King Arthur (Director's Cut) [DVD] [2004]

Okay, it wasn't great, but the battle scenes were okay, if a little overedited and the frozen lake set piece was impressive. But some of the acting leaves a lot to be desired. Clive Owen (so good in 'CLOSER') seems uninterested and uneasy in the lead role, Keira Knightley just carries on her role from 'Pirates of the carribean' and Ray Winstone is... just Ray Winstone with a sword. Of the other knights, only the impressive Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot is properly introduced.

The producers of the film apparently wanted to go for a more historically accurate film, doing away with the more magical elements of the story, like the sword in the stone and the lady in the lake. Only, I can't see why they would want to do this. This is Hollywood! Experts in making the impossible seem probable. And as the Arthurian legend is just that; "A LEGEND", I can't help but feel we would have had a better film if they had just gone the whole hog and told the story of Arthur as everyone knows it.

As a piece of history, it is a piece of fiction. Since the success of "Gladiator", the ancient world has again proven its potential for blockbuster success (remember "Ben Hur", etc.), so it makes sound marketing sense to give Arthur a Roman background - American audiences will recognise that. The absence of any historical accuracy is of no consequence. We are looking, here, at a piece of fiction.

So how does it rate as a piece of fiction? Well, not particularly good. There's a fine cast - Ioan Gruffuth, Clive Owen, Ray Winstone, and Keira Knightley. There is potential for a reworking of the Arthur legend - the remnants of Rome and the native Celtic warriors stand up to Saxon invasion ... the irony being that these self-same Saxons will go on to found England and become the heroes of the Robin Hood legend (where Kevin Costner has the Saxon's attacked by mercenary Celtic barbarians).

Hollywood rewrites history and folklore at will. The potential in a reworking of the Arthurian myth is to look at issues of end of Empire and explore how the Celtic nations within Britain are reasserting their cultural and political independence from England. That, of course, might be too sophisticated for Hollywood, and an American audience could hardly be expected to appreciate the nuances of Celtic / British / Anglo-Saxon culture and politics.

Hollywood has a vested interest in presenting war as good versus evil, as seeing the politics of resistance simplistically - try translating this film to present day Iraq? But the Arthurian legends were written and told for an adult audience. John Boorman's "Excalibur" was a very erotic, sophisticated retelling of the tale - and still the best cinema version. "King Arthur" is sterile. The erotic potential, the gore and violence, the language, and the drama are all kept on a low burner - the film was marketed at a young audience (12 year olds) in Britain, so the film was inevitably neutered.

The magic and the mystery are stripped from the story. Owen is wrong for the part - he's boring. Knightley is sexy, but you can't believe her as a warrior queen - there's barely enough meat on her arms to snap a wishbone, never mind draw a bow. Gruffudd and Winstone do their best, but the script is so neutered they're fighting a losing battle.

So, you hope that something called the Director's Cut might revive a film which has potential. You hope the film has been neutered by the marketing people and that the director's version will be something grander, something with substance, some tale which will enchant you and weave a pattern of eroticism and mystery ... and maybe offer a bit more gore and guts.

Well, the Director's Cut restores an extra quarter an hour of violence and battle scenes, enough to get it an 18 certificate. But that's as far as it goes. There's not enough to lift the film into a higher plane.

You get a 'Making of' documentary, an alternative ending, etc. Frankly, all these 'Making of' features are getting quite boring. Most of us want to watch the movie, maybe watch it several times. How many of you actually watch the extras time and again? Effectively, the Director's Cut gives you an extra few minutes of battle scenes. If you enjoy that sort of spectacle, this is the version you'll buy. But, as a piece of drama, I still do not rate this film.