King Arthur

Hans Zimmer has already elevated many good films to unforgettable and many mediocre ones to decent. And no movie can be as grateful to him as King Arthur, which without his brilliant musical accompaniment would have remained just a story trimmed of magic with a historical subplot. Instead, it has become a decent historical spectacle, in which Clive Owen clearly dominates the acting, with his Arthur being a dignified and courageous leader even in civilian form. 70% - a bit shaky, but otherwise quite positive. (10/04/2007)

An interesting idea to approach the legend of Arthur, trying to imagine how it might have been in reality. Unfortunately, the screenplay is the greatest weakness of the movie, which could have been saved by the director, if he weren’t the second weakest link here. A movie that isn’t fundamentally bad, just dime-a-dozen in all respects. The only significant plus point here is Zimmer’s music, despite being adapted from things he wrote before this, but still it works well in this movie. (01/02/2005)

Children playing in a sandbox and I’m glad to join them. Because there is always something smoking spectacularly and Zimmer’s music is more heroic than in The Rock. And because the kids include Keira Knightley and Clive Owen, who are a joy watch even if they are reciting Shakespeare while wearing clown noses. King Arthur is the most endearing bad movie in at least a year. I highly recommend the Director’s Cut, which is significantly bloodier. (08/08/2004)

Placing the Arthurian legend into a "historical" framework is simply ridiculous, and not even Keira with her small breasts can help it. This is an incredibly boring movie that only shows how Hollywood tries to turn anything into a modern action. There is also an attempt to add depth, but it fits about as well as a soccer ball in a golf hole. (31/03/2015)

I watched the director's cut version, so I have no idea how much the cinema version is different, either for the better or the worse. For fans of, for example, Boorman’s classic, this is not it. The filmmakers have trampled on the established mythology as much as possible, completely removing its attractive mythical elements and creating a pseudo-historical patchwork that is completely out. This film could have been called “Frank Smith” and it would have been the same. Looking back from this sad reality, what is left filmmaking-wise? The first half is surprisingly passable. The opening brutal and solidly bloody battle is inviting, the winter scenes are beautifully atmospheric, the dialogue doesn't drag, Clive Owen is a very charismatic guy, and Stellan Skarsgård's long wig and beard really suit him. But as the Saxons approach the defensive wall, the film slides into kitsch and unbearable pathos, and some scenes raise the question of whether the filmmakers really meant it. If it wasn't for a botched last act, I'd be willing to go to three*. Otherwise the production design, an essential ingredient of any proper historical spectacle, isn't great, you can't really see the 120 million. (23/01/2005)