Her Take
By: Chastity N. Benavidez
The story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table are an elusive part of the development of British history. We have all learned tales of Excalibur, Sir Lancelot and his forbidden love affair with the beautiful Guinevere, and the famous Merlin. In the 2004 movie “
King Arthur,” it takes us of the time of chivalry and brutal sword combat that make great action
His Take
By: Juan Manuel Senties
Most of us as kids were told the stories of King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. These romantic legends are mentioned in various literary works of Britain and have the same basic structure and outline of how the story goes. The 2004 film “
King Arthur,” is not the conventional story everyone grew up with. This rendition has strayed from the legends, but that did not keep the movie from being
scenes. I must say the dialogue differed between each character, for the most part it held true to the setting , but there were some stray lines that would not be authentic for the time. The battle scenes were excellent and well executed, no pun intended. They can get a little graphic for the younger viewers but for the most part won’t make you cringe. Having a little back round information would help in the clarity of the plot but each characters was well introduced throughout the movie. One thing that bothered me was the intro that began with young Lancelot’s farewell from his village and family . I couldn’t understand the purpose of that scene when the movies later focus is on Arthur. The movie also didn’t stay consistent with the legend, not to give away the ending, but certain characters die that in tale should live play an important role in the remainder of the legend. Other than those few things, the characters were great and well played by each individual actor. I must say Keira Knightley portrayed Guinevere well as the strong, beautiful, and confident warrior that is depicted in the legend. The other actors were mainly English and unknown to the States. The music was crucial to feeling any emotion, and it nicely heightened each of the action scenes. Being the girl that I am, I must admit I shed some tears because of this. Overall it was a good movie, not really meant for the younger crowd. I would predict problems in a continuous lack of interest but it was a movie I did not regret seeing .
entertaining. The movie begins with the departure of Lancelot as a young teenager from his family and village to begin his training as a knight. It is explained that Lancelot’s blood line marks him as a successor of the legendary Sarmation knights whom serve the Roman Empire for a term of 15 years as their sons will as well. The movie fast forwards through time to see the knights all on the eve of their freedom watching an official Roman carriage as it travels to get to a great wall that separates northern and southern England. The carriage gets attacked by Woads, one of the native races of England whom have been fighting Rome for their land. The knights safely escort the carriage that carried the important Bishop Germanius (Ivano Marescotti) to the wall where he would give the knights their discharge papers. Instead of bringing immediate freedom, there was yet another final mission the knights had to undertake for Rome before their freedom would be granted. They ventured into northern England where Rome had not expanded their protection because of the strong but still minor threat race of the Saxons that ruled over that part of the land. A Roman family of great prestige and of great importance to the Pope lived in the way of the Saxons and were to be brought back to the wall. They reach the home and see all the serfs of the lord and being the noble man Arthur (Clive Owen) is he would not leave the entire community to the hands of the Saxons who were planning to invade the wall. In that town there they discovered an underground “chapel” where fanatical monks were torturing and raping pagan serfs of the lord of the house. Here we meet the beautiful Guinevere who immediately takes a liking to Arthur. The knights did have to fight the Saxons on the way back to the wall but were victorious and Guinevere proved herself quite able to put it mildly, most men should be that courageous. Upon their arrival at the wall they were freed and all of the Romans were returning to Rome and abandoning the British mainland. The eve of their departure the Saxons reached the wall and were camped out in front of it to wage war the following sunrise. Arthur, a British and Roman mix, was torn between returning to the Rome he had been envisioning for so many years and staying in his mother’s homeland. In an alliance with Merlin, the leader of the Woads, Arthur stays to protect the country. For love of their leader the remaining knights come to his side to fight for liberty and freedom. The movie ends with a victorious win against the entire Saxon army and Arthur is named king of Britain.
The dialogue for the most part was in context as far as setting and time period but occasional modern phrases popped up, not to mention what to me seemed like an unmistakable Southern drawl from Cedric (Stellan Skarsgard) the leader of the Saxons. The action in the movie was excellent, all the sword fighting was well done and the cinematography only enhanced that. The plot did make sense and was believable but since we all know the story a different way one may put that against this movie, but I enjoyed this interpretation very much. There were conflicts in the characters besides the obvious battle for the land between Arthur, the Woads, and the Saxons. Arthur’s relationship with his best friend Lancelot was strained because of Arthur’s beliefs and actions but was always controlled for their respect and love for one another. Guinevere and Arthur’s passion was also shown in a short but intense scene where they make love the night before the war. For being 2 hours and some odd minutes long it did not drag and kept focus the whole way through. The movie was set in Britain, so who other than British actors would one get for the parts. These actors did a superb job in the interpretation of their characters. Arthur was not the stereotypical hero which is very gallant and trumpet announced actions, he was very subdued and had presence to him which made his character all the more effective and convincing. The villain, Cedric, was portrayed well as a calm soft spoken Saxon that needed not to show fits of rage, he emanated evil and even a sadistic pleasure in the killing he did. The music was fitting to the movie both in style and period and enhancing the drama the movie had. King Arthur was not a bad movie, but was not an excellent movie, it could have been better in many ways but there is nothing significantly wrong with it
