|
There's a big fight scene in Anchorman:
The Legend of Ron Burgundy, and – all kidding aside –
it's better than any of the skirmishes in King Arthur,
the latest bloated, self-important, pseudo-epic-turned-gay
masquerade ball from a middling director who thinks they're
making the next Braveheart or Gladiator.
"An Antoine Fuqua film" might sound like an
impressive proposition, but what has he done for you lately?
I'll tell you what: He's churned out a string of
instantly forgettable, sub-pedestrian action films – most
recently, Tears of the Sun –
just like the director of Troy (Wolfgang Petersen), which
was 2004's most recent entry to this dismal genre.
I'd throw The Alamo into that mix, too, but its
director (John Lee Hancock) is even inexperienced when it comes
to run-of-the-mill action flicks.
There have already been
approximately 34,979 films about the whole Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot
thing, so Fuqua and his screenwriter (Gladiator's
David Franzoni) decided to make a more historically accurate
version of the legendary tale in an attempt to distance their
picture from the rest of its brethren (most recently, 1995's First
Knight). Sadly, they've confused "historical accuracy" with
"mind-boggling mediocrity."
King is so by-the-numbers, it's like the screenplay was
cranked out by some giant, formula-driven computer.
Then again, I felt exactly the same way about Pirates
of the Caribbean (like King, also produced by the
soulless Jerry Bruckheimer) but that didn't stop you morons from
making it one of the biggest films of all-time.
Pirates, at least, featured Johnny Depp to drool
over. King
has nothing even close, unless you're knocked out by Keira
Knightley's extremely painful-looking bondage outfit (and I was,
but not enough to recommend this dullard – let's not ever
confuse wank material with art).
King, which ran
two hours, felt like three and could have easily been one,
features no less of a videogame-type plot than mothersucking Van
Helsing. Arthur
(Clive Owen, Beyond Borders) has
been transformed from the 15th-century king to a smelly Samarian
pagan-turned-Roman military leader (via indentured servitude) in
467 AD. Art and his
cohorts have one day left on their 15-year contract but are
forced to perform the dreaded "one last mission" (cue
Danny Glover lamenting, "I'm gettin' too old for this
shit!"). Trouble ahead with the invading Saxon armies and Merlin's
Woad warriors, and then Guinevere (Knightley, Love
Actually) shows up about an hour into the mess, looking
far more masculine than Orlando Bloom could ever wish he was,
even with fake hair glued to his girl-chest.
The tedium, edited to
piss by Conrad Buff, completely fails to adequately portray
romance between Guinevere and either Arthur or Lancelot, and has
a shockingly difficult time trying to let us know who the hell
we're supposed to be rooting for in the endlessly banal battle
scenes. Are we
supposed to muster hatred toward people who are merely
protecting their own land (a/k/a evildoers, insurgents, and
thugs), the holier-than-thou world power who does whatever the
fuck it wants (a/k/a.well, you know), or both?
Nobody at my screening seemed to care.
I didn't see a dry eye in the house, mostly because they
were all closed.
A waste of time full of
people who should have known better, like Mads Mikkelsen (Wilbur
Wants to Kill Himself), Ray Winstone (Cold
Mountain), Stephen Dillane (The
Hours) and Stellan Skarsgård (Dogville).
Avoid at all costs, lest Hollywood thinks we want another
summer full of this next year.
| 2:05
- |
 |
for
intense battle sequences, a scene of sensuality and some
language |
|