur’, given they’ve decided to eschew all elements of Arthurian legend in favour of a look at the “man (that might have been) behind the legend”.
In this gritty ‘reimagining’, Arthur is a now a soldier of dual Roman/British heritage who lost his faith in Britain as a child, after the brutal slaying of his mother at the hands of the Picts – blue-tinted native Britons (note: not to be confused with the Na’vi). A firm believer in the progressiveness of the Roman way of life Arthur, backed by his legionnaires, is proud to uphold Rome’s laws in Britain. But the once mighty Roman Empire is under threat and decides to withdraw its troops from its foreign outposts to focus on its enemies closer to home.
Arthur plans to go ‘home’ to Rome but is given one last challenge by wily Bishop Germanius, to go north of Hadrian’s Wall and rescue a Roman family from the lawless Picts and a new threat – invading Saxon forces.
It’s a dull, complicated narrative set-up – hardly the kind of mission to stir the senses and, for viewers raised on the great battle campaigns of the Lord of the Rings or the urgency and spectacle of Gladiator, there’s just no comparison.
Although the director puts in a good effort, devising some atmospheric set pieces in the frozen northern forests and employing as many CG effects as he can squeeze in, this looks home-grown (despite the $100m budget).
He’s not helped by a leaden script, too much hey nonny nonny type over-acting from the British supporting cast and a drab central performance from the usually reliable Clive Owen. Only Knightley shines, clearly relishing her warrior-queen role as Guinevere dazzling both Arthur and Lancelot and getting stuck into the action with gusto.
Disappointingly dreary.
Rating: 2/5
IMDb entry for King Arthur
Movie Pieces 