King Arthur: A Review

Art that aims at conveying a message of pointlessness is often dealing with the emotion of nihilism. This art (nihilistic art), however, is not pointless; it does indeed have a point: to convey the notion of meaninglessness. Art, however, that aims at making a point but never gets there, is pointless. Such is the case for the film King Arthur.

This Touchstone Pictures 2004 film, directed by Antoine Fuqua, may be one of the worst films in the last three years. The entire opening battle sequence is completely pointless, drawn out far too long, and contains none of the elements that make good battle scenes. It is nothing more than a complete slaughter that barely has any significance to the development of the plot. This is only the beginning.

The main theme of the film is the notion of libertarian free-will. Arthur and his knights have been under an obligation to Rome for at least 15 years. They have done their duty, paid their dues, and sacrificed their lives for the cause of Rome (most of which is selfish and despised by the knights themselves). Their time for freedom has finally come, but they do not receive it. Instead of giving the knights of the round table their freedom Bishop Germainus, orders them on one last mission: To rescue a noble family from territory soon to be invaded by the dreaded Saxon army. This sets the stage for the conflict between the knights’ individual free will and their servitude to Rome.

Almost every dialogue from here on out has to do with free will and human autonomy. The overemphasis on this concept justifies my saying that this may have been one of the most poorly written films in history! There is zero subtlety and creativity in the dialogue, which only compliments the rather stoic acting of the characters. The worst part about this film, however, is not its poor writing, pointlessly gruesome battle scenes, and wooden actors, but its message about God.
Within the film Arthur is the lone “Christian” among his band of knights. Periodically he engages in quick and rather futile debates with the other knights about God’s goodness, sovereignty, and existence. Arthur, however, is also the largest proponent of human autonomy in the film (even to the degree that he tells an entire village their free will absolves them of serfdom). The references to God throughout the whole scope of the dialogue always leave the impression that God is much like the oppressive Roman Empire: Nothing more than a totalitarian overlord. There is never an attempt to accurately represent the God of Christianity.

I was so disappointed in this film. It was cast in the light of a film in the likeness of Gladiator, but fell far short! It mutilated the amazing legends of Arthur from British literature, stories such as Le Morte d’Arthur. And aside from a few puns on these tales and a horribly thin and underdeveloped love relationship between Arthur and Guinevere it bears no likeness to the tales of old. So what’s my suggestion about seeing this film? While I don’t believe in the free will that this movie has presented, a libertarian free will, I do believe in a compatablist free will. And in a compatablist free will humans may always choose according to their strongest desire; so unless you are compelled, do not see this film!