"Johnny Betts is a rude 'abnoxious' jerk who needs to be 'punced' in the face."- A grammatically-challenged non-fan
	Movie Review - King Arthur     (What this rating means)       Director: Antoine Fuqua Starring: Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, and Keira Knightley Rated: PG-13 (for intense battle sequences, a scene of sensuality and some language) Length: 130 minutes Genre: Historical Epic Website: King Arthur PLOT After winning freedom from their servitude to Rome, the Knights join Arthur in a final battle against the Saxons for; you guessed it, more freedom. This time, Britain's freedom is on the line, but apparently it's only important to a few hundred people on either side. An attempt to place Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table into a historical context ensues. JOHNNY'S TAKE If you're pretty excited about seeing "King Arthur," then I hate to break it to you but you're probably gonna be disappointed. I'm a big King Arthur fan. Well, I was in high school, anyway. But I still have such a fondness for the legend (I loved "The Once and Future King"), that I was quite interested in seeing how this movie would treat Arthur in a historical context. After seeing it, the most excited response I could come up with was, "Oh. That's how. Huh." "King Arthur" isn't a bad movie (as a lot of critics are saying), but unfortunately it's just not as good as it could've been. It's not as emotionally involving as it should be, and it's not as thought-provoking as it pretends to be. Folks, I liked to be grabbed. Well, except for that time at my old job that resulted in a class action lawsuit against my former boss, but that's a different story. When I see a historical epic, I want the characters to really pull me in and convince me to root for them. This just didn't grab me and convince me to hammer in a few emotional stakes. Well, I did get emotionally involved quite a few times, but it doesn't really help much when the emotion that is actively participating in the movie is boredom. And by "actively participating" I mean my eyelids were pretty active as they'd start to close and I'd force myself to open them again. "King Arthur" just needed more action! Oh there's a whole lot of chanting and a lot of bows and arrows, and there are long sequences of warriors just standing around, moving slowly, and looking at each other over fields. Oh yeah, and some slow motion and smoke are thrown in for that extra special Arthurian feel. But that space would have been better filled with A FEW MORE BATTLE SCENES!! Yeah, yeah, you all want freedom. Blah, blah, blah. Mel Gibson said it better in "Braveheart" so please shut up and START FIGHTING! The battle scenes that are actually in the movie are good - particularly the one where the Saxons were walking on a frozen lake, but there are just not enough of them. My main gripe is that the movie didn't refer to the legend as much as I would have liked. I know, I know, this is supposed to be based on "the man who inspired the legend," but let's be honest - very little is known about the actual Arthur. So I think a little more creative license could've been employed. Excalibur receives a tip of the hat, and Merlin has a short little cameo (and it is quite annoying that there are about 10 guys who look like Merlin thus making it hard to keep track of who everybody is), but other than that the entire legend of King Arthur is ignored except for character names. Lancelot, who is a fierce warrior in the legend, is not given near enough to do. I figured he'd have at least one monstrous individual fight with someone, but nope, it never happened. This characterization of Lancelot certainly wouldn't have resulted in the legendary character we all know and love. Clive Owen does do a pretty good job as Arthur though. And Keira Knightley is as hot as always. Oh, and when will a movie portray Lancelot as he really was - UGLY! In the movies he's always portrayed as some good-looking charmer, but the legend basically says he looked like a monkey. Oh well, I guess no one really wants to see Chris Kattan as Lancelot. Despite what my review may lead you to believe, I actually enjoyed "King Arthur." Somewhat. I'm not sorry I saw it or anything, but I'm mostly disappointed in the fact that it just never reached its full potential. Placing the Arthur legend in a historical context ended up being less interesting than I was hoping it would be. In "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," the character of Maxwell Scott tells James Stewart, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." This is advice that I hope future tellings of the King Arthur story will stick to. ODDS & ENDS Laurence Fishburne, Stephen Baldwin's co-star in "Fled," narrates the teaser trailer. Michael Bay (The Rock, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor) was originally set to direct, but he left the project due to "budget concerns." Bay had reportedly developed the project for over 5 years. That's gotta hurt. The movie was filmed in Ireland. Female warriors of this time period (such as Guinevere) would've actually fought in the nude. Seems to me like a good way to distract the male warriors. "King Arthur" had a production budget of $130 million and a promotional budget of $40 million. I can honestly say I don't know where all the money went. This is indeed money not well spent. MAMA'S APPROVAL This isn't exactly for the kiddos, but there isn't too much to be offended by. The Knights make a few off-color comments to each other, as drunken warriors might be expected to do. There is a scene of sexuality that contains no nudity, but parents will still probably want to hide their child's eyes. Some mild profanity is also used, but it's all stuff you can hear on network TV. The slow pacing will probably have the little ones restless, so this is best for those 13 and older. TRAILER COMPARISON The movie isn't as action-packed and emotionally involving as the trailer leads you to believe. THE GIST If you're looking for a great epic about Europeans fighting for freedom, then watch "Braveheart" again. If you're looking for a good movie about the King Arthur legend, then "Excalibur" is easily available. But if you have some time to kill, and you're dying of curiosity, then "King Arthur" will keep you moderately entertained. Make it a matinee though, or wait until it's at a second-run theater if you have the patience.	RETURN TO HOME PAGE Traitor Death Race Star Wars: Clone Wars The Dark Knight Journey to the Center of the Earth Hancock Get Smart The Incredible Hulk The Strangers Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Weekend Results: 1. Tropic Thunder($11,505,000) 2. Babylon A.D.($9,565,000) 3. The Dark Knight($8,615,000) 4. The House Bunny($8,300,000) 5. Traitor($7,800,000)

[ Home | Movie Reviews | Memphis Theaters | Movie Horror Stories | Media Musings | What's Wrong With People? | The Lobby ] Copyright © 2004 The Movie Mark. All Rights Reserved. No reproduction of these reviews or any of the original material on this site is allowed without prior permission from Johnny Betts. Comply or suffer the consequences of Johnny's size 11 biker boot. Wanna be a Movie Mark? Send Johnny Betts an email (johnny_betts@hotmail.com) to be added to the list or complete: The Movie Mark Questionnaire. IQ-100 READERS WITH DOUBLE DIGIT IQS STRONGLY CAUTIONED Some Humor May Be Too Sophisticated For People With Sub-100 IQs INTENSE HUMOR AND SEXY REVIEWING