 |
 [an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
|
|
directed by Antoine Fuqua; (2004)
Review by Kendra Boggs
Film Rating:
|
King Arthur had a potentially GREAT set up, and they turned it into a bad story.
I was surprised at the premise. I sort of expected it to go the route of most King Arthur movies. Instead, it goes the "this is the true story of King Arthur" (no magic) road. Not exciting so far. But apparently there is historical speculation about an Auther, or Autorius (Roman or European soldier in the Roman military), who was in charge of a group of Samatian soldiers also under the umbrella of the Roman military. The Samatians were supposed to be bad asses. Anyway, the movie is about Arthur, who is half Britian / half Roman, and his band of Samatian soldiers. It takes place when Rome is pulling out of Britian because they don't have the resources to keep control. What makes it interesting is that there are all these groups waiting to take over Britian as soon as the Romans pull out. It's mainly the Woads (led by Merlin) versus the Saxons, and everyone versus the Romans. Then there are the Samatians, who speculate that they could be kings of their own villages as soon as they receive their discharges from Rome, and Rome retreats from Britain. This is such a great set-up; makes me think of the Bosnia area when the Soviet Union fell apart, and Afganistan when the Soviets pulled out. King Arthur has to unite Britian after Rome pulls out.
Of course they blew it. King Arthur was like a bad made-for-TV movie. So bad (even down to the lighting) that I'm surprised it even made it to movie theatres, let alone that it received the marketing that it did. I mean, there are bad movies that come out--Troy, for instance--but I can see why something like that makes it to movie theatres. This just didn't have the production quality to be on the big screen. And then there was the story. . . .
Great premise--and potential--but the story was like a winding river that goes nowhere. We don't see Arthur unite Britian, we don't really know who the Samatians are or why they're fighting, we're not sure exactly who the Saxons are and why they are fighting, other than the fact that they're stock bad guys. The Samatians never go and get their own fiefdoms, although they talk about it in the beginning of the movie. Excalibur is revered by the Woads but we don't know why, nor does Excalibur play any part in the story. So why mention it at all? So sad. I wish, really wish, I could have had this premise and written a script for it. Besides the problem that the story goes nowhere, the Romans don't pull out of Britain until the end of the movie. They should have pulled out in the first fifteen minutes so that it could have been about the civil/guerrilla war and Arthur's struggle to power.
This review was written by Abby's friend, Kendra Boggs.
|
|
|
|
All material Copyright © 2024 Abby Goldsmith, except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved. No part of this may be reproduced or reprinted without prior written permission from the author. Document updated: 05 September 2016 - 17:39:40 |