Review: King Arthur(2004)

I know this is a bit of an oldie now, but the thought of getting to see Keira Knightley (as a very lovely Guinevere) in a skimpy Celtic outfit (as promised in the poster) shooting arrows into people… well it was just too much to resist!

I’d never heard of this film before now, not sure why, it just flew under the radar for me. It’s a reimagining of the Arthurian legend set a number of years before Arthur was supposed to have existed (if he existed) and claims to be based on archaeological evidence (very tentative archaeological evidence at that). This plonks the film firmly in Roman times, suggests Arthur (aka. Artorius Castus (played by the actor Clive Owen) ) was a Roman commander leading a military force of Sarmatian cavalry in Britain, and in particular in the defense of Hadrian’s wall.

His job is made all the more difficult by the Woads, mysterious Celtic people who resist the Roman occupation and make life tougher for Arthur in much the same way as the historic Picts were a well known pain for the romans. Since the film-makers had to work him in somewhere, the mysterious leader of the Woads is none other than Merlin.

Arthur’s knights are all happily waiting for their 15 year discharge, when a pompous official from Rome turns up and asks for one last favor on the day of their supposed discharge. Reluctantly they agree to go and rescue the Pope’s god-son from a horde of invading Saxons. As A and his team rush up, the Saxons soon descend on the boy’s estate far outside the wall (why the pope put his favorite godson way out there is never fully explained) and it becomes a race against time. This is the setting, I shan’t spoil it by revealing more. Suffice to say it sounds exciting writing it like that. If only that was the case!

I loved this film and I enjoyed it very much in a very strange kind of way. Unfortunately I couldn’t sit and watch it all the way through. I had to take it in three sittings. It’s not that it’s boring in a particularly bad way, because if it had been then I would never have resumed watching it and this review would never exist, but it does seem to have the kind of pacing to it that I’ve not experienced since I was a child, watching the action movies of the 80s.

There is a lot of action in it, but not in the first half. The first half has one initial battle, then lots and lots of talking, riding, meeting, philosophical discussions, character building, journeying, meeting, family, meeting, drinking, arguing, riding, meeting, journeying, social work, problem solving, ideological debate, joking, rowdy banter, more riding, some sparks between a couple of the characters, and hints at a potential love triangle.

It’s not that I need battles, I don’t, but to get away with the lack of battles something else needed to be done with the pacing. Then after all the elements of the film being fleshed out in the first half or so, the end is just non stop mayhem.

The pacing is problem is in part soothed by the very talented Keira Knightley, who appears just in time to save the film from the impending doom of absolute boredom and helps us keep our head above water through to the end. I’ve been infinitely impressed by her acting talent ever since Pirates of the Carribean, and suffice to say she didn’t disappoint. The rest of the cast are all excellent in their respective roles, but there’s just too many knights of the round table it’s hard to pick anything out to say about each of them.

I particularly loved the concept for the film as being a depiction based (loosely) on evidence, of Arthur being a Roman commander. I found that the legend in that kind of context makes a lot of sense. All in all this is a good film which I would recommend to anyone, so long as they are aware of the pacing so they don’t kill you afterwards. Well worth trying.