Related articles and links |  1 of 4

With the recent successes of such blockbuster epics as Braveheart, Gladiator, The Lord of the Rings, and Troy, and with two film narratives about Alexander the Great in the works, it was inevitable that the legend of King Arthur would find a new manifestation at the movies.

Judging from his reputation with film, it has also seemed inevitable that actor Clive Owen will become a superstar. Owen's supporting roles in films like Gosford Park and The Bourne Identity got viewers' attention, and his starring role in Mike Hodges' Croupier earned him high acclaim. The rumor mill has made noises about his potential as the next James Bond.

So it seemed like a sure thing when Owen won the lead in King Arthur, from director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Tears of the Sun). The actor and the famous character seemed poised to storm onto the screen in unforgettable fashion.

They'll both have to try again. King Arthur, according to most critics, is a disappointment. And moviegoers gave the film a lukewarm opening, preferring to give Spider-Man 2 a second week at #1 and Anchorman an impressive debut at #2. Even the popularity of actress Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean), in the role of a scantily clad Guinevere, was not enough to give the film a blockbuster opening. Owen will have to wait a few more months to attain the predicted superstardom, when he'll star opposite Julia Roberts, Natalie Portman, and Jude Law in Mike Nichols' film Closer. And Arthur will probably have to wait much longer than that for a makeover.

The Arthurian epic has always been of particular interest to religious audiences. But most religious press film critics are unimpressed with the way screenwriter David Franzoni (Gladiator, Amistad) treats this aspect of the story.

"[King Arthur] nods in the direction of tons of potentially interesting developments of plot, theme and character," says Ron Reed (Christianity Today Movies), "but doesn't bother to follow through on any of them enough to pay off. It could have been a pretty good movie. It could have been a dozen pretty good movies. But it settles instead for being merely good enough."

Regarding this film's take on Arthurian spirituality, Reed remarks, "Historical theology students will be intrigued at the medallion of Pelagius … but I'm afraid in the end that the character's (and the film's) spirituality ends up being mostly a way to talk about far more conventional themes of freedom, earthly and political."

"The tragedy of Arthur continues in the ongoing Hollywood butchery of his tale," rants Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films). "The worst thing about … Fuqua's King Arthur, is that Fuqua and writer David Franzoni haven't even tried to get it right. Despite marketing claims about 'the truth behind the legend,' King Arthur bears virtually no resemblance either to Arthurian fact or legend. Instead of demythologizing the legend, or working with what little data exists regarding an historical Arthur, Fuqua and Franzoni simply discard virtually all the data and craft an entirely unrelated story in its place. Along the way, they find time not only to disparage Rome, the Church, and historic Christianity, but also to mount a curious rehabilitation campaign for the founder of the Pelagian heresy, which taught that man can achieve salvation by his own effort, without divine grace."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) writes, "By divesting the tale of its fairy tale trappings, Fuqua has also emptied it of its romance—and, ultimately, its timeless allure. The Gladiator-like battle sequences … are impressive, but are much too intense for children and push the boundaries of the picture's PG-13 rating. More troubling however is the film's paganizing of what has traditionally been a quintessentially Christian myth."

next page... |  1 of 4

share this page

July (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48