King Arthur(2004)- User Reviews

Like everything Jerry Bruckheimer touches, "King Arthur" is a cliche-driven waste of film that tries to make up for bad acting (especially you, Clive Owen), under-written characters, and plot holes that you could drive a winnebago through by having the characters pose and shout a lot. There really is only one battle scene--when Arthur and friends confront the Saxons on a frozen river--that was genuinely exciting. The rest--especially the last battle, which is so strategically awful that a third-grader could have outfoxed Arthur's brilliant plan--is second rate at best. And the final moment when Arthur howls to God about how wrong it is that so many of his knights have died, I couldn't help thinking that contrary to most Arthurian legends, most of his knights actually lived. And the ones who died--except for one, during the before-mentioned battle on the frozen river--died rather implausibly.

This movie actually reminded me a lot of "Windtalkers" (although Jerry Bruckheimer had no part in the latter), because it seeks to replace plot, common sense, and depth with cardboard-thin drama. What's perhaps most disappointing, though, is that at certain times, "King Arthur" shows promise. The leader of the Saxons, in particular, is an engaging character with infinitely more depth than most of the knights combined. Plus some of the visuals are good. But overall, this movie falls short of any other Arthurian movie, except the truly nauseating "First Knight".