King Arthur: Extended Unrated Edition

So what is it about Arthurian literature that captures the hearts of so many? Surely it can't be simple escapism; poems, legends, literature, stories, and, within the last century, films offer an easy "escape" from the mundane, and have done so in continuous succession for centuries. King Arthur and his legendary Knights of the Round Table offer up something somewhat more compelling than your basic heroic legends; they presented an ideal which defined the hero, rather than the opposite. The notion of chivalry balanced might with justice, prowess with mercy, loyalty with courtesy, and the decisiveness of steel with the openness of compassion. Arthur and his Knights were paradigms of selflessness, dedicating themselves to country, church, unification and justice throughout Britain. They were a group of individuals, often disappearing from Camelot for months or years on end on individual quests, yet they were part of a singular collective that always remained stronger and more potent than any of them as individuals.

Well, except for maybe Lancelot, but I'm not going to split hairs here.

There have been numerous retellings of the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Table Round. One can go back to the ancient Welsh tales of The Mabinogion, which contain some of the earliest Celtic recountings of Arthuriana, and find a completely different tale than that spun in Geoffrey of Monmouth's phoney-baloney Historia Regum Britanniae. In Geoffrey's work, Arthur is contextually presented within the heroic sphere of the Aenead, a continuation of the Roman line of succession that emanates out of the pages of antiquity. Here we begin to see some of the Arthurian trappings take root, such as Merlin, Bedivere, Kay, Avalon, Morgan Le Fay, and Caliburn, Arthur's legendary sword.

My personal favorite stories of Arthurian lore are Chrétien de Troyes magnificent Arthurian Romances, a collection of French tales that were adapted to entertain the Norman court. Within the span of a few beautifully written romantic tales, de Troyes introduced Lancelot, Perceval, Yvain and his Lion, the Holy Grail, and Camelot to Arthurian canon.

But the only real "definitive" Arthurian text is Sir Thomas Mallory's classic Le Morte D'Arthur, the epic culmination of all Arthurian concepts into a single unifying tale: from the exploits of Uther Pendragon, Arthur's sneaky Dad, to Arthur's childhood, ascendancy, victory against the Saxons at Badon Hill, reign in Camelot, downfall at the hands of his wife Guenevere and best knight Lancelot, and transport to Avalon after his death. Mallory's book has become the primary text from which all future retellings of Arthurian legends sprung: T.H. White's Once and Future King - a post-war British re-imagining of the legend - is directly influenced by Mallory; Mallory himself makes a cameo appearance in the final chapter as 'Tom'. Furthermore, John Boorman's Excalibur - which is easily the best cinematic adaptation of the Arthurian legend ever, bar none - is a direct descendent of Mallory.

The tales of Arthur and his knights are filled with excitement, color, romance, danger, fantasy, jubilation, heartbreak, and the hope of redemption. They exist, not in our realm, but in a world of fantasy, and four-color idealism. They aspire to present a world free of mundane concerns, petty squabbles, and the broken promises of adolescent daydreams. They are truly larger than life because they demonstrate the potential of Camelot within each individual.

So why do contemporary filmmakers believe that what people really want to see is a historical reinterpretation of the Arthurian myth, "liberated" from its fantastical trappings and replete with slaps on the back that - at long last - we're finally getting something tangentially related to historical "truth"? Is anyone really begging for this? I suppose if the story were compelling enough that it would make for an entertaining film, but I have yet to see this successfully posed as cinema. Witness Jerry Zucker's dismal 1994 disaster First Knight, which stripped the legend of nearly all of its potency, removing Merlin, the magical and fantastical elements, and most of the "name" Knights, concentrating solely on Sean Connery as Arthur, Julia Ormond as Guenevere, and Richard Gere (!) as Lancelot. Feh.

The latest attempt to realistically reconstruct the historical veritas of Camelot is King Arthur, the 2004 Antoine Fuqua/Jerry Bruckheimer collaboration which, based on box-office receipts alone, represented one of the biggest box-office busts of the year. With an estimated production budget of $120 million, the film grossed a paltry $51 million stateside (although it did capture a somewhat more impressive $150 million overseas, the combined grosses could barely cover the studio's investment before ancillary revenues kick in.) Fresh of the success of the previous summer's Pirates of the Caribbean, Jerry Bruckheimer turned to Training Day helmer Antoine Fuqua to direct this adaptation of the legend.

The film is set in the Fifth Century. Arturius / Arthur (Clive Owen) is a Roman commander of the Samatian Knights, a dutiful officer dedicated to battling the barbarian Saxon hordes, led by the villanous Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgård), in the Roman outpost of Britannia. Rome, in the throes of its decline, has decided that Britannia is simply more trouble than it's worth, and is withdrawing from its occupation of the island. The Woads, a native clan of Britons led by the mysterious Merlin (Stephen Dillane), are also engaged in battle against the Saxon hordes, which make a habit out of burning, killing, and, perhaps even most horribly, scowling at anything in their path. Yes, they are one-dimensional villains just waiting for a group of good guys to take 'em on. Arthur allies with the Woads to battle the Saxons, but initially there is no love lost between them: Woads killed his family when he was a child, you see, yet Arthur is half British himself, and thus tied to the very land he both struggles against and vows to protect. Accompanying Arthur in his quest are his various knights: the brave Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), the brutish Bors (Ray Winstone, in a lively and enjoyable performance), and the valiant Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), and Tristan (Mads Mikkelson). He also makes the acquaintance of warrior princess Guenevere (Keira Knightley who, despite her top billing, doesn't appear in the film for nearly an hour), a Woad national with the archery prowess of a Tolkien elf and the come-hither appeal of a young Ruth Buzzi. Together, Arthur and his Knights, alongside Guenevere, Merlin, and the native Britons, unite to save Britannia from barbarian incursions and Roman oppression.

Generally, I found King Arthur to be somewhat rote and perfunctory, but it's far from the disaster that pundits pronounced it to be. I found Owen's performance in the titular role to be dark and austere, yet at all times commanding and charismatic. He's not the type of leader who inspires through words, flash, and promises, but through sheer intensity and presence. Knightley is an extremely talented actress and her performance here makes for an appealing character, but I don't quite buy her as Guenevere. The rest of the cast have their appeal, but most of them are hampered with some fairly hokey and unbelievable dialogue. There are more than a handful of cringe moments to be found here; "You and I are not the polite people who live in poems," Guenevere offers up to Arthur in one of the film's quieter scenes, a limply-written line limply delivered by Knightley. The film looks smashing enough: there's plenty of snow, mud, greenery, and countryside to make me earnestly believe that I am looking at England 1600 years ago. The battle scenes are certainly satisfactory and eschew excessive CGI in favor of more "in your face" realism. Yet I wonder why there's nothing here that matches the intensity and gravitas of Braveheart, a superior film that is self-consciously (and involuntarily) reflected throughout King Arthur. Heck, it's hard to discern how a battle on a frozen lake in this 2004 film is less thrilling and exciting than one from 1938 (Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky).

Still, the film moves at a decent clip, and has enough satisfactory thrills and excitement to fulfill the expectations of those who simply want to enjoy a passably entertaining costume epic/action film. The film opens with a lot of promise but generally seems to lose steam throughout its running time, and there is little (if any) emotional connection to any of the characters or situations going on here. King Arthur is an OK movie, but it's as disposable as drive-thru Chinese food. It looks good, it tastes good, and thirty minutes after consuming it, it's like it was never there.

The 135-minute version of King Arthur: Extended Unrated Edition is billed as the unrated "Director's Cut"; there seem to be about ten minutes of extra footage included in this version, with some extra violence and "intense action" to lend the film a grittier and less restricted feel.

The DVD

Video:

King Arthur: Extended Unrated Edition is presented in a widescreen aspect ratio of 2.35:1, and has been anamorphically-enhanced for your widescreen-viewing enjoyment. Given that this film is a new release from Disney, a pristine and immaculate-looking transfer is naturally expected. The transfer is good to very good, but it misses the mark on a number of measures. Fine image detail seems to be lacking, with overall sharpness levels varying across the map. Colors are strong and beautifully-rendered, accurately reproducing everything from the dismal gray winters, bright green rolling hills, and blue skies in a pleasing manner. There is an excessive amount of filtering to lend the picture a dark, earthy feel. However, I found a lot of unintentional murkiness to the picture, especially in low-lit scenes. Black levels were lacking in a number of shots, while grain structure pokes its way through the transfer. Contrasts in other scenes are rather striking: witness the confrontation between Merlin, Arthur, and Guenevere in the snow. Brilliant. Overall, the transfer is good but far from great, which can only be viewed as a slight disappointment.

Audio:

The audio is presented in a Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack, with a French language track for all you Continental types. There is a ton of bombast and aggression during many of the film's battle scenes, with the amount of enveloping immersion, LFE punch, and surround activity one would come to expect. Yet much of the soundtrack seems slightly subdued in comparison, but this is no fault of the mix; the film spends much of its running time in setup and exposition mode. Dialog sounds bright and clear in presentation, but much of the delivery is drawn in such dynamic undertones that I had to strain my ears, turn up my volume, or pop on the subtitles. Again, this is an "aesthetic" choice and not an inherent flaw. You'll find most of the action comes to life during the final battle: most of the pinpoint directionality and dynamic imaging is put on display during this time. This is where the soundtrack really shines.

Extras:

We start off our list of extras with an audio commentary with director Antoine Fuqua. An unlikely choice for a costume epic (Fuqua had previously directed Tears of the Sun, Training Day, and The Replacement Killers), Fuqua talks confidently and informatively for the film's entire running time. There are some silent spots throughout the commentary, but his comments are always of interest; he relates his own experiences to the film, its production, the cast, and the filming.

Next we have a feature entitled Blood on the Land: Forging King Arthur, an 18-minute documentary that examines the production of King Arthur that features footage from the film and interviews with the principal cast and crew. I found this feature to be a little bit too fluffy and altogether too short. Given the enormous amount of time and money that went into this production and given the 18-minute running time of this documentary, the entirety of the production is given only a cursory examination. Like the movie itself, this documentary is OK, often good, but just a little unsatisfying.

Moving right along, we find ourselves at the Cast & Filmmaker Roundtable, which runs around 15 minutes in length. Hey... "roundtable"... "King Arthur"… I just got that! Anyway, here we find the cast and filmmakers involved in a facilitative discussion about the film. Included are producer Jerry Bruckheimer, screenwriter David Franzoni, director Antoine Fuqua, actors Ioan Gruffudd, Clive Owen, Hugh Dancy, and Keira Knightley. This feature provides a more candid and refreshing look at the film, and was overall quite enjoyable.

We complete our tour of the extras with a four minute alternate ending video, a subtitle trivia track entitled "Knight Vision" which was somewhat entertaining and informative, a photo gallery, and the King Arthur XBox Game Demo. Also included on this disc are a THX Optimizer and some sneak peak trailers for The Life Aquatic and The Village.

Final Thoughts

Not a bomb or disaster, but not a great film either, King Arthur suffers from being a bit too earthy and by-the-numbers. It strives to be a sweeping historical epic, but it plays more like a really well-made television miniseries from Halmark (albeit with an extensively higher production budget.) It presents itself as the "True Story", but the movie feels somewhat hollow in its middle. Still, I can't say that I actively disliked the movie. It was, in the end, an OK flick. The cinematography, action, and the charisma of its cast went a long way in making up for the film's overall uneasiness. King Arthur is a well-dressed film with nowhere to go.

I wasn't blown away by the film's transfer; it was good, but not what one comes to expect from a major new release. However, the audio is quite satisfactory, and the DVD comes with a nice array of extras. Overall, I'm going to give King Arthur: Extended Unrated Edition is a mild Recommendation (or a strong Rent It , depending on your POV).