King Arthur - The Director's Cut (Widescreen Edition) Reviews

• Setting the record straight - finally

  
  By A1HX00DL0SZM1G on 2004-12-22
  I had wanted to see this movie in the movie theater last summer, but never quite made it. Having watched the extended directors cut last night I am kicking myself for not making it to the local multiplex to catch this grand scale epic on the big screen.
  
  I really cannot understand all the negative press this movie has received. Historical evidence (as presented in a quite excellent History channel documentary recently) proves that King Arthur was most likely a Roman general who did band together with the native Britons in fighting off the invading Saxons.
  
  The traditional story that Hollywood has brainwashed the movie-going public into believing is total drivel. Arthur was not a figure of the middle ages, he was not an Anglo-Saxon and there was no magical sword in the stone. For years I have felt disdain for the manner in which the English have claimed King Arthur as their own - here at last is a movie that goes some way to setting the record straight. One really should not forget that the warriors from Brittany who sailed with Norman the Conqueror sang and celebrated King Arthur as their hero, someone who had fought to protect the Britons from the invading Saxon hordes.
  
  Another criticism leveled at this movie is the presentation of Guinevere as a warrior woman. However this is also historically accurate as explained by actress Keira Knightley in both the "Making of..." documentary and the roundtable discussion (included as part of this impressive DVD set). Women often were quite capable warriors and it was not until about five centuries later that they faded into historical obscurity. Was it not after all a Briton warrior queen who caused Rome so much concern in the earlier centuries of the first millennium?
  
  What we have here is a thoroughly entertaining, informative and dramatic recounting of the inspiration for the Arthur legend. Arthur himself is a half Briton, half Roman who takes command of a group of Samatian (sp?) cavalrymen guarding Hadrians Wall (historical evidence also points to this being an accurate account). With news of an invasion to the north by the Saxons Arthur and his men are sent to retrieve a Roman family and transport them back to safety. What follows is an epic struggle to survive and a growing awareness by Arthur as to his Briton heritage.
  
  I really enjoyed this movie and I also think the DVD is exceptionally well done. The highlight of the special features in my opinion is the roundtable discussion which includes the major actors as well as the writer, director and producer. They discuss the historical accuracy of the movie as well as the challenges in bringing it to the screen. There is also a (rather fluffy) making of documentary, an audio commentary and a (rather lame) trivia track. Overall though this movie is an impressive achievement.
  
  NOTE TO MR. GEORGE: Most of the evidence quoted comes from the aforementioned History Channel documentary on King Arthur as well as material covered in the DVD for which this is a review. I am also at a loss to understand where your assertion that I have a disdain for the English comes from - since I am part English myself.
  
  

• I don't think we're in Camelot anymore!

  
  By A37PV5GMP2ILJC on 2005-01-03
  Forget the legend - this isn't your grandmother's King Arthur. Forget Disney, forget Richard Burton and Julie Andrews, forget Merlin and Mordred, forget the romance, the magic - this is the down and dirty, sweat and grime, guts and glory story that allegedly started the legend of the Sword in the Stone.
  
  Arthur (Clive Owen) is still the powerhouse of legend, even though Excalibur didn't come out of a stone or a lake, but pity poor Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Gawain (Joel Edgerton) and the rest of the knights of the round table, who are reduced to Arthur devotees without too much in the way of individual character. Lancelot isn't even up to a little triangular hanky-panky this time around.
  
  Merlin is a wild warrior leader complete with body paint, and the fair Guinevere (Keira Knightley) out-warriors Xena when she's in her barely there battle gear.
  
  The battle scenes are great, whether the fighting involves the Woads or the Saxons, and the last time so many arrows flew, it was Jet Li doing some "heroic" dodging.
  
  The greatest beating is taken by religion, as only Arthur has any good use for it, and even he gets a little skeptical sometimes.
  
  Whether North or South of Hadrian's Wall, Arthur leads his little band on great adventures on the island, one day through thick forests, the next on thin ice, but with rousing war cries they somehow pull through.
  
  Entertaining, particularly when Keira Knightley starts her battle snarling, but a little long overall.
  
  Amanda Richards, January 3, 2005
  
  

• New Historical Evidence???

  
  By A2NACIQH1P8J01 on 2005-08-07
  In the beginning the movie cites new historical evidence to contradict the Arthurian myths and legends. That sounded like a movie that I would really be interested in as I had done some reading on this subject and new none of it was likely. I would love to know what historical evidence supports this movie.
  
  First off the screenplay writer defends his research with works by Linda Malcor. Linda Malcor is highly regarded as a historical crackpot. The Arthur she cites almost certainly lived 200-300 years prior to this movie's time frame. The Arthur presented in this film is not plausible at all.
  
  What research did he use to have the Saxons invade from the north. It is a historical absolute that the Saxon invasions came from the south and the east. Why on earth would they come from the north when the Celts would have decimated them at that time?
  
  More credible historians using actual history believe that Arthur was a Welt or Brit chieftain who put together a small kingdom. In fact they believe they may have excavated his original home.
  
  As for the religious depiction of this film it is shaky at best. Although the Catholic Church was very corrupt, hence the reformation, it is highly unlikely that the corruption started this early in time. This is more of a depiction of the Spanish Inquisition.
  
  Here are a few questions:
  
  How can a woman starved nearly to death with a badly broken hand shoot arrows and fight better than men twice her size?
  
  Why do all of Arthur's knights have Germanic names not Samatian names?
  
  Why does Arthur talk so much about freedom and non slavery when those concepts did not exist at that time and would not for a long long time?
  
  Why does Arthur become so chivalrous when that too would certainly not exist for several hundred years?
  
  Why do barbarians recognize signs of truce and not kill the only person that could possibly oppose them?
  
  This movie was awful. The battles were bloody massacres on open fields and frozen lakes. They were completely unrealistic. The history on this one is all wrong according to archaeology, written history, and common sense.
  
  
  

• Interesting Interpretation

  
  By A2N32P9WR2S78W on 2004-12-09
  If you are looking for a strict retelling of the stereotypical King Arthur legend then this movie is not for you. If, however, you are open to seeing new interpretations of the tale then I would recommend watching this movie. This movie does a good job of combining the legend with history and a little bit of fantasy/epic-heroism. In doing this it becomes a movie that tells the story of the "real" Arthur and yet has enough elements of the legend to imply how the real story could have developed into the legend after years of retelling and exageration. One thing that I personally liked(others may disagree) is that they sidelined the love triangle between Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere. There were interactions that can be seen as the origins of the legend, but the love/betrayal plotline did not overwhelm the more engaging central plot.
  
  This film only rates four stars because it is just a good film, not a great one. I would recommend renting it first to see if you like it before buying it.
  
  

• The Truth About Arthur

  
  By A1USD1WM5CBSJ0 on 2004-11-17
  Hi - John Matthews here - I was the Historical Advisor on the film. I just want to weigh in with my own take on some the nonsense which has been written about the historical innacuracies in the film. There were some inevitably - but not many, and mostly so small as to pass unnoticed. After all, we were telling a story, not writing a documentary. That said, I can promise you that the story of Arthur as told in the movie, is about as close as you'll ever get to the truth about Arthur. There really was an historical Lucius Artorius Castus and he really did lead a band of Sarmatian warriors from a land roughly between the Black and Red seas today (and no,that's not Russia -which didn't even exist at the time). These men were posted to Britain - about 5500 of them - and they left an indelible stamp on the memory of the British people. Their stories, and the myths they knew and lived by, were the seeds from which later, Celtic stories of Arthur grew. So we are not saying Arthur wasn't a Celt any more than we are saying he was a Sarmatian for that matter - just that as a Roman officer, stationed on Hadrian's Wall, here in the UK - his deeds and valor paved the way for all the later Arthurs. The problem has been that the Arthurian industry, which began in the 11th century, established itself so firmly in our hearts and minds that we can now only think of that Arthur. The reality, as you will see in the film, is very different. So,if you want to know how the story of Arthr really got under way - before the magic and the fantasy got in there - see this film - the best Dark Age movie ever to come out of Hollywood! And if you still want to know more read C Scott-Littleton and Linda Malcor's book 'From Scythia to Camelot' (Linda was my collegue in backing up the history for the movie)or watch out for books by each of us in the pipeline,
  
  
• "Arthur", Thy Name is Blow
  By A3ML9NZPPF9186 on 2004-07-17
  Normally, "boring" is a term I avoid. Why? Well, it's usually a word simpletons use to describe movies they don't fully comprehend, either intellectually or emotionally (think of the average man's lackluster response to the amazing "Lost In Translation"). But in the case of the mind-numbingly shallow and seemingly endless "King Arthur", I think the simpletons would put "boring" to its most appropriate use.
  
  This embarrassing Jerry Bruckheimer production yearns to tell us the "true story" of the legendary king, which apparently happened years earlier than in the "fairy tale" version and involved not only the Romans but some of the most uninteresting events in the history of the world. I thought the film would delve deeper into who Arthur (portrayed here by Clive Owen) was, or at least focus on more than the one story it does, which involves the future king and his noble knights going on a final mission before being released from their Roman contracts (don't ask). Along the way, they rescue religious prisoners and pick up the feisty Guinevere (Keira Knightley).
  
  The movie might've been at least passable at an hour and a half -- or less. Even with the laughably overdramatic narration at the beginning and end. Even with the characters who would be indistinguishable from each other if they didn't at least look different. Even with the wholly un-involving action set-ups. But no...we get two hours and ten minutes of this sh**. And man, let me tell ya, it's rough going. In fact, I might have actually fallen asleep if it weren't for all the times I checked my handy cell phone to see how much longer I had to suffer.
  
  And speaking of suffering, we see very little on screen, thanks to Buena Vista's last minute decision to turn the film, which was created specifically to be R-rated, into a poorly edited, ridiculously blood-free PG-13 money-maker. Well, that backfired. The $130 million production took in a mere $23 million its opening week. A hit this ain't.
  
  As I think back on it now, perhaps I should have given in to the inclination to take a snooze. I'm sure I could have dreamt a better, more exciting movie.
  
  
• 'King Arthur' as history
  By A1JXJ0WYF6XV2W on 2004-10-24
  This isn't a critique of `King Arthur' but a response to David Franzoni's claims about the historicity of the movie.
  I've been an Arthurian buff for years; I'm not really familiar with John Matthews's theories but I can draw on others, particularly John Morris's `The Age of Arthur'. Whatever source you use, the consensus is that the basis for the `historical' Arthur rests on two Welsh documents:
  First: Nennius in the 9th Century, who tells us of `Arthur the Soldier', a Briton who fought the Saxons c. 500; he defeated the Saxons 12 times, the last being at Mount Badon.
  Second: `The Annales Cambrai' from the 10th Century, which tells us how Arthur defeated the Saxons at Mount Badon in 516 A.D.
  We know from an earlier British text - Gildas in the 6th Century - that Mount Badon was a real battle.
  'King Arthur's screenplay links a historical personage - Lucius Artorius Castus- with a real event - the battle of Mount Badon. The problem is: these events are 300 years apart!
  Sure there was a real Lucius Artorius Castus who commanded Sarmatian knights around 175 A.D. - but what's he got to do with the other Arthur who fought at Mount Badon? All that links them is a name. It's like saying that because there was an American President called George, who defeated the British in 1783, he has to be the same guy who invaded Iraq! Or because we know of a British royal called Charles, who got his head chopped off in 1649, he has to be the same man who married Princess Diana in 1981! What Mr Franzoni seem to be saying is that Lucius Artorius Castus lived twice - first in the 2nd and then in the 5th Century.
  Because the film shoe-horns two different eras together - 175 A.D. and 500 A.D. - `King Arthur' is full of anachronisms.
  The film is set in 467 A.D. According to King Arthur' Britain then is still part of the Roman empire - although Rome is just about to pull out. All accounts show Britain was separated from Rome about 410 - 60 years earlier! That makes the movie prologue - set in 452 - totally unhistorical. How could Rome send Sarmatian knights from Sarmatia to Britain when neither Sarmatia nor Britain were part of Rome then?
  We're told Pelagius had just died in 467 - actually he'd been dead for 50 years. Similarly how come Germanus is pottering around Britain in 467 when he'd been dead for 20 years?
  The biggest howler in the movie, however, seems to be an anachronism of Mr Franzoni's own invention. We're told the Romans are busy putting down the Woads. Now I've read many books over many years on Roman and Dark Age Britain and I've yet to come across any mention of the Woads. Who are these guys? As well as adding a fictitious race to the population of 5th Century Britain, the film seem to ignore one - where are the Britons? The Celtic-speaking ancestors of the Welsh, the main people of Britain at the time, seem to be AWOL. `King Arthur' ignores the Celtic tradition behind much of the Arthurian legend, reflected in sources like `The Mabinogion'. Why no mention of characters mentioned in those sources, like Arthur's sidekicks Kei and Bedwyr?
  Instead of these, `King Arthur' includes characters that are literary inventions - both Lancelot and Bors first appear in French medieval tales - and others - Merlin and Tristan- not directly connected to Arthur in the earliest accounts. We know Tristan existed - a plinth marking his grave has been discovered - but this locates him in Cornwall around 560 A.D.
  Two semi-historical character in the film are Cerdic and his son Cynric, but they seem to be the in the wrong time and place. Cerdic claims to be pure-blooded Saxon but his name is British, leading authorities to speculate he was a British traitor who joined with the Saxons. The only source for Cerdic is the `Anglo Saxon Chronicle' which dates him between 495 and 534, two generations after the film. It also locates him on the south coast of England, near Southampton.
  Which brings us to my final beef with `King Arthur' - the geography. Arthur's sent to rescue some Romans trapped in their villa north of Hadrian's Wall. Except there weren't any villas north of Hadrian's wall! This whole area had been abandoned by Rome by the early 5th Century - probably the wall too. Also all the evidence - texts, archaeology, place names- locates the Saxons at this time in the east and south-east of England - a long way from where `King Arthur' is set.
  The consensus is that Arthur - if he existed- was a Briton fighting Saxons in central and southern England c. 500. At this time most of Britain was under the control of Celtic-speaking Britons; Britain had been separated from Rome since about 410 and Roman civilisation was a fading memory. I recommend anyone interested in discovering a real historical Arthur to read Rosemary Sutcliff's `Sword At Sunset' for a superb fictionalisation of that story - no Woads in her novel!
  
  
  
  
  
• Hollywood trying to do a film based on british history, fails big time
  By A2RC0X6POQKGP6 on 2005-08-07
  This film was very poorly done. When I first heard that Clive Owen (Sin City) and Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean) were making a movie based on the real King Arthur and focusing on him as a Roman general, I thought "Hollywood, what are you doing?" Just out of curiousity, I went in and watched it. I thought the film was rubbish. The film crew defiantly did not study our history. Arthur was not a roman soldier, he even wasnt half roman at all. The british were saxon, not roman. Guinevere was not a woman warrior. Yes she did fell in love with Arthur but she cheated on him with Lancelot. Lancelot did not die, he didn't even die at all. At the end of the film, the archers fired arrows to the sea near Stone Henge. . . . .there's no sight of sea in the area of Stone Henge, there wasnt any sea during that time! Jerry Bruckheimer may make really great films but this one was just terrible (and dont forget the terrible Pearl Harbour) The fight scenes were good but that was hardly anything. The story was rubbish, basicly the thought of making Arthur roman was rubbish. It just shows you that Hollywood cannot make a film based on European history. Sorry Hollywood but you might as well stick on making films on your own history (but dont make it cheesy and too patriotic) As I am british and was focusing on british history, my advice is to you people in america; study our history, not watch them from movies.
  
  
• magnificent storytelling
  By A3GQKB1KF0CRPE on 2004-12-23
  How can people love Braveheart and then turn around and call this film tripe because it's not historically accurate? Oh, please. Braveheart was a great movie, I love it, but history it ain't! Whether Arthur the King is or is not faithful to the legend - WHO CARES? Was any version that has been done on the round table accurate? I sincerely doubt it. None come to my mind! Most Arthurian Legends come from the faerytales of Camelot written in the Middle Ages, by an author who dressed the knights and ladies according to that period.
  
  So take a deep breath, sit back and watch the film without hanging onto the romantic images like Linus holds onto his blanket and really watch great storytelling - key words STORY TELLING - in action. This movie is beautiful filmed, grimly realistic - as Hollywood generally can get. The wide screen version of the directors cut is magnificent.
  
  I really don't see why you have to compare apples or oranges. I happen to love them both.
  
  History it ain't - same as Braveheart, same as Excalibur, same as every Hollywood historical film ever lenses. When so few historical films are done, its great to see one filmed with such passion, quality and eye for detail.
  
  If you want historical Arthur - go seek ye yond history book and MAYBE you will find a trace of him. Other wise, don't whine this is not accurate.
  
  Just enjoy fine storytelling.
  
  
• Stinks Worse Than A Saxon Raider...
  By A1SP38JKYFFVJS on 2005-11-01
  ...and I heard they really stunk.
  
  Historically based? Based on what? Crank, neo-pagan Celtic nationalism? Of the kind you find in books which have little fairies on their covers and sold alongside incense and candles, tarot cards and claddagh rings in those new-agey shops run by chubby, middle-aged, goddess-worshipping women? This movie is one of the most UNhistorical, chronologically-challenged, Anti-Catholic, over-the-top flicks I've seen in a long while.
  Not to mention, the acting is so hammy you can make sandwiches out of the DVDs.
  
  A waste of my time and interest. I turned it off after suffering through some twenty minutes of what I consider one of the worst movies ever made.
  
  
• Rent Pirates of the Caribbean or Gladiator instead
  By ABJPGGF29R7LE on 2004-07-08
  I was excited to see this movie originally. I wanted it to be a darker and more complex version of the intriguing myth of Arthur and his knights. After Camelot the musical, King Arthur and his story needed a bit of darkness and complexity. But this movie feeds off that want to merely give a sketch of something that could have been unique.

  The script doesn't allow its characters to do much of anything other than fight with one another and their enemies. The main point of the movie is lost because the audience has no real reason to care for these men. We all know the main story of Arthur and Camelot, but if you're trying to give a new feeling/edge to an old story you should start by redescribing your characters to the audience, which is what the writers try to do but ultimately fail. And in this film all we're left to see is a ragtag team of soldiers who only talk to going home. If only the writers could have taken a little more time to explore who these characters are the film may have meant more.

  I feel bad for the excellent actors who were used in this film. Clive Owen is a great actor of independent films, who should be famous by now. Ioan Gruffudd is wonderful in Horatio Hornblower. And Keira Knightley has shown her blooming talent in Bruckheimer's Pirates of the Carribbean. They all try to lift this film to a higher level but the script leaves very little for them to do other than show their spectacularly staged fighting skills. Even the love triangle, one of the most famous aspects of the legend, feels strained, overly simplified, and not that interesting.
  
  

• This movie fails on all fronts.
  By A28T4CPZ52RFT8 on 2004-07-13
  As a student working on my MA in English Litertature (specializing in early medieval), I've trained myself not to worry too much about historical innacuracies in film as long as the movie is entertaining. However, the fact that the film makers claim that this is the "real" story of Arthur makes its signifigant inaccuracies unforgivable. The inaccuracy that I have the biggest problem with is setting the battle of Badon Hill at Hadrian's Wall. Even though the exact location of the battle is still debated, it's certainly much further south than Hadrian's Wall, otherwise it would have been called "The Battle of Hadrian's Wall." Arthur is the only character who has any sort of historical counterpart; to claim other characters, some of which not appearing in the legends until centuries later, is not in the least part of the "true" story. Also, the Saxons never made any signifigant incursions into Scotland, they were originally invited over as mercenaries by the native Britons to help fight the Romans and each other. Eventually they turned on their employers and took what is now England for themselves. There are so many more major issues I could go into, but I only have so much space, so on to the movie itself.

  I could look past most of the innacuracies if this movie was entertaining. However, "King Arthur" stinks! All the "knights" (there were no knights in the technical sense until the late 11th century) save Bors are practically indistinguishable. They look the same and they all have the same personality. Arthur has zero charisma. We are never given any reason to care about any of these characters. They merely go from point A to B to C because they have to in order to enact the plot.

  Speaking of the plot, it is disjointed in the sense that this movie lacks a coherent narrative structure, and it is flat-- there are no convincing emotional highs or lows. I could have left the theatre any time during this movie and not have worried about what I missed.

  There is also a lack of emotional complexity in the film. Everything is either good or evil. The Saxons are portrayed as a mob of men who just like being evil. Athur is good just for good's sake. All the talk about freedom is lifted straight from "Braveheart."

  Overall, "King Arthur" makes "Excalibur" look like "Citizen Cane" in comparison.

  If you want to see a good Arthurian flick, here is my list of suggestions:

  1. Perceval
  2. Lancelot du Lac
  3. The Knights of the Round Table
  ...and of course...
  4. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
  (Despite the silliness, this is actually one of the most accurate Grail films ever made.)
  
  

• blatantly anti-Christian AND historically inaccurate
  By A3DS2FN4F9UV02 on 2004-07-15
  NOTE: This movie is NOT based on the Arthurian legends. So, if you're looking for a movie that is based on the legends, watch "Excalibur."
  
  In all fairness, the opening credits do state that the movie is based on historical belief, rather than the legends, of who "Arthur" really was -- a British chieftain who lived in the 500's A.D. What's troubling is that if the movie is based on "history" -- why then does the movie still incorporate characters found in the legends (Merlin, Guinevere, Lancelot, Tristan, Bors, and even the Round Table)????
  
  The acting? Well, it's average. Clive Owen (Arthur) does the job, as does Keira Knightley (Guinevere) -- though the fact that she weighs about 90 pounds yet we're expected to believe, historically, that she's a fierce British warrior fighting alongside the men is very hard to swallow.
  
  The screenplay? Could have (nay, MUST have!) been written by a child. There are constantly corny lines like: "Burn all the villages, kill everyone" that caused many in the movie theatre to laugh out loud.
  
  The only enjoyable aspect of the film is Stellan Skarsgard, a very underrated, Swedish-born actor who plays the Saxon chief. However, the audience is distracted by the childish screenplay in which Saxons are the clear villains while the Britons are the good guys, with no gray in between. Very elementary. There is nothing in history attesting to Saxons being the "bad" guys but... seeing as how they are German and Hollywood NEVER passes up the chance to rip into Germans, it wasn't surprising that the audience is subjected to a "Saxons are evil" screenplay.
  
  The battle scenes are short, confusing and lack enough dramatic action, while the plot development is puzzling and the film ending abrupt.
  
  Another aspect of the movie that will bother many audience members is its shockingly anti-Christian theme. This is particularly ironic in a movie that draws elements from the intensely-Christian Arthurian legends (legends where knights attend mass daily, carry crosses on their shields, and seek the Holy Grail). Here are a few examples of anti-Christian scenes from the film:
  
  1) The first priest we encounter in the film is blatantly homosexual (looks and mannerisms), perpetuating the stereotype that all priests are; 2) The next 'man of the cloth' we meet is a bishop sent from Rome who is a cruel, cunning liar; 3) The only two other holy men in the film are murderers. We meet these two lovely lads in a scene where Arthur breaks down a sealed doorway at a Roman nobleman's home, only to discover several corpses of tortured men, women, and children who have been tortured by two priests for refusal to renounce their pagan beliefs; 4) The Roman nobleman defends the two holy men's actions, telling Arthur: "You're a Christian! You should understand!" Again, people laughed out loud in the theatre at this line. So now Christianity means torturing and starving to death children who don't convert? Nice job, Hollywood. Apparently, producers can't get enough of bashing Christianity; 5) Arthur is the only Christian of the knights (bizarre in a film that incorporates characters from the legends, like Lancelot, while omitting these characters' intensely Christian beliefs). Even Arthur is wobbly on Christianity. He later learns that his hero, Pelagius, a philosopher, "has been burned in Rome as a heretic for preaching that all men are free." Now, Arthur's already-shaky beliefs in the Church are shattered. What a joke. Actually, a "Pelagius" did exist but he was never burned as a heretic by the Church nor did he ever preach men were born free. In the end of the film, Arthur indirectly renounces Christianity and marries "pagan" Guinevere in a "pagan" ceremony. (Sir Thomas Mallory must be rolling in his grave!); 6) Sir Bors -- the most "likeable" character because he serves as the film's comic relief -- grabs the priest's crucifix and mocks it in an opening scene. He jokingly holds the crucifix, looks up to the sky, and asks for rain. When none comes, he berates the priest, telling him that a crucifix means nothing. Such mocking of ANY religion in a film MIGHT be acceptable if Sir Bors were to later retract his sentiments or the film somehow showed another side but, of course, this never happens. The scene, a testament to Hollywood's prejudice against Christianity, stands on its own, unretracted.
  
  I do not recommend this film on any account. Even if the anti-Christian propaganda and prejudice does not bother you, you will be gravely disappointed with the screenplay and plot development. It is an utter waste of two hours.
  
  
• Guinevere risks frostbite
  By A2DSXA1E02C86D on 2004-07-26
  The King Arthur legend, burgeoning from Geoffrey of Monmouth's HISTORY OF THE KINGS OF BRITAIN (12th century) and Thomas Malory's LE MORT DE ARTHUR (15th century), has taken on a life of it own so embellished as to obscure the meager facts known about the 5th century Briton that made an enduring name for himself ostensibly battling the invasion of Germanic tribes. Historians don't even know what part of Britain Arthur hailed from, being variously assigned to Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland. And there's no contemporary historical evidence that he was a king at all. King Arthur has been, and will remain, a conveniently blank page on which Hollywood scriptwriters can pen just about any story they want so long as it includes lots of swordplay, male bonding between noble knights, and a Hot Babe (Guinevere).
  
  In this screen version, Clive Owen plays Arthur, a half-Roman, half-British cavalry commander stationed on Hadrian's Wall at the time the Big House back in Italy decides to abandon the province to the barbarians. The traditional knights of Arthur's Round Table - Lancelot, Bors, Gawain, et al - are Sarmatian warriors at the end of a 15-year conscription into the Roman occupation army. (Sarmatia was an ancient territory way over by the Caspian Sea.) Before gaining possession of their demob papers after years of fighting local Briton insurgents, the knights must accompany Arthur on one last mission, i.e., to rescue a patrician Roman family living north of the Wall whose villa is about to be overrun by an inconvenient horde of Saxon invaders.
  
  This KING ARTHUR is refreshing in that it abandons the silliness of the otherwise excellent EXCALIBUR (1981) which played along with the traditional misconceptions regarding elaborate castle architecture and personal fighting armor that actually didn't arrive in the British Isles for centuries. Here, Arthur isn't even a king, at least until the conclusion. And Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is a pagan Druid found chained-up by Arthur in the cellar torture chamber of the Roman aristocrat, a Christian, that Arthur is sent to rescue. The film's creators take this opportunity to take a swipe at the infant Roman (Catholic) Church by making Guinevere's jailers mad monks. Once released, Knightley's character is either muddy or daubed with Druidic war paint, and dressed in shoulder or midriff-baring costumes totally unsuitable for the cold, snowy weather. No frumpy animal skins for her!
  
  The generally cheesy dialogue and standard battle sequences make this a three-star film, but which I'm elevating to four in consideration of the costuming, however unrealistic, the gorgeous Irish exterior sets, and the occasionally engaging performances of Ioan Gruffudd and Ray Winstone as Lancelot and Bors respectively. Owen is suitably dark and rugged as the driven, charismatic Arthur. And he cuts a fine figure against the skyline mounted on his steed with breastplate, plumed helmet, and streaming cavalry standard. Keira's Guinevere isn't much more than eye candy, though she wields a mean bow and arrow.
  
  If I had to choose between KING ARTHUR and the previously mentioned EXCALIBUR, I'd have to go with the latter, a visually stunning piece of filmmaking up in the five-star category that features superb performances by Nigel Terry as Arthur, Nicole Williamson as Merlin, and Helen Mirren as Morgana, plus a soundtrack to knock your socks off.
  
  
• As historical as Lord of the Rings
  By A18YTZL7F4IS3A on 2004-07-20
  A good movie, if you check your sense of history at the door. This movie takes the premise that the Arthur legend is based on a Roman general, and builds its own story from scratch. Its an engaging story, and the movie is well made, but it should be seen as pure fiction.
  
  Some quibbles: It has Lancelot in it!. The movie takes place in the 5th century. We know for a fact that Lancelot was added to the legend by the French in the 15th century.
  
  The movie calls the Northern people "Woads." It could just as well have called them Lipsticks or Mascaras. Woad is a blue dye, (or the plant from which it's derived) beleived to have been used as a war paint. I could have swallowed the Northerners being called Picts, but naming them for their cosmetic choice half spoiled the movie for me.
  
  OK, I can grit my teeth and accept the heros being called "knights", although the concept of the knight is several centuries in the future.
  
  Boadicea nonwithstanding, I'm a little bothered by Guenivere being portayed as a sort of Amazon. (However, being a male with a pulse, I did enjoy her sexy battle armor.)
  
  All in all, the movie is worth seeing as an action/adventure film, but please don't believe the hype that this is the True Story.
  
  
• Oi! It's King Arfa wiff is likely lads.
  By A12R3IXD890W7Q on 2005-08-08
  The only redeeming feature of this movie is the photography. The acting, dialogue and storyline could be straight out of the type of C grade matinee fodder churned out in the 1950s. Clive Owen is a wooden and boring King Arthur, who only starts to get interesting when he doesn't talk and we are'nt listening to his boring, cliched pronouncements. The "Joe the Greengrocer" accents of some of the " Romans" are laughable and need subtitles. The battles look like they are taken from a Chinese martial arts movie.
  I could go on and on ... Unfortunately so does the movie.
  
  
• My Kind of King Arthur.... At Last!
  By A3EV2ANAF5XLFX on 2006-04-28
  I have read the negative and positive reviews of this film, especially noting the numerous complaints about historical accuracy. But considering the era from which this story is created, and the various possibilities regarding exact time and place of events, (if they ever occurred at all), I think the film is a truly magnificent, thought-provoking piece about King Arthur.
  
  Bringing in the aspect of the Sarmatians was long overdue in the Arthurian arena. Although various historians may argue the point, much evidence does point to the use of stirrups by about 8000 Sarmatian cavalry in the Roman army as early as 175 AD. With the commonly held belief that the stirrup was not introduced until many centuries later, I thought it a bold move for the movie makers to incorporate this into the film as well. It seemed to be one of the most commonly noted 'discrepancies' by reviewers, but I disagree - it is very accurate.
  
  If you have watched only the PG13 version of this film, by all means, please watch not only the Director's Cut version, but take the time to also watch/listen to Antoine Fuqua's narrative over the film. His narration explains a lot, especially about how they had to change things drastically to make the mandated PG 13 rating. His explanation regarding his version of Lancelot and Guinevere is quite a statement as well.
  
  The alternate ending was quite dark, or perhaps even depressing, in a way. I don't know which ending is more suitable, and actually would have liked to have seen perhaps a different ending altogether, just don't know what that would have been.
  
  I thought the actors were incredible; the battle scenes (director cut) some of the only such scenes I've ever watched that let you identify the main characters' roles during the fighting; the photography was the best I have ever seen; the music illustrated and enhanced; and this movie left you wanting to see more when it was over.
  
  There was no dwelling on use of special effects for blood and gore, or rediculous feats of super-power athletics, or campy remarks that would bring you immediately back to your own century. The horses were not constantly being tripped during battle scenes, either. All these were a welcome change from so many movies of today.
  
  Above all, it passed the real test of a great movie - it left you with 'a feeling' after it was over.
  
  In short, I loved it. Antoine Fuqua, you are a genius.
  
  
  
• Fairly lame.
  By AAV3HU72C3R3G on 2004-11-29
  This movie is fairly lame. I don't care a bit about whether it was historically accurate or not, since obviously it wasn't (I would pity anybody watching a movie like this and hoping to learn any historical fact). The reason I say it's lame is because it was.
  
  This movie was two hours worth of arbitrary combat between a few groups of people (Sarachia knights [I don't care if I misspelled that], Whoats [wtf?], Saxons [ooo, the EVIL saxons!], Rome [just for good measure])who we, as an audience don't care about. The plot - what little there was (I mean LITTLE) - was recklessly thrown together. The story made essentially no sense. No meaningful history was given as to why these three-four groups liked/disliked/hated each other. My wife and I were quite bored watching it. There was no emotional attachment to anything in the movie. It was, to me, just a demo of 21st century movie combat without anything really tying it together. Oh, and the combat sucked anyway.
  
  I won't even mention the fact that keira knightley, who probably weighs 105, was taking on grissled warriors twice her weight (well, I guess I just did. It was comically offensive to watch). Ridiculous? Ridiculous is that I'm even giving this tripe as many as three stars. I can't recommend the movie.
  
  While watching I was reminded, very softly, of movies like Braveheart and Rob Roy. All three deal with supposed injustice/freedom (although, again, I don't even know if that's what this movie was dealing with, but I think so). The difference between them is that KA is not even half the movie Rob Roy or Braveheart are. I consider those movies to be great storytelling with a fine mix of humanity, and of course lots of gore. KA just sucked. In fact I'm not even giving it three stars now; it gets two. I think I need to watch Braveheart again, just to purify myself.
  
  Oh, and if you're hoping for magic from Merlin, you won't see it here. In the movie he has about 30 seconds of screen time and comes across as nothing more than a filthy man leading the little group of "Whoats", who for no apparent reason like to paint themselves in blue.
  
  God alone knows how this movie managed to stretch to two hours. The plot truly was one of the shallowest I've seen in any movie. At least Battlefield Earth - one of the 20th century's great mistakes - tried. It failed, but it tried. This movie doesn't fail in the plot regard, because it never did try.
  
  EDIT: Isn't it funny that, regardless of review content, on Amazon if somebody praises a product, the review is well rated and if they rag on it it's poorly rated (just look at all the ratings for the reviews here)? I guess you kiddies like your King Arthur, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a lame movie!
  
  
• Pseudo-historical, but entertaining
  By A3DJ00DT9MJNI6 on 2005-10-26
  As a grad student in medieval history, let me first say that this movie's announced intention seemed intriguing. Then I saw the film. My hopes for a decent, responsible historical revision were smashed by its crass attempt at appearing revolutionary, innovative, and important.
  
  The majority opinion is that Arthur, if he existed at all, was likely a Romanized Briton who fought against the slowly rising tide of Angle, Saxon, and Jute immigrants (many of whom were actually hired as mercenaries by the resident Britons to defend against Picts, etc. He would more likely have lived toward the end of the fifth century, or the beginning of the sixth; the Roman legions evacuated around the beginning of the fifth century.
  
  Regarding the choice of Sarmatia (against one far-off vassal of Rome was as good as another), it makes no sense that the Roman Army would send such a small contingent so far afield from their origin, especially considering their utility against the Parthians. It would have been logistically irresponsible. Plus, Sarmatians would have fallen under the control of Constantinople; the Eastern emperors would likely not have sent useful auxillaries to the Western fringe, to their own military detriment.
  
  Most horrendously, the film makes a gross mockery of the Church. While some might enjoy this, it is almost completely inaccurate, historically. (1) The bishop is shown in a most disrespectful and inaccurate manner; clearly the director/producer wanted to take a hit at the Catholic clergy with this movie. (2) Also, the Church did not resort to forced conversions, at least in the manner demonstrated in the film. The Church had only a century before come around to accepting the justifiability of warfare and capital punishment when carried out by Christian rulers. Torture didn't enter into accepted ecclesiastical practice until several centuries later, and then only in extreme inquisitorial cases. Furthermore, the inquisitorial procedure, we know it, was only initiated in pursuit of heresy under Innocent III, who reigned from the end of the 1100's to early 1200's. (3) The armies of the Roman Empire in the West did not serve the pope. There were no such things as "papal armies" at this time. There were odd, rare occasions that popes would lead defensive measures in the vicinity of Rome itself, but the popes did not send out pontifical armies to squash resistance, either political or doctrinal. This is terribly anachronistic. (4) Just as the popes did not have armies to enforce their will throughout the western half of the Empire, nor did they have the authority to make liberal, nepotistic land grants throughout the breadth of the Empire, as the movie portrays. This would be a dangerous act for any pope to take, considering both the reigning emperors in Rome itself (last was deposed in 476, long after troops were pulled from Britain), and the reigning emperors in the East, who lasted until 1453. And to argue on the basis of the Donation of Constantine is also anachronistic, as it dates from the mid to late eighth century.
  
  All in all, this movie's claim to historical accuracy is null and void.
  
  It is at least enjoyable for the martial violence and occasionally cheesy effects.
  
  
  
• Woad to Wuin
  By A2OKUR6SNICR4V on 2004-12-31
  This is a pitiful attempt to bring the historical King Arthur to the screen; I confess to not having seen the original version of the movie, but the "extended unrated version" doesn't inspire me with any confidence that it has anything of any value to offer to those seeking a new version of the Arthurian story, historical fact, or even entertainment. The script is inane, Keira Knightley, though very beautiful, is absurdly miscast as Guinevere, and Clive Owen is positively wooden as Arthur. The supporting cast is occasionally very good, particularly Ray Winstone's Bors, but Cerdic and Cynric as the father-son villainous team are too obviously inspired by Vito and Santino Corleone to inspire anything other than guffaws of laughter. Their villainous behaviour-stopping a rape only to have the woman murdered, casually knifing a henchman in the gut in frustration-are clumsy. I don't mind over-the-top performances; I'm very fond of "Conan the Barbarian;" this isn't just over-the-top-it's incompetent directing, poor writing, and indifferent actor commitment.
  
  The fight sequences would have been exhilarating, if only the characters had been compelling. But they're not. They're neither convincing as human beings, nor in the least bit interesting. In particular, the ice fight is visually stunning. But it doesn't make sense. Why would you walk down the centre of a frozen lake, where the ice is thinner and you're further away from safety? And why is Keira Knightley wearing next to nothing when there's snow falling? Well, apart from the obvious reasons.
  
  So much for the movie. The packaging proclaims that this is "The Untold True Story That Inspired the Legend." That's a logical fallacy, of course-if it was untold in the fifth century, how can it have come to light now? But is it a plausible piece of historical fiction? The answer, unfortunately, is No.
  
  I don't want to be accused of being an encyclopedia freak or anything like that; but equally, I don't think that knowing something about history and legend should disqualify a person from holding and defending an opinion about a work of art that purports to be historically accurate.
  
  The screenwriter and director of this movie have attempted a snow-job on the movie-going public. They profess to tell the "true story" of King Arthur, and that is simply not what they do. And it doesn't matter how many times Keira Knightley says in interviews "This is historically accurate." It isn't. I don't mind movies that are historically inaccurate. But movies that are marketed on one assumption and then deliver something else is simply a lie. And that's what this film is--a lie.
  
  The rest of my comments address the more serious historical blunders of David Franzoni and Atoine Fuqua. If you're not interested in the historical background, son't read any further.
  
  The film's prologue states that "Historians agree that the classical 15th century tale of King Arthur and his knights rose from a real hero who lived a thousand years earlier in a period called the Dark Ages. Recently discovered archaeological evidence sheds light on his true identity." Of course, anyone baldly stating that "historians agree" on anything from the results of Agincourt to the colour of an orange obviously doesn't know historians. They disagree wildly about whether there ever was any original of King Arthur. David Dumville, for example, claims there was not; Leslie Alcock (an archaeologist, not historian) is an agnostic; Geoffrey Ashe has argued in favour of an historical Arthur, but changed his identification in the 1980s; many historians don't care. And the legend of King Arthur is not 15th century. The earliest legendary accounts (as opposed to historical accounts) of Arthur date to perhaps the ninth century, perhaps the tenth. Sir Thomas Malory wrote his highly influential book Le Morte d'Arthur in the fifteenth century, of course-but that's not what the moviemakers say.
  
  The movie seems to be based on a book by Linda Malcor and Scott Littleton called From Scythia to Camelot, in which it is argued that the legends were inspired by Lucius Artorius Castus, a commander of Sarmatian auxiliary cavalry stationed on Hadrian's Wall in the third century. This is possible-some Sarmatian legends do show a similarity to, for example, the story of the Grail. But the legend of these cavalry auxiliaries bears very little resemblance to the story of Arthur, so screenwriter David Franzoni took the Sarmatian Cavalry idea and transported it anachronistically into the fifth century. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit there.
  
  The film is set in the year 452, and in one scene Bishop Germanus talks about the imminent withdrawal of Roman troops from Britain. The Romans withdrew from Britain in 410. It is possible, perhaps, as a number of historians have suggested, that native British soldiers stayed behind and organized a defence against the incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes from Germany, the Picts from Scotland and the Scotti from Ireland. But after 410, neither of the emperors nor the Pope had any right or ability to recall these legions, if there were any. The highly-organized Roman system we see in the film is therefore hugely anachronistic, especially the garrison on the Wall itself, which, as the northernmost extreme of the Empire, was the first part to be abandoned.
  
  The barbarian raids, incidentally, were hardly the full-scale and well-organized (and financed, according to one line in the movie) invasion imagined in the movie. They began (according to tradition) in 449, were brought to a full but temporary halt in about 500 (perhaps by Arthur at the battle of Badon Hill), then resumed throughout the latter part of the sixth century until the Britons had been driven back into Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, and Brittany. The idea that the Saxons were thoroughly and decisively trounced once is absurd, especially since the movie's time scheme suggests that all the events depicted occurred within a few weeks. That's the kind of telescoping of historical events that Shakespeare indulged in, to great artistic achievement, but that's not what the moviemakers promised with this film. They promised the "true story."
  
  Some of the characters are historical-Pelagius and Germanus, for example. Lancelot could never have been a real person-he was invented by a Swiss poet called Ulrich von Zatzikhoven in the late twelfth century. Gawain's name, of course, is anachronistic-his name in the earliest Arthurian stories is Gwalchmei. Similarly for Guinevere, whose earliest recorded name is Gwenhwyfar. That Galahad should be a historical character is ridiculous-he was invented by an anonymous author in the early thirteenth century specifically as a knight on a quest for the Holy Grail. Merlin may have been a real historical character, a bard of the sixth century (not fifth, and not contemporary with Arthur) whose name, in reality, would have been Myrddin. it was changed to Merlin by Geoffrey of Monmouth in about 1138 to avoid the unpleasant associations with the French word merde. So half the characters don't belong in the particular historical milieu that the moviemakers tried to portray.
  
  Then there are things that are just uncomfortable. All the harping on freedom, for example-a concept that was meaningless in most pre-American Revolution societies. They had, instead, an idea of the rightness of one's role in life-to them, freedom didn't mean living without the dominion of overlord, or voting rights, or whatever the screenwriter meant. Freedom in the Dark and Middle Ages meant living one's proper and assigned role in life. When the characters speak of freedom in this movie, they just look like their costumes don't fit properly.
  
  All of this would be forgivable if the film was self-proclaimed as a fantasy, or if it were not incompetently directed, written and, in many cases, acted. Unfortunately, it is garbage from the opening moment to the closing. The movie absorbed two hours of my life, that I'd really very much like to get back and do something useful with.
  
  Incidentally, the narration at the beginning and the end of the movie is by Lancelot. How? He dies at the end. Or is it perhaps just a wannabe Lancelot, like the wannabe-director Antoine Fuqua and the wannabe-scriptwriter? This is absolutely the worst Arthurian film I've ever seen; and I've seen "Sword of the Valiant."
  
  
  
• This retelling of the King Arthur myth is pure entertainment
  By A17FLA8HQOFVIG on 2005-02-26
  Enjoyment of this film depends on expectations. And so, if you don't care about historical reality or Academy Award winning performances, this latest version of the King Arthur myth is a great couple of hours of pure entertainment. It's set in the year 405 and tells a rather modern version of a courageous and wise Roman King Arthur, who leads a band of brave knights into a variety of battles.
  
  In a short prelude to the main action, the audience learns that these knights have been forced into involuntary servitude as young boys because they come from a tribe of great fighters whose lives the Romans spared because of their bravery. Their names are familiar - Lancelot, Sir Galahad, Tristan, etc. and they are bonded in the way that men at war bond. These are the years, however, of the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire, which has Arthur questioning his own loyalty. After all, his own mother was a Britton, one of the conquered subjects of Rome. And he's also the kind of king who believes in freedom and justice for all even though its centuries before these concepts became popular. But no matter, as played by Clive Owen, he sure does look good in his armor, as do all the knights, who seem to be able to move around quite freely in their seemingly restrictive garments.
  
  Enter Guinevere played by Keira Knightly, an 18-year old beauty, who is so pretty that she steals every scene she's in. But this Guinevere, however, is no damsel in distress. After she is rescued from a torture chamber by the good Arthur, we soon learn that she is a woman to be reckoned with. Not only does she stand the snow in a low cut gown and shoot arrows at the enemy, she also has another costume which looks like a leather bikini with just a narrow leather strap over her chest to bring out her cleavage. This is appropriate since she is supposed to be from a matriarchal pagan tribe and for this scene she wears body paint. In this outfit she carries a sword and fights one-on-one with the Saxon bad guys as their red blood splashes on her in strategic places.
  
  I thought the casting was wonderful. The prelude of the young boys taken away to fight grow up to look pretty much what we would expect them to look like as adults. Lancelot is dark with curly hair for example. One of the young boys is chubby and he grows up to be a knight called Bors, who is a big lovable giant of man played by Ray Winstone who is cast as the loving father of a dozen children and is seen sometimes holding a baby who looks exactly like him. I liked the idea that there were no super stars in this production. This allowed me to see the people as characters, rather than the latest box office draw.
  
  The battle scenes were great. This was because it was possible to follow certain characters which fleshed out the storyline. Later, the extras on the DVD explained the difficulty of training all the extras to ride horses, fence and generally look authentic. The main characters' fights were great also, mostly because they really looked like they were fighting, including the exhaustion that must come after a day of heavy swordplay. I applaud the director for this as well as the film editor, because in a film like this there is a lot of footage to choose from and decisions have to be made as to what to leave in and what lands on the cutting room floor.
  
  This is not a film that will grip my emotions and put tears in my eyes. But it certainly did engage my attention. That's why I recommend it.
  
  
• Magnificent!!
  By A35YWA2V4QHOJ3 on 2006-03-08
  When most people think of the Arthurian legend, they think of things like knights in full suits-of-armor, magic, jousting and medieval castles. To be sure, these motifs are straight out of the writings of Sir Thomas Mallory. However, they are also anachronisms when juxtaposed with the original myth.
  
  This film gets back to the roots of the myth, which date back to right around the end of the Roman occupation. It also picks up on Arthur and his knights being descendents of Samarian knights, which is a plausible theory. In short, the epoch portrayed in this movie served as the genesis of the legend of Arthur. Whether or not the fellow ever actually existed is still a matter of speculation - even amongst historians with doctorates.
  
  David Franzoni, the writer of GLADIATOR, once again displays his erudition as he mixes historical fact with fictional details. There are some cool special features that entice one to admire the lengths they went to in making the sets and battle scenes / battle tactics as authentic as possible. One leaves this movie feeling as though he or she was just in the middle of 5th century (CE) Britain.
  
  Clive Owen is terrific as the noble Arthur. Hans Zimmer delivers yet another top-notch soundtrack. The direction is excellent. Unfortunately, the Unrated label does not = Keira Knightley taking her shirt off. However, she still looks very sexy in Celtic warpaint!
  
  One of the most refreshing factors of the film is that it does not concentrate on the love-triangle. That this is an important part of the myth is not in dispute. However, some versions of the tale focus on the triangle to the detriment to the rest of the myth. In this movie, things never get past some subtle flirting between Lancelot & Guinivere.
  
  For fans of the legend, this movie is a can't miss. For people who desire to learn more about both British and Roman history, this movie is invaluable. For everyone else, it's certainly worth seeing at least once. Long Live King Arthur!
  
  
• A fine epic despite terrible lead performances
  By A220FJEQNGMSRN on 2006-07-20
  The King Arthur Director's Cut is no better or worse than the theatrical, having the same strengths - some good character writing, action scenes where you can actually tell what is going on, an interesting background - and weaknesses - plot holes you could drive a Mack truck through, laughable historical errors, idiotic battle strategies and some hideously bad performances. The latter are definitely the biggest problem, with Antoine Fuqua proving more often than not truly hopeless at directing actors. Indeed, KA boasts some of, if not THE worst performances ever seen in a major studio picture. Clive Owen may look the part, but he delivers the lines like a dyslexic reading off idiot boards while fighting a hangover while Keira Knightley's Guinevere is just as pitiful: she's supposed to be a Celtic warrior queen but despite the fact that her people seem to speak Sioux for some reason she sounds like she's been to a rather expensive English finishing school where they teach you to mispronounce words like `cuhnntwee' (country) and `Roahm' (Rome). That wouldn't be so bad if she had even the remotest shred of talent, but none is to be found. Not since Helen of Troy have their been two leads so desperately in need of dubbing by more talented artists. Throw in Ken Stott doing an outta-ray-juss Ay-Taly-Eano accent, Ray Winstone overdosing on the bish-bash-bosh routine he does instead of acting these days and a couple of frighteningly inept child actors and it's a miracle that the film manages to be as much fun as it is. When the characters aren't trying to talk (something only Ioan Gufford seems to be able to do with success), the action is well handled (particularly the battle on the ice) and the film surprisingly good - but with better casting, it could have been so much more.
  
  
• The true story that inspired the legend... EXCELSIOR!!!
  By A7YRIAR531O83 on 2004-07-26
  After all the negative reviews that you've read about this movie, you'll probably end up coming out of the theatre thinking to yourself that 'it really wasn't that bad'.
  
  This is not your typical King Arthur movie. It doesn't focus heavily on Excalibur, Merlin, Guinevere, the Knights, or the relationships amongst them. You'll see the round table but they don't spend time there. It is a story about Arthur and his knights defending its English colony against the invading Saxons and awaiting their freedom from Rome. 'The true story that inspired the legend'.
  
  The characters were interesting, particularly the Saxon leader (Skarsgard) who was cruel and sadistic. Keira Knightley as Guinevere reminded me a lot of Natalie Portman although I never really noticed the resemblance before. I would've liked to see more character development on Lancelot though, as well as Merlin and Arthur.
  
  The dialog at the beginning of the movie is important to your understanding of what is going on. So make sure you don't miss the beginning, or get distracted by the person sitting next to you spilling bubble tea on herself.
  
  Overall, not as bad as you may expect. Some good cinematography and a story that is not your typical King Arthur tale.
  
  
• An terrible movie falsely marketed as "history"
  By A3AJGF5DB7V2TM on 2005-02-02
  There is so much wrong on so many levels with Franzoni's self-review, but I will just make some select observations due to the space limitations here.
  
  1) Terrible movie - awful dialogue - bogus "history" - poor plotting - washed out, bland cinematography - painful acting.
  
  2) Franzoni has proved to all of us that have spent years studying Arthurian literature and ancient/medieval history in general that he knows next to nothing about these subjects. Yes, he has glanced at Littleton and Malcor's highly conjectural (and not widely-accepted) book "From Scythia to Camelot", but does not apparently understand much of what he read there. He definitely cannot tell the difference between supposition and fact (From Scythia to Camelot is mostly made up of the former, not the latter, which is why few Arthurian scholars accept its hypotheses). The fact that he would even cite a hack like John Matthews as if he was some well-respected scholar is absolutely laughable! Franzoni should leave history to those that have actually put in the necessary time and effort studying it - his third-generation photocopied Cliff Notes version of it just doesn't fly.
  
  3) There are no new archaeological discoveries supporting the hypothesis that the 2nd AD Roman soldier Lucius Artorius Castus was the "real" Arthur - that is a blatant lie.
  
  4) It is ridiculous that Sarmatian knights were given names like Lancelot, Gawain and Dagonet. These names are no more Sarmatian than Joe, Pete or Mike.
  
  5) Arthur is _not_ a title - it is a Welsh personal name - there is not even the tiniest shred of evidence that it was ever used as a title.
  
  6) The early sources are pretty clear that Arthur was a Briton on _both_ sides of his family - while his immediate ancestors woudl have been Roman citizens (by nature of living in a territory conquered and governed by Romans), he was regarded to have been of foreign descent.
  
  
  
  
• so, so wrong
  By A30CF1DWWI5UNT on 2005-07-25
  The screeplay writers comments contain a small grain of truth. Unfortunatly the understanding of these historical "facts" where so badly handled that they would have been much better of making a purely fantasy/mythic version... Castus was a real person but he was NOT the 5th/6thC figure (although many of his exploits may have been mixed in he lived ceturies earlier) and the late Roman Heavy cav tradition did come from Eastern folk like the Pathians and Sarmatians, but they would have been completly integrated into Romano British Culture by the period in question. As for the costume!!! AAHHH! (and WHAT was Kiera wearing!). I could go on and on about the historical blunders and misconceptions but I wont. What gets me is the departures from history and legend did not make for a better film! Why would someone think they can make a better story that one of the most enduring legends of the British Isles??? The story made NO sense, either historicaly OR as a film (why did ou kill off Lance???!) and why did it all take place in the north when the Saxon invasion was from the South East!!! This is a complete muddle of history and a very poor film...just go and watch Excalibur instead! It's not history (quite intentionaly "mythic") but it sure is a great movie!
  
  
• The once-only king...
  By A2VE83MZF98ITY on 2004-07-09
  I really wanted to love this film. I have always been a fan of the Arthurian legends and stories; I've been a Clive Owen fan for years, and I've enjoyed many Jerry Bruckheimer films. So what's not to love?

  The film tries to be historical, but not really, sort of in the manner of 'Gladiator'. But it isn't 'Gladiator'. It tries to be 'Braveheart' in tone and message. But it isn't 'Braveheart'. It tries to be a triumphant tale of the king. But it isn't 'The Return of the King'. True, the viewer will see elements of each of these films in the plot, the characters, the cinematography, the choreography - but it falls short of each of these other films in significant ways.

  One film this is deliberately not trying to be is 'Excalibur'. This is a demystified Arthur. There is a Merlin, but his character is a Druid leader, devoid of any real supernatural powers; he is a shamanic figure, called a Dark Magician, but there's no magic here beyond the blue paint and mysteries-hiding-in-the-forest ways. Arthur is a half-breed, Roman and British; this corresponds with what historians believe about early possible Arthurian figures - that he was a Romano-British leader at the time of the collapse of the Empire. The knights in this tale are a complete invention - supposed conscripts from the Asian plains transplanted into Britain, they are under the leadership of Arthur along Hadrian's Wall (the northern border of England). Fault number one occurs here - in a film trying hard to establish its this-really-happened credentials, Arthur should not be in the north. Nor should the Saxons be invading in the north. Nor should a principle Roman family be located on the undefended side of the wall. Willing suspension of disbelief is one thing, but these are too many in a row.

  I would give this picture three-and-one-half stars, but as whole numbers are required here, I will bump it up to a four-star-out-of-five picture on the whole. The plot was plodding at times, but picks up near the end; too much reliance on battle scenes and not enough character development is done, particularly as the characters deviate from standard legends so much. We care for Arthur, Guinevere and his knights, but somehow are left wondering why we do. There's something missing here, and that's too bad.

  The round table is effective but only vaguely explained. The knights' relationship to each other and to Arthur is very clear from the outset, but apart from the most general of relationships with the legendary figures, they bear little resemblance in terms of actual deeds. Arthur is an idealistic Roman Christian who becomes disillusioned by the failures of people far away - one should look up the historical figure of Pelagius prior to attending the film, as the early Christian heretical controversies play a rather unexpected role here. The sword-in-the-stone legend is explained in a very innovative fashion.

  The battle scenes are interesting if not entirely original. The effects would be quite at home in films such as 'Gladiator' and 'Braveheart', right down to the armour and the blue paint. The sword play is very good in some parts, although 'Troy' had better choreography in this regard. The one very effective battle scene was the battle on the ice lake, which is quite ingenious, if not entirely believable.

  One thing that is believable here are the character developments - not all the good guys live to see the end; not all the bad guys die or get their come-uppence, much like real life. There is a happy ending of sorts, but of course history dictates that the Saxons would not in the end be held back; indeed, various invasions would continue until the time of the Normans. Arthur's ideal in the film is one people united, ostensibly for liberty; of course, Arthur is declare king - at a time when constitutional monarchies did not exist, so much for the hope of liberty...

  The juxtaposition of church and empire on the one side and the locals on the other is a bit of a problem - the Saxons are invading, so that is bad; the Romans and the church institution are foreign implants into the land also, and they are bad (neither live up to their ideals in practice). The message here is a rather xenophobic one, not too thinly veiled.

  Clive Owen puts in a very solid performance here, one of his best. Stellan Skarsgård as the Saxon king is a bit overdone, but appropriate to the character. Guinevere, portrayed by Keira Knightley, is a unique character, a native (Woad) who becomes the conscience of Arthur. The love interest/affair between Guinevere and Lancelot (portrayed by Ioan Gruffudd) is given a new and interesting twist, taking place entirely before the marriage of Arthur and Guinevere, with Merlin as the officiant of the ceremony. Merlin (Stephen Dillane) is a shadowy figure who fights the Romans until the Saxons become an even worse enemy - then, the enemy of my enemy...; Dillane carries this role out admirably, largely by his presence more than by performance.

  The film was set on location in Ireland for the most part - undisturbed rolling hills are seen everywhere; primeval forests that make one think of Druid/Celtic/mystic influences.

  One thing I did love was the sound - I think I was more aware of the sound in this film than any other for quite some time. From the arrows flying through the air, the horses pounding the ground, the swords clanking and the ice cracking, the sound really stood out as full and crisp, moreso than in similar films. The music by Hans Zimmer is appropriate, but also somewhat derivative of other films like 'Gladiator' - the songs by Moya Brennan are (not surprisingly) hauntingly Celtic in tone.
  
  

• Bad, bad, BAD!
  By A17VWXPA3ENXWC on 2004-07-16
  I truly love the King Arthur legends, and different takes on them do not really bother me...they're legends after all, they're supposed to be interpreted. I've always pictured the Aurthur legends set in the dark ages (perhaps from reading Mary Stwart and The Mists of Avalon) and it seems more likely that if such a person as Arthur existed, it would have been then. Loose interpretation of a myth, however, does not excuse this movie.

  Good heavans, where do I start? The plot is jumbled, apparently the knights whose names, at least, are recognizable, come from Samaria and follow a half Briton named Arthur, whose status as a half-Briton seems to be added about two thirds of the way through the movie as an afterthought. The film opens with a lot of reading about how this movie is historically accurate and them some voice overs and then some lovely shots of knights riding, one of the few things that is well done about this movie. Apparently Arthur and his knights need to escort some Bishop to Hadrian's Wall (don't ask me why)who sends them on one last mision. Of course, no one bothers to explain why this Roman aristocrat that they're sent to escort to safety is living beyond Hadrian's wall in so called Woad territory.

  Have I forgot to mention the Woads? Apparently the woads are the British natives, lead by Merlin, a blond hippie with a dirty blue face who has about thirty seconds of screen time. Every so often they attack good Arthur for no reason, and later try to guilt trip him into saving them from the Saxons who for some reason are invading from the North. Along the way, we find out that Rome is corrupt, Christians suck, and that the Saxon leader played by Stellan Skarsgard is really having a good time whispering cheesy badguy lines like "Burn everything...kill everybody."

  Oh yeah, and Arthur finds Guinevere. Why is it that whenever Hollywood wants to make a 'strong female character' they turn her into a man? While Arthur is muttering his hollow, twentieth century Braveheart lines about 'freedom' Guinevere is berating him because her people (the Woads) need a leader and he who is half Briton himself fights against them. The two have utterly no chemistry and for some reason they decided to utterly ditch the love triangle, one of the most important themes of the story...there's no possibility for it either, if you watch the movie you'll see why...but back to Guinevere...if her being an obnoxious shrew isn't enough, they have to turn her into a 'warrior' as well. And give her some Hollywood feminist lines that wind up completaly out of tune with the supposedly period movie. And don't even get me started on her final battle costume...my only question is...what would happen if she...well...popped out?

  I enjoyed the interactions between the knights, and unlike many, I did not find them particularly interchangable. Arthur, however, was another matter. He was dull, boring, and so completaly lacking charisma that it was simply impossible to understand why, exactly, everyone was so devoted to him. I especially liked the scene where he hollored up at the sky to god...or the director..."Why? It was supposed to be me!" At which point one is thinking..."good heavans, I wish it were..." Give me Braveheart, give me Gladiator, give me Monty Python for goodness sake...anything but this.
  
  

• This movie rocked!
  By A713VBD7I8NLS on 2004-07-28
  I have recently saw this movie and I thought it was amazing. I was able to follow this story much more than any other King Arthur movie. This one did not portray Guinevere as a indecisive adulteresss rather she was a British/Celtic warrioress. I have to congratulate the director for telling the tale with such conviction. I loved the soundtrack that accompanied the movie also. Clive Owen is unbelievably hot as were the other male actors. Keira Knightley is gorgeous, talented and sensual. She has this amazing smoulder in her eyes. She is one lucky young woman! Great cast! Great cinematography! Of all the movies done on King Arthur this one I will keep on my DVD shelf...the rest will have to go except for maybe "Mists of Avalon".
  
  
• Best version yet.
  By ACF1FBQDC6N6G on 2004-10-15
  I'll not deny that this is quite the departure for the "classic" King Arthur story, but I do think it is the best one. I love a good fantasy film, but this was not intended to be one as it clearly states in the opening of the movie. It was based on archeology and new discoveries.
  The film opens with a young boy going off to war with other youths from his home in Sarmatia. We learn this boy is Lancelot and he vows to his proud cheering family, that he will return. The film jumps ahead fifteen years or so, and we see the grown Lancelot and other knights ridding across the hills.
  It then unfolds into a story of betrayal from Rome, stuggle between good friends, and a man coming to grips with the shattering thoughts that all he held dear was just an illusion. The knight Tristan is the most interestingly portrayed and most underused in the movie. Lancelot does come across a bit Skywalker-whiney at times, and the love scene could have been left out, but it also could have been worse. Arthur himself took the character and showed him in the most realistic un-Camelot way. Though he stuck to his beliefs, he wasn't a cardborad ninny. A great film, the knights were awsome, Guinevere was beautiful, as was the scenery, and the baddies were good and bad. Watch it, enjoy it, don't over analize it, its a movie!
  Other reviewers have misquoted this movie, taken events out of context, and just looked for things to be negative about. For one, Lancelot doesn't tell the unhindered priest, "Your God doesn't live here." Bors does. Guinever is never shown to be the mother of the young boy, and she is not a vile manipulator.
  And probably one of the most emotional scenes in the movie, does involve a bit of singing. A very haunting song Bors' wife sings about home.
  Yes it is a violent movie, but it is a violent story. I would much rather believe in a King Arthur that was a real person, in a real world, than the alway idealic crusader from "First Knight," or the plate-mail clad knights of "Excalibur." And people please stop refering to every period movie with a sword, a princess, and a tyranical king as another Braveheart, all that shows is your inablity to describe something useing your own thoughts.
  
  

• Kingdom of Heaven [Region 2]
• Pearl Harbor (4 Disc Documentary)
• Underworld [Region 2]
• Reign of Fire
• The Patriot (Special Edition)