Click Here For Our Interview with Keira Knightley

King Arthur

When I went to see this movie, I was under the impression that it was
going to be, yet ANOTHER rendition of this timeless classic (that, as far
as I’m concerned, has been done to perfection in Excalibur… holla!!!)

A few minutes into the movie, I was like, “hold on here… what the hell is this? Whoever is telling this story is telling it
wrong!!!”. I just hate a wrong rendition, or when they remake a movie
and destroy the facts, just to make it “a little more interesting for the
general public” (use a “whiny” voice). Or even when they put a fake-ass
love story in it, when one doesn’t really exist. Hey Hollywood, just tell
the effin’ story… or change the name of the story, as to NOT have it
represent the true story. (Whew… sorry about that, I’m just venting…
good thing I didn’t write the review for Troy or that bullsh*t X-Men).

Got side tracked, don’t get me started!!! Now, where was I… oh yeah…
I was into the first minutes of the movie and I turned to my people and
I’m like… “Arthur was a Roman???” (I felt like an ass upon hearing his
response… I think I started to hate on the movie after that, but it’s
all good… I’m much better now.)

Now before you see the movie, let’s get it straight…
The movie King Arthur deals with the “true” story of Arthur, (or
“Artorius," as was his proper Roman name) this is where they got the
legend of Camelot. But there’s no Sword In The Stone, no Lancelot-
Guinevere love story, and no Merlin in the way that we know him.
This story, they claim, comes from Celtic Poems, which were recorded
written documentations of history. OK, now we’re all on the same page…

This version of King Arthur was set in the time of the Roman Empire A.D., when their lands of conquest included Britian. Arthur (Clive Owen), half
Roman & half British, is the leader of this militia group of warriors, or
knights, sworn to the allegiance of the Roman Empire to defend their

territories.

Ya with me so far, well here’s a spin… Arthur’s “knights”, are all the
sons of enslaven (is that a word???) British men who lost their freedom to
Rome ages ago, after losing the battle that surrendered their territory.
Instead of death, various tribes of British warriors chose to surrender
their sons to serve in the Roman Army… kind of deep right??? This would
be Arthur’s case too, but ah… he’s half Roman.

As an aside, Arthur struggles with his beliefs and his loyalty to his
people. Meaning that he believes in Rome and the Roman way of life and
philosophy, but he also loves and is loyal to his men and his heritage,
which makes for a good man vs. himself conflict.

Now back to the story, Arthur (not a king at this point, only a Roman
officer) has a reputation throughout the empire that precedes him…
“Arthur is the only know leader who’s knights have NEVER lost a battle.”
Plus, he’s a great, inspiring, trustworthy, and fair leader, thus his men
would have no problem dying for his cause.

Re-entering the story, we’re set upon on the Knight’s last day of service,
in which, after this assignment his knights are to be discharged from the
Roman Army, as they have successfully served and completed their
commitment to Rome, and have therefore earned their freedom.

As they complete their “last” assignment, Arthur is confronted with a
bunch of BULLSH*T!!! He finds that before his men can be discharged,
they have to complete “one more” assignment, aptly more dangerous & life
threatening than that of any other they have taken previously. This is
where the story gets gooooooood.

On this “last & final” mission they must retrieve a diplomatic Roman
family, which consists of the Pope’s favorite Godson, from the midst of
enemy territory, with the enemy quickly enclosing, and return safely.

During this mission, they encounter *Guinevere (Keira Knightley), who’s
got a fiesty spirit and a bad-ass bow. She tries to convince Arthur that
he’s more British than Roman and that he should lead his own people, as
opposed

to following his Roman aspirations.

*I had a problem with this character. The acting was good,
but in all realism, were women really that “bad-ass” during
the days of the Roman Empire A.D. & would a man, no excuse me,
a “Roman Officier”, who already had a crack squad of knights,
really allow a woman to fight by his side… I mean, c’mon…
(there’s that “adding a love interest into the story plot for
the general public” bullsh*t).

Anyway, as far as the movie in general, there were some original battle
scenes that were exciting to see, like the “Ice Battle” scene (Fresh ta
Death)… And the battle strategies were even original and well executed.
As far as “one-on-one” battle scenes, they seemed believable and they
weren’t all “draaawwwwwn-out” like some ridiculous fight scenes, now that
was a plus.

On the flip-side, Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) was nothing of what I
remembered a “Lancelot" to be like, aside from the fact that he was
Arthur’s closest friend, he was just another knight. But his
acting was very believable. And some of the Knight’s names were of none
I remembered, like who the hell is “Bors”???

Final Note:
I can’t hate though, with all my little descrepancies, this movie was
kinda tight… although, this version of King Arthur was nothing of what
I’m used to seeing. But, now that I think about it, I know that I was only
exposed to the “fake” one, when in fact this is the “real” & “true” story
of Arthur (with no sarcasm, of course…).

In my opinion, it’s just another side of a “true” classic with fresh
faces, new and original battle plots/strategies, and some good humorous
parts. Say what you want to get people to go see a “remake”, with no
names, but… can’t hate, just can’t do it. I enjoyed this movie.

Movie Grade: B

*(S.O.S.N. – Sweezy’s Official Side Note)*
The cast consisted of a bunch

of “no names” or “unknown actors” as my
people would call them, which was really quite refreshing, for once…
some new blood. And BIG KUDOS to all the actors, they were all very
believable, and I look forward to seeing them again in other roles.
BIG UPs to director, Antoine Fuqua… ya did ya thing again, troop!

Synopsis:

Based on a more realistic portrayal of “Arthur” than has ever been presented onscreen. The film will focus on the history and politics of the period during which Arthur ruled — when the Roman empire collapsed and skirmishes over power broke out in outlying countries — as opposed to the mystical elements of the tale on which past Arthur films have focused.