I saw King Arthur last night. Overall - not bad, but not amazing.
[By the way I don't think any spoilers are in here but if you're really really worried about, don't read further]
As you've probably heard, the makers of this film strove to deliver a more historical rendering of the Arthur legend. It's set in 5th Century Britain and gets most of the basic parameters of the historical period right: Rome is crumbling and about to withdraw from Britannia; Celtic tribes from the north are raiding Romano-British settlements; the Saxons are licking their chops looking at vulnerable Britain.
Arthur is a half-Roman, half-Briton elite cavalry commander who grew up in Britain and has spent his life defending the Roman colonial powers-that-be. His knights are conscripts from Sarmatia; the movie explains that when Rome conquered Sarmatia (the region on the north shore of the Black Sea), the Romans were impressed by the skill of the Sarmatian cavalry and, in exchange for letting them live, conscripted them into the Roman army. The Sarmatian horsemen's descendants were similarly obligated from the age of 15 or so. Arthur's knights have spent their adult lives in Britain and are about to receive their release from service.
The plot of the movie centers on the Saxon invasion and an alliance between Arthur's knights and the Celtic raiders (called Woads) led by Merlin and his daughter Guinevere (played by the HOT HOT HOT Keira Knightley - sp?). The alliance is supposed to be a desperate breakthrough after decades of conflict between the Romano-Britons and the Woads, but the movie doesn't really develop that tension very well. It's just like we're told the Woads were Arthur's enemy for years, then all of a sudden after a conversation with Merlin one night (and some flirtaiton with Guin), they're fast friends.
I hesitate to delve into historical accuracy issues because Arthur is a legend rooted only in the faintest sense to history. But since this movie aims to portray the historical Arthur, it's fair game. I'm no expert on that era, but the armor and weapons and style of combat seemed right to me. Arthur wears Roman-style armor, and his knights wear armor with a much more Eastern look, as appropriate to their origins. The Woads look and fight a lot like the Celtic warriors of MTW (except they are archers as well as sword-fighters). The Saxons rely on huge spearman and axeman units and a fair number of archers.
If you see this movie, keep the PG-13 (US) rating in mind when watching the battles. The battles looked good to me on a macro level. But when it gets down and dirty one on one, there's very little blood. You can tell when one fighter strikes a blow mostly by the other fighter's reaction; you don't see the point of impact that much, unlike in Braveheart, Gladiator and Troy. I read an article in Entertainment Weekly saying the director originally envisioned an R rating but was told by the studio at the last minute to make it PG-13. But apparently the R version will be available on DVD.
Anyway, back to historical accuracy. The movie tends to overstate Roman-Briton cultural divisions. Again, I'm no expert, but it's my impression that by this point, on the eve of the fall of Rome, the native culture of Britannia (south of Hadrian's Wall) had, at least to some extent, merged with the Roman culture. Old-time Celtic holdouts still populated modern-day Wales, Cornwall and Scotland, but I always thought that by 450 or so, the dominant culture in much of the area controlled by Rome could be described as Romano-British, ethnically and culturally more mixed like Arthur than the Roman lords he serves. The movie instead suggests that the Romans (wearing togas and speaking with vaguely Italian accents) were a very distinct, separate ruling class, with most Britons underfoot as pagan serfs. At one point the Roman bishop asks Arthur whether the Britons were Christian. He says they worship their own gods. I thought many of the Britons had converted to Christianity by the time of the fall of Rome, and the Britons (along with Irish missionaries) were responsible for converting the Anglo-Saxons.
The movie is also muddled on language. At first, Merlin and his Woads speak a Celtic tongue (the movie provides subtitles). Later, he and Guinevere are speaking English, like everyone else. I can understand not wanting the movie to drown in subtitles but if the movie otherwise emphasizes ethnic differences, its use of language and accents seems out of place. Arthur and his knights speak with sort-of modern British accents, as do the British serfs. Merlin has a vaguely Celtic accent but Keira sounds almost the same as she does in Pirates of the Caribbean. As I mentioned, the Roman overlords sound sort of Italian-ish. The Saxon chieftain almost sounds American (), but his son and deputy, and the rest of the Saxons, sound very German.
One last point on historical accuracy: I always thought the Romanized Britons had to fend of Pictish raiders as they also fought the Saxon invaders. An alliance between the Britons south of the wall and the Celts to their north somewhat defies credibility. But it's absolutely central to the plot, such that there is one, so I guess it's forgivable.
One great thing is the use of landscape. The scenes (filmed in Ireland, I believe) are stunning and run the scope of seasons and weather.
Don't go in expecting a compelling or heart-rending storyline like in Gladiator or Braveheart. The plot basically consists of small battle in the beginning, bigger battle in the middle, and very big battle at the end. The movie offers little backstory and character development seems fairly contrived and superficial.
The acting is decent, overall, in light of what they were given to work with. Clive Owen does a pretty good job portraying a noble, charismatic, but conflicted Arthur. Keira actually is more than just eye candy - she plays the Dark Age warrior princess pretty well. Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot seems underutilized. You can tell he's a good talent but his character, as written in this movie, doesn't provide enough opportunity to show that. The guy who plays Bors is hilarious. Merlin, disappointingly, is given no chance to be anything more than 2-dimensional. The Saxons are mindless invaders - no depth to their characters whatsoever. Arthur's other knights aren't developed much as characters.
But anyone on these forums would appreciate the movie anyway, given the timeframe and (IMHO) good battle scenes. It's generally worth the $9 to see it in the theater rather than waiting for the DVD but don't expect a story for the ages. Better yet, see this one in the theater but look forward to the R version on DVD, which is what the director had in mind in the first place and, therefore, is probably a better movie as a whole (and not just for the sake of more blood).
To sum up:
Good: battles, Keira, weapons, Keira, landscape, Keira.
Bad: story and character development.
Mixed: historical accuracy
Overall: * * * (out of 5)
Reply With Quote
. i liked it more than brave heart though
Originally Posted by [b
Bookmarks