So King Arthur was Italian (King Arthur (DVD))

Name: docpov

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	King Arthur (DVD)
Date:	10/10/06 (176 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: A different slant on the Arthur legend

Disadvantages: Maybe not what you were expecting

King Arthur, a name that brings to mind pictures of fairy castles and knights in gleaming suites of armour, mounted upon prancing white chargers doing war on the evil in the world. Images of court ladies dressed in long flowing gowns and wearing tall pointed hats. Fantasies of magic swords and magicians weaving their spells in the ultimate fight between good and evil.

This adaptation will shatter all those illusions or at least change the way you view the Arthurian myth.
I found the film to be more of a cross between Gladiator and The Three Musketeers, with a bit of Robin Hood thrown in for good measure.

What do I mean by that? I found this to be a swashbuckling adventure/ action film rather than the mystical Arthurian legend I had been expecting. The action of Gladiator is mixed with the “gung ho, against overwhelming odds” of the Three Musketeers with the virtuous heroic qualities of Robin Hood.


The film is set around Hadrians Wall in the final days of the Roman occupation of Britain.
Our hero, Arthur, or should I say Arturius as this Arthur is a half-Roman, half-Briton commander of a troop of elite cavalry in the Roman army. The troop consists of Salmation conscripts from the Russian steppes and is the best of the best.
This troop makes up the Knights of the Round Table and includes all the famous Arthurian names such as Lancelot, Gawain and Galahad.
Guinivere is portrayed as a feisty warrior woman in league with Merlin who is the leader of the Woads (the face painted warriors of the North.)
The setting is one of Roman estates and rough peasant housing in the shadow of Hadrian’s wall, all under a heavy winter sky that gives the whole thing a slightly dark atmosphere. The sweeping views of Hadrian’s wall and a Britain of sweeping grassland and dark forest are impressive and do add a touch of the epic.

The knights are about to be discharged from the Roman army; having served the 15 years that a peace treaty of their ancestors had forced them into. However the Bishop who is in charge of their release has one last mission for our heroes. This mission, to save a trapped Roman family on the wrong side of Hadrian’s wall is incredibly dangerous; it’s a mission that will bring about profound changes in the thinking of Arthur. Whilst on this mission Guinivere is rescued by the knights and so the link is formed. The eternal triangle between Arthur, Guinivere and Lancelot is touched on at various points but never grows into the love triangle of the earlier stories. Arthur is a devout Christian and this mission will shake his beliefs to the very core, dramatically changing the direction of his life.
The Romans start off fighting the Woads but the introduction of an invading Saxon army changes the positions of the protagonists somewhat.
The whole film is the story of how Arthur’s beliefs that shape his life are altered by unfolding events, eventually leading to his destiny.

One thing that I did find quite odd was the fact that the first part of the film dealt with the youth of Lancelot rather than Arthur whose youth is only very briefly touched upon. I suppose this was used as a vehicle to introduce the history of the knights and how they came to be in the Roman army. I did think that maybe more explanation of how and why Arthur was given the charge of this troop would have been helpful.

Who is in it?
Arthur- Clive Owen, put on a good rugged hero type performance.

Lancelot- Ioan Gruffordd, did seem to be vying with Clive Owen for who was actually playing the lead.

Guinivere- Kiera Knightly, Good as the leading lady, well virtually the only lady. Her costume at the end is strange to say the least.

Cerdic- Stellan Skarsgard, not an actor I had heard of but a fair performance as the ruthless leader of the Saxon army.


Merlin- Stephen Dillane. Merlin’s part was not huge but was well portrayed as a sort of cross between a warrior king and a witch-doctor.

Bors- Ray Winstone, anyone remember him as Will Scarlett in the Robin of Sherwood series? Well its that sort of rough and ready character, one that adds a touch of humour as well.

Galahad- Hugh Dancy, not the most macho knight but then I suppose all knights were not muscle-bound giants.

Tristan- Mads Mikkelsen, the one with the hawk which seemed to have a bigger part than Mads.

Dagonet- Ray Stevenson, The gentle giant bringing a touch of compassion to the proceedings.

Gawain- Joel Edgerton, Did seem to be there to make up the numbers but not a bad portrayal of the character.

The performances overall were not bad and helped the story to flow. I would not say that any of them will be up for Oscars for their performances but I found them perfectly watchable.

The other bits and pieces.

Jerry Bruckheimer who has brought us many memorable films produced the film. - Armmageddon, Pearl Harbour and Gone in sixty seconds well as the fantastic Pirates of the Caribbean to name but a few of his successes.
The director was Antoine Fuqua who was responsible for training day.
The music in the film was a soundtrack that sort of faded into the film. It was there but not at the forefront, which to my mind is how film music should be.
The film is a 12 Certificate (contains moderate battle violence and mild sex.)

There are two different versions of this film, this one and the director’s cut. I have seen both and must say that to my mind the director’s cut is a better film. Why? Well the violence is dramatically pared down in the theatrical version. Allowing for a 12 certificate whereas the directors cut is a 15 certificate. I possibly watched them in the wrong order; the directors cut first, as the theatrical version did not have the same impact after seeing the more violent version.

I am going to go against the critics and most people I know who have seen it by saying that I thought it was a good film, not what I was expecting but after a swift readjustment to my thinking I really enjoyed it. I think it is a clever attempt to put a different slant on a story that has been so overused over the years. They do say that it is based on fact, could be it is quite plausible after seeing the film. I think that is up to the individual viewer though. It is certainly more possible than the Arthur of legend, the Arthur of Excalibur and Avalon but whether it is a good thing to change the myth of one of this countries greatest heroes, I don’t know.

King Arthur is available at most DVD and video stockists, Amazon price £3.97, making it a real bargain couple of hours viewing in my book.

Summary: A different take on the Arthur legend. Maybe trying to find a firmer basis in history.