King Arthur

After watching Troy, I figured King Arthur would be much of the same - a semi-historical retelling of a legend, minus the fantastical elements. I was half right.

This is the King Arthur as historians imagine him to be. Not a thoroughly medieval knight, but a Roman military leader, struggling to retain control of Britain after the fall of Rome. Abandoned by his allies and surrounded on all sides by barbarians, Arthur must rally his infamous horsemen and apply Roman law to a lawless land.

Well, at least that's what the History Channel told me. There's more to the plot. However, the plot was difficult to understand because of the extremely poor sound quality of the film. The audio crew obviously had some challenges, since the majority of the action takes place outdoors. Everyone mumbles every line, such that important points are lost.

To wit, Artorius Castus (King Arthur, played by Clive Owen) is looking forward to releasing his Sarmatian foederati (his knights) from service after a long campaign of battling the natives. It's impossible to name who the natives are, because nobody ever pronounced their names clearly - research finally uncovered "woads," but for a long time I thought it was "vulgs" or "wolves" or "wrothes."

In addition, the Saxons lurk north of a great wall that divides the civilized Roman world in Britain from the barbarian-types. The Saxons are ill defined, looking a bit like Norse Vikings but not actually called Vikings. Which is odd, given that every other character tied to the Arthurian legend IS given his "proper" name, even when it makes no sense for said character to have said name.

Cerdric (Stellan Skarsgard) leads the Saxons, a Really Bad Guy ™. Or at least, he's supposed to be a bad guy. Instead, he settles for whispering every line in a gravelly voice that's supposed to convince us Cerdric, and indeed all the Saxons, are awful, wicked people who deserve to die.

With the Saxons on the move and the Woads getting bolder every day, Artorius just wants to go home. If this plot sounds familiar, it's because every semi-historical movie has been trying to capture the success of Gladiator, including mimicking the plot. It doesn't work here.

Unfortunately, a badly accented Italian bishop comes to deliver news that the knights have one more mission before they will be released back to Rome. It's a rescue mission to a governor's son, who is right in the path of the rampaging Saxons.

The Saxons are such bad guys that even the Woads, led by Merlin (Stephen Dillane), figure they have a better chance at uniting with the foreign occupation, so they decide to make peace with Arthur against a common enemy. It doesn't hurt that Guinevere (played by a wild-eyed Keira Knightley) improves Roman/Woad relations by sleeping with Arthur. Knightley plays Guinevere with wild-eyed abandon, a supposedly ferocious hellcat who can take out Saxons half-naked and with a thin sword. She simply doesn't have the physical presence to pull it off.

After rescuing the boy, Arthur and his knights are faced with a difficult choice: leave the land they now call home for a homeland they can barely remember, or fight and probably die to defend their new home.

There are so many knights who are all scruffy and dark-haired that they blur together. To help distinguish each character, they are given a fighting style and a weapon - none of which strive for even a smidgen of historical accuracy. One knight fights with spiked knuckles, another with two long swords, a third in a rapier style, another with a saber, one with a club, etc. None of this would be a problem if it weren't for the long text intro (and advertising) that proclaims this movie is based on historical fact.

For reasons that only the writers can explain, Sir Bors (Ray Winstone) is by far the most charismatic character and has the most lines - even more than Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd). Bors was a relatively minor character in Arthurian legend, but apparently his comic relief was sorely needed in a film that takes itself far too seriously.

Lancelot exchanges glances with Guinevere and there's plenty of jokes implying he's a womanizer, but no romance. Bors talks a lot about his own prowess in bed, his family, and his home. Galahad (Hugh Dancy) and Gawain (Joel Edgerton) argue with each other a lot (and since they're brothers, it often seems like one actor arguing with himself).

Throughout the story, we discover Arthur is a Christian and his knights are not. But even Arthur thinks a little differently - he follows the teachings of Pelagius, a Celtic monk who believed in free will. When Pelagius is banished excommunicated, Arthur seriously rethinks returning to Rome.

There's a lot of talk about religion and ethics in the treatment of the Woads, of prisoners, and the knights, but none of it is portrayed with any real emotion. The combat scenes are disjointed, probably to keep the movie to a PG-13 rating. At least Troy had the guts to go for an R rating and show combat in all its gory detail.

King Arthur has all the horrible attributes of First Knight, barely resembling the myth from which its characters are named. And yet it hides behind the accuracy of supposed historical research, which quickly falls apart upon examination (and watching the History Channel).

In the end, the most exciting scene is a battle against the Saxons on an ice-covered lake. Good stuff, certainly enough to be entertaining. But it could have been so much more.

King Arthur is like Troy without Brad Pitt. It has all the will and none of the acting ability, directorial talent, or plot to back it up.