 | |
List Price: $19.99 | | Label: Touchstone / Disney
Salesrank: 14714
Released: December 21, 2004 |
| Our Price: $5.14 |
| Used Price: $0.65 |
|
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
The producer of PEARL HARBOR and the director of TRAINING DAY deliver an immensely thrilling adventure epic that tells the heroic true story behind one of history's greatest legends! It is the valiant tale of Arthur (Clive Owen) and his bond of brotherhood with Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) and the loyalty of the Knights Of The Round Table as they fight for freedom and those they love. Also starring Keira Knightley, this spectacular motion picture fuses historical grandeur with edge-of-your-seat action and bestows must-see entertainment!
Description of King Arthur (PG-13 Full Screen Edition):
It's got a round table, some knights, and a noble warrior who rises to become King Arthur, but everything else about this revisionist legend is pure Hollywood. That's not such a bad thing if you enjoyed Rob Roy, Braveheart, Gladiator, and Troy, and there's some intriguing potential in presenting the "real" Arthur (played by Clive Owen) as a 5th-century soldier of Rome, assigned to defend Roman-imperial England against a hoard of invading Saxons (led by Stellan Skarsgård in hairy villain mode). As revamped history and "archaeological findings" would have us believe, Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is a warrior babe in face-paint and Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is a nonentity who fades into the woodwork. Never mind! Best to enjoy the harsh, gloomy atmosphere of Irish locations, the ruggedness of Owen and his hearty supporting cast, and the entertaining nonsense of a Jerry Bruckheimer production that strips battle-ready Guinevere down to leather-strap S&M gear while all the men sport full-body armor. Hail to the queen, indeed! --Jeff Shannon
King Arthur (PG-13 Full Screen Edition) Reviews:
The Theatrical Cut of "King Arthur" 
2008-11-05 - Anybody who knows anything about the history of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table in the cinema knows that English director John Boorman staged the best version of the Arthurian myth in 1981 in his classic sword & sorcery saga "Excalibur." Before "Excalibur" set the gold standard, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer produced as their first widescreen film "Knights of the Round Table" (1953) in blazing Technicolor with Robert Taylor and Ava Gardner. The 1967 musical "Camelot" featured Richard Harris as Arthur and Vanessa Redgrave as Guinevere and the serviceable 1995 Sean Connery/Richard Gere swashbuckler "First Knight" both deserve honorable mention. Any of these four, however, would eclipse the latest rehash of the Arthur legend. Not only do "Training Day" director Antoine Fuqua, "Gladiator" scripter David Franzoni and "Pearl Harbor" producer Jerry Bruckheimer strip the luster off the legend in their new movie "King Arthur" (** out of ****), but also they forego full-blown fantasy for half-baked fact. Based on 'recent archaeological findings,' Fuqua, Franzoni and Bruckheimer have revised the fable, so they can tell 'the untold true story that inspired the legend' in their tedious, long-winded, grimy, 130-minute mishmash of British mythology. Romance takes a back seat to the shoddily choreographed action sequences, and to preserve a PG-13 rating the filmmakers could only show blood on the combatant's swords. This time around Merlin appears as a wise elder with zero magical powers, while Guinevere emerges as a feisty battle maiden dressed up as a dominatrix packing a sword or a bow in either hand. Despite its mostly-Brit cast led by actor Clive Owen in a sterling performance as Arthur and "Black Hawk Down" lenser Slawomir Idziak's atmospheric cinematography, "King Arthur" does everything wrong in its misguided effort to create a new, different, and more realistic Arthur.
"King Arthur" concerns itself with the roots of the Round Table. In this handsomely produced but hackneyed hokum, we learn that the mythical Arthur owes everything to a real person who lived back in the Dark Ages during the Fifth Century. This Arthur (Clive Owen of "Beyond Borders") is a Roman officer in command of an elite cavalry unit consisting of guys from Sarmatia (somewhere near the modern Republic of Georgia in Europe) who made a pact with Marcus Aurelius to serve in his army for fifteen years. Imagine a gritty, down-to-earth "Magnificent Seven" as knights on horseback, and you'll have an idea what to expect. As the story unfolds, our heroes await their walking papers as Arthur discusses terms with Roman Bishop Germanius (Ivan Marescotti of "Hannibal"). The Bishop cooks up a last-minute suicide mission for Arthur and his knights that requires them to cross Hadrian's Wall and liberate a Roman family living on a farm in the middle of enemy country. The savage Saxon hordes, like the Apaches in a western, are descending from every quarter, and the Romans are pulling out, so the Bishop needs somebody expendable. After Arthur and his knights reach the farm, they discover the slimy Roman has natives holed up in a dungeon where he tortures them in the name of the Vatican. A wizened shaman named Merlin advises these rebellious Woads, and Guinevere (Keira Knightley of "Pirates of the Caribbean") is one of them, locked up and tormented until Arthur sets her free. Now, our heroes must escort this motley crew through treacherous territory with the murderous Saxons breathing down their necks every inch of the way.
The chief problem with "King Arthur" lies in David Franzoni's dreadful screenplay. The rescue mission on which Arthur and the knights embark resembles an uninspired 1950's era cavalry western. Interestingly, the rescue recalls Fuqua's lackluster last opus "Tears of the Sun" with Bruce Willis. In "King Arthur," Franzoni and Fuqua make the fatal mistake of taking themselves far, far too seriously. Not even actor Ray Winstone's churlish character Bors can redeem "King Arthur." As a chivalrous Round Table Knight, Bors is a poorly dressed shaven-headed lout with several illegitimate children who threatens to marry their mother. Fuqua and company play Bors largely for laughs. Using crude contemporary slang, Bors becomes the first on-screen knight to carp about the need to urinate. Hans Zimmer's dirge-like orchestral music hangs tragically over the ponderous action. Fuqua should stick to helming urban thrillers like "The Replacement Killers" and "Training Day," because he cannot orchestrate epic battle sequences. The larger-than-life battle between our heroes and the villainous Saxons on an iced-over lake lacks dramatic intensity, though the underwater shots bolster the suspense. Watching Keira Knightley triumph over opponents twice her size in combat stretches credibility to the breaking point. Meanwhile, the underwritten characters of Gawain, Tristan and Galahad spend most of their time on the periphery of the action, while the heavy-handed historical exposition bogs down the action. Stellan Skarsgard doesn't make much of an impression as the villain through his bearded face and whispered dialogue. Franzoni pulls a surprise that cannot be revealed without spoiling the plot. Believe me, when it happens, you will feel cheated. As for the love triangle involving Guinevere, Arthur, and Lancelot, "King Arthur" leaves it out! In their quest for a more historically accurate interpretation of the Arthurian legend, the people who made "King Arthur" strive to live down the legend. (Note: This review applies to the theatrical release, NOT the director's cut that struck me as being marginally better.)
Tristan without Iseult, Merlin without magic 
2008-11-04 - I've seen this film countless times, and have yet to tire of it. Excellent cast -- I always like Ray Winstone, and it's a nice introduction to Mads Mikkelsen -- great action scenes (I like Clive Owen's one-handed sword flip from a galloping horse), good story. I think the aspect that appeals to me is seeing these characters in a different light; Tristan without Iseult, Merlin without magic. I enjoy imagining the characters as real people, and not just romantic figures from fable and myth. I see a lot of comments about historical accuracies and inaccuracies, but I think films like this only inspire further learning. What can I say, I love this one.
An entertaining medieval feast. 
2008-10-25 - Antoine Fuqua gives the untold true story of King Arthur with a gripping story of the Roman who lived in England (Britan back then) at the time when the Saxons were invading. Clive Owen gives a great performance as the brave Arthur and Keira Knightley as Guinevere, with Ray Winestone, Ioan Gruffudd and Stellen Skarsgård is very effective as Saxon leader Cedric.
The extras include a brief round table discussion with cast and crew. It's interesting to see and hear producer Jerry Bruckheimer, director Antoine Fuqua, stars Clive Owen and Keira Knightly share their insights and anecdotes about the film-making process and their characters. The Director's cut is more satisfying and more entertaining than the original cut shown in the cinemas.
Antoine Fuqua has director a great movie that is the type that is barely revisited these days by directors. He passes with flying colours and makes an enjoyable and entertaining movie, well worth the dollars.
Would be good if it weren't billed as King Arthur
2008-10-16 - It would have been good if it hadn't been billed as the true story of King Arthur. If it had been about someone else and they had left the story of King Arthur alone, it would have been at least entertaining. As it was, I would classify this on my list of biggest wastes of time.
a much grittier & 'real' King Arthur than the Camelot version
2008-10-11 - I loved this movie. Clive Owen's portrayal of King Arthur gave it an Earthy, realistic feeling you don't get in other movies on the figure like 'Excaliber' (which I also loved but in a different way). Keira Knightley's Gwenevere is animalistic & raw, just like the setting this movie was shot in, & Arthur's knights are true gritty warriors, not the typical chivalrous knight in shining armor they were portrayed as in most other movies about Camelot & the knights of the round table.
In terms of picture quality for Bluray, I'd say you could probably get away with this movie on DVD & still get the same visual experience, but either way this movie is definitely worth having in your collection.
