My biggest complaint about this apparently “historical” reboot of the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table is that, though well made, KING ARTHUR is utterly forgettable.
It’s an interesting premise. We all know the mythical tale of the boy who became king and ruled Camelot, but according to this film that is just legend. KING ARTHUR explores the factual accounts of the real man that inspired the myth.
The story takes place in 450 A.D. in the wake of the fall of the Roman Empire. Arthur (Clive Owen) joins forces with a rabble of other British knights in order to bring law to the land and protect it from the Saxon invaders.
The cast is impressive with the likes of Keira Knightley (as a kick-ass version of Guinevere), Ioan Gruffudd (as Lancelot), Ray Winstone, Ray Stevenson and Joel Edgerton to name a few. It also features a pre-HANNIBAL team-up of Hugh Dancy and Mads Mikkelsen, this time playing loyal brothers-in-arms.
It’s clear that a lot of time and money went into bringing this epic story to the screen and I can’t fault them for trying. It’s just that the movie is quite dull and slow-paced. I watched the “Extended Unrated Director’s Cut” which boasts more graphic violence. But after awhile, I just didn’t care as the storyline is often confusing or uninteresting.
I give them credit for giving it the old college try, but at the end of the day, the movie still needs to be engaging. I can only really recommend it as a curiosity if you’re a fan of the King Arthur legend and would like to see a different take on it.
For my money, I’ll stick with EXCALIBUR (1981), CAMELOT (1967) or even MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL (1974)
PURCHASE INSTANT VIDEO