King Arthur, 2004 - DVD

Have you seen Braveheart? The Messenger? The 13th Warrior? Then you've already seen this movie in a much better form.

I blame this film on a crappy script. From the man who brought us Jumpin' Jack Flash, Amistad and Gladiator, we have a retelling of the King Arthur story... one that does not revolve around magic, but shows how history can add to the myth of a man and his deeds.

Ok. Clever idea. But this script does absolutely nothing to show us things we haven't seen before. There's no surprises. There are no imaginative scenes, no great speeches. Everything is regurgitated from things we've already seen in the past ten years.

First off, I don't know who thought it was a good idea to have gritty, urban director Fuqua direct this film. He did Training Day. He did Tears of the Sun, which was another recycled crap-fest... was there no one else available?

This film has almost zero originality and zero style. You could see the strength in Training Day. You could see everything was meticulously shot and taken seriously. This just seemed like Fuqua was on auto-pilot with this one.

You could say the film directed itself because of the crappy script... certainly possible.

There is nothing to suggest that this film is a Jerry Bruckheimer production. None of the tell-tale signs are there, so you have to wonder why Bruckheimer helped produce this pony. Was it because of Disney? Could be. The two have a big history together...

Anyway, I wouldn't put any of the blame on Bruckheimer. I like his work, as a producer. I think he's one of the most successful producers in Hollywood, and his track record is something one can not argue.

But this film... first off, I got the DVD, the Director's Cut. I couldn't, for the life of me, tell what might have been added or not... there were no real action shots that might have turned the tide from pg-13 to R... or maybe I just didn't care, and there were. Hard to tell which.

I can't blame the actors... the dialog was awful. All of it was something we've heard, a dozen times in a dozen movies. Franzoni decided to give us a retelling of a legend, and did it with pieces of movies we all liked, or at least watch when they're on TBS.

They all looked good... Mads Mikkelsen, Joel Edgertn, Hugh Dancy, Ray Winstone, Ray Stevenson... all of them did fine jobs with what they had... but their characters were too familiar. There was no breakout character that came out of nowhere. These were just badasses... but we've seen those. There was an opportunity to show us some serious characters here, serious warriors... depicted on a battle field familiar, but also different.

Franzoni failed in his task, and faxed in this script with no real regard for the story, the characters or caring whether the audience had seen it all before.

Working on his new script, Hannibal, following the ancient warrior, with Vin Diesel helming the main character, we can only hope that this work will have a more diverse dialog base, with more original lines, characters and scenes.

No, wait... it's also being directed by Diesel. I dig his work, I do... but I do not have high hopes for this film.

Fuqua will be assaulting the masses with a prequel to The Untouchables, called The Untouchables: Capone Rising.

I could say "Is nothing sacred?" but that would be wasted. Why tarnish a brilliant movie with a prequel? Regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with the brilliant original... call it something else. People aren't going to see the film because it has The Untouchables in the title.

No, wait, this is America. My mistake. Again.