Hate is such
an ugly word.
But. It's true.
I hated this film. I hated nearly everything
about this film...I hated the revamped, though
possibly more historically accurate
storylines...I hated the vast majority of the
performances...I hated the Bruckheimer
touches...I hated the Fuqua touches...I hated
the script and the dialogue and the glossy but
oddly irritating production design....oh, and
the musical score...God, how I hated the score.
Quite simply, I hated this film.
This is a film where I have to "practice what I
preach." I have to recognize this film has
positive production traits...and wonderful
things about it even though I didn't necessarily
care for them. So, despite the fact that I truly
hated this film I cannot and will not fail it.
Despite the fact that I recognize positive
things about this film, however, I will say that
for me it is an utter failure.
I am not necessarily troubled by the unique
storyline...the different approach to "King
Arthur."
Indeed, the whole "King Arthur" has often
received quite the royal, mystic treatment over
the years and this film offers a more humanized
story to balance the legend. Yet, as admirable
as the approach may be it is accompanied by
ludicrously uncomfortable dialogue,
incomprehensibly poor character development and
forced chemistries. If a filmmaker chooses to
alter the course of a legend, then that same
filmmaker has a responsibility to do so in a
whole and complete way. This approach felt very
artificial much of the time.
Likewise, the film is plagued by substandard
performances...most notably, Clive Owen as King
Arthur himself. I have found myself more
interested while listening to mental health
clients with IQ's of 20 screaming "You can't
make me" at the top of their lungs for hours at
a time than I was listening to Owens' simply
awful performance of stilted dialogue.
Keira Knightley fares better as Lady Guinevere,
though with the redone storyline I found myself
less involved. Generally, however, her
performance is solid and engaging.
The rest of the performances range from
caricatures to generally functional, though none
are developed enough to fully appreciate.
Perhaps the greatest strength of this film lies
in its fight scenes, themselves the primary
diversion from the original "King Arthur"
legends as portrayed on film. These scenes,
while unique, are well filmed, choreographed and
suspenseful.
"King Arthur" had a disappointing take of just
over $51 million at the US box office, though by
the time international receipts and DVD receipts
are done I'm sure it will recoup most, or all,
of its $90 million budget. In a year when a film
of such intelligence and beauty as "Garden
State" garners under $30 million at the box
office, it causes my heart to ache to see such
tripe as this film even break even. There's a
gross injustice there.
I grew up enchanted by the legend of "King
Arthur" and I was excited to see this film
receive a big budget film opportunity. Sadly,
this opportunity was wasted. Beyond the few
positive production values presented, this is a
film devoid of soul largely due to horrid
dialogue, inadequate character development and
the simply God-awful performance of Clive Owen.
Now, excuse me while I go watch "Camelot" again.
©
Written by Richard Propes
TC Candler's Comment
I was just
slightly indifferent to this film. I
actually liked Clive Owen and Keira Knightley,
but felt like the story was drearily presented.
I blame the director for underwhelming with
wonderful source material.
Jacob
Hall's Comment
N/A
