“King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.” The mere sentence conjures up such interesting imagery and grandeur of these gallant warriors. Adventurous, exciting tales of the bravest of men have been told over the ages, causing the names to become engrained in our history, even though there is no direct proof that these people even existed. Even the name “Excalibur” has become legendary as being no mere weapon of combat.

These tales surrounding King Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, and the rest of the characters have been told and retold over the years, and even adapted for the screen many times. Now, Director Antoine Fuqua (“Training Day”) and Writer David Franzoni (“Gladiator”) take on the legends, trying to put a more “historically correct” spin on the story in Touchstone Picture’s “King Arthur.” One would assume that attempting to tie together the historical while preserving the fantastical legend would be quite a difficult task, and unfortunately, the ultimate result is rather uninspiring.

The problem is not so much with the characters or the environment, or even the story itself. The problem stems from the difficulty in connecting the preconceived notions of who these characters are with their “new” roles, and how, although we know their legendary names, we know nothing about them. There’s not enough context to build up any sort of understanding of where these men came from, so how can we care where they’re going?

This is evident from the very beginning of the film. Starting in 452 A.D., we see a young boy (a young Lancelot) being called to his duty from his nomadic parents and tribe to serve in the Roman Army for the next fifteen years. Fifteen years later, we see an older Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) on horseback with the other remaining Knights of the Round Table, Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Tristan (Mads Mikkelson), Bors (Ray Winstone), and Dagonet, along with Arthur (Clive Owen) himself. Apparently, they’ve gone through quite a lot together since there are only a few of the Knights left, and they are riding home on their last day of fighting for the Roman Army. After helping to save a Bishop, Arthur and his Knights are asked to complete one more mission before they are given their freedom, so off they go to escort a young Roman boy and his family from the attacking Saxon Army.

That’s the basis of the story, and the rest of the film focuses on the quest to retrieve the family and battle off the murderous Saxons, who kill and burn everything in their path. Why? Who knows. Apparently they don’t like the Romans, and it took them fifteen years to get 2,000 Saxons together to fight Arthur and his six remaining Knights. But it helps to make Arthur move faster and helps to keep the story moving, as well as provide two rather interesting battle scenes, one on a sheet of ice and of course the climactic final battle for Britain.

Having said all this, the film does do quite a few things very well. The “feel” of the film is perfect, as it pulls the rug out from under the romanticism-laced Guinevere (Keira Knightley) and Arthur love story and smacks you in the face with a dirty, gloomy, and damp Britain. There are no bright costumes or colors, and no over-the-top spectacles of glory. There’s also not really a love story at all. Instead, there are simply down-and-dirty battle scenes that deliver nice action and substance. The simplistic approach to Merlin’s character, more often than not portrayed as a crazy wizard conjuring the elements, is also bare-boned, as he is now a leader of the “Woads,” a clan of fighters fighting for Britain. It’s a nice, toned down character, but with little background as to why he’s even in the story other than to be able to say his name, he really serves no purpose. If it was revealed that Guinevere has something to do with him, that might of helped.

All of this has the look and feel of Britain in the Dark Ages, but while visually appealing, it still doesn’t hook you in and keep you for the entire journey. Plenty of substance and style, but lacking in story and charisma, “King Arthur” fails to present an enjoyable tale. The concept that the legend surrounding Arthur are real is a novel, and albeit interesting, approach, but if this is the “true story,” the legend has certainly overshadowed the history books.