User Reviews

King Arthur:

Antoine Fuqua's King Arthur is an underrated gem, and one of my favourite post 90's medieval epics. It opened to lukewarm reviews,our reception and was ultimately written off. Too bad. It's a rousing, detailed, character driven adrenaline rush, and on top of being visually stunning, it has a brain in its head as well, as its characters actually have something to say as they chop each other's heads off. Clive Owen makes an honourable Artorius, leading knights of the round table that are far grittier than any legends we heard as kids. Him and his crew are actually Sarmatian warriors, taken in their early years to give years of service to the rampaging Roman Empire, as tribute for their lands. Theirs is a tough life, fighting one hair raising battle after another for a cause that was never their own. Each actor plays their knight with a sense dignity, humour and humanity, and it amazes me in a film as fast paced as this that they took the care to write like, six or seven different supporting characters so diverse, detailed and different. Ray Winstone is an a optional wrecking ball as the rowdy Bors, Mads Mikkelsen plays quiet, deadly and loyal as Tristram, Hugh Dancy is outraged and passionate as Galahad, Joel Egerton sly and good natured as Gawain, Ray Stevenson a gentle giant as, and Ioan Gruffudd makes a brooding, jaded, yet hopeful Lancelot. The film pits them in a close quarters battle with the Saxons, led by the terrifying Cerdic (Stellen Skarsgard is just 'piss your pants scary' in one of his best roles). Keira Knightely also joins the party as a kick ass, archery loving version of Guinevere, full of sass and wounded patriotism. The film rides the high of Hans Zimmer's utterly invigorating score, which is some of his very best work. From scene to scene it has a wonderfully flowing, beauty laden aesthetic, from an ice siege in a narrow pass, to a misty forest ambush, to the all out thundering roar of the final battle. It uses the picturesque, damp, wild UK locations to achieve some really amazing shots. One note: it's important to see the Director's cut, which is longer and presented in all its bloody, romantic, uncensored glory. Disney, who had shares in the rights at the time, had to be a buzzkill and insist they tone it down for its theatrical run, which is bullshit, to put it mildly. That could be a reason it didn't do too well in theatres initially. Irregardless, it's a blood stirring, gorgeous film of epic proportions and an excellent addition to the genre.

Jerry Bruckheimer's KING ARTHUR is a shining example of that new breed of mythology adaption. It is similar to Wolfgang Petersen's TROY, in that it dispenses with the supernatural splendour and phantasmagorical intrigue characteristic of traditional tales, and presents the story as (relatively) realistic historical fiction, attempting to convey the "magic" of the story through drama, rather than gaudy special effects.

This is a brave venture by Bruckheimer - and director Fuqua- and they are to be commended for executing it with such style and creativity as is displayed in this film. It has, however, enjoyed somewhat limited success, due to the fact that it presents such a radical interpretation of a story much closer to our hearts than that of the Illiad.

I believe, though, that if the viewer simply opens one's mind and attempts to enjoy the story purely for the sake of itself (forgetting, for the moment, Rosemary Sutcliff and Barbara Leonie Picard), KING ARTHUR will reveal itself as a truly fine piece of film-making.

More than anything else, Fuqua masterfully portrays the atmosphere of the tale, endowing it with a sense of time and place far more eloquent than the rather run-of-the-mill dialogue. The entire experience oozes the ambiance of the early common era, from windswept downs and hills to rugged coasts and snow-cloaked mountains; from the spartan order of a Roman camp to the hellish confines of a torture chamber. Exemplars of this perfectly-presented atmosphere are Arthur's knights(Ioan Gruffud, Ray Winstone, Joel Edgerton, Mads Mikkelsen, Hugh Dancy and Ray Stevenson).These are not the chivalrous, couth, pious Christian knights your mum told you about, but rather a troop of barbaric, lecherous, pagan Sarmatian mercenaries. Together (with excellent performances all round, particularly by Winstone, Gruffud and Edgerton) they epitomise the pragmatic, godless, exquisitely human atmosphere of the period. As Gawaine tells a cowering Roman friar in an early scene - "Your God doesn't live here".

The lead actors, too, are outstanding, from Stellan Skarsgaard's sociopathic Cerdic, to the delicious Keira Knightley's dark and beautiful Guinevere. Only Clive Owen disappoints as Arthur himself, lacking the emotion this characterisation requires to supplement his steely resolve.

Despite the lukewarm reception to which it was subjected, KING ARTHUR is a finely crafted and memorable item of film-making. Forget all your preconceptions about King Arthur - just float with it, and let the rich atmosphere engulf you. 9/10.

For those who wanted a film historically correct would be better off watching Discovery Channel, or History Channel.

I loved the Gladiator because it was a fantastic film and not because it was historically correct. Idem with the last 2 Robin Hoods, and Braveheart, Ben Hur I enjoyed the STORIES. Titanic was not historically correct, but people loved it. I'm not a Titanic fan, but that's my point. In Titanic people enjoyed the love story between Jack and Rose.

King Arthur is one of the rare films that I can see over and over without being tired of it. The actors are perfect for their roles, especially the alchemy between the handsome Arthur (Clive Owen)and Ioan Gruffud) (a very good looking Lancelot)and the knights with their differences, their bickering, their humor, each with their own fighting skills and their humanity. Guenivire less than the others. She was the person that I liked the least. But she was the perfect wife for Arthur. I really liked the actress who played Alecto's mom. She seemed to be a submissive but extraordinary woman, looking after the hostages Lucan with much human care, much like the knight Dagonet.

The music is beautiful, as well as the scenery, the battles. There were some very sad moments, but they were necessary for the film. The Catholic church was bashed, but I wasn't surprised, because it became an institution and not a religion.

To reply to one critic, Arthur wasn't shocked when he saw Roman torture, he was shocked when he saw the torture of the Catholic church, and when he found out that the priest he considered as his father was ex-communicated and murdered by the bishop "friend of my father". Don't confound the Romans and the Catholic Church. The Romans were as inhuman as the Saxons, but Arthur had a very naïve vision of the Catholic Church. All in all an excellent film that I really enjoy.

Clive Owen was perfect as Arthur, an excellent fighter, yet a caring person, caring for others, especially for his knights. His attempt to save Dagonet was a perfect example of a man, of a king. His eyes were beautiful and added a dimension to the film.

I loved the alchemy between the handsome Arthur (Clive Owens) and Ioan Gruffud (a very good looking Lancelot), and all the other knights. They were human beings, and they showed it marvelously.

For those bashing the film because it wasn't historically correct, I DON'T CARE. I loved the film. I loved the story line, and I enjoy seeing it again and again.

And I loved it!

Not just the new take on the King Arthur legend and the able cast, but the colors, the costumes, the landscapes, the horses, and Hans Zimmer's heart-pounding score.

I'm no King Arthur scholar but I have always been enamored with the chivalric ideals. It's great to see the knights in shining armor and Merlin conjuring up the mists and casting spells, and the young Arthur pulling Excalibur out of the stone.

But I went into this movie with an open mind. I was swiftly transported to that earlier time and happy for the journey. I could see where the elements of the now oh-so-familiar Arthurian themes may have had their beginnings. I found the on-screen chemistry between Ioan Gruffod and Clive Owen to be very powerful and it provided poignant counterpoint to Lancelot's most fateful choice.

The love triangle was never my favorite part of the Arthurian legends, so the subtle treatment of it here didn't bother me at all. In fact, I found it more intriguing in this film than in any other King Arthur movie I've seen.

I loved that there was no hocus-pocus-type magic. Instead the magic was in nature itself - the landscapes, the forests, the rain, the fog, the ice and snow - all creating an other-worldly atmosphere along with Moya Brennan's haunting vocals and Hans Zimmer's stirring score.

I loved the knights. I loved the idea that they were just regular guys and, in effect, drafted into military service. Not the privileged elite who volunteered their services to a king. Yet it is apparent that the Sarmatian knights fought more out of their love and respect for Arthur than any duty to Rome. That comraderie feels very organic and the sentiments, pure. I liked that they're not all wearing the same uniform, that they might have picked up pieces here and there as spoils of war.

I was especially captivated by Mads Mikkelson's Tristan. There appeared to be Eastern influences in his tattoos, clothing, sword, and fighting style. I love the idea of Lancelot using two swords. And I learned something about battlefield strategy, too.

Whatever shortcomings this movie may have, I found heart and soul in it. It was not only entertaining, it touched all my senses, and I felt good when I walked out of the theatre.

I did not hate this film. It was fairly entertaining, with well-staged battle scenes and high production values. The acting, though often either overblown or slightly wooden, was passable, and Ioan Gruffydd was actually quite good.

What bothered me is that the text at the opening of King Arthur promised a portrayal of the "historical" Arthur, and then manifestly failed to deliver. For the record, there is no "historical" Arthur. There are scattered references in the works of Gildas and Bede to an Arthur, or an Aurelius Ambrosianus upon whom the legend of Arthur is based. There is a fairly detailed story of a King Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth's History, though most of this seems drawn from Welsh and Cornish folktales of the type later collected in the Mabinogion. There is, however, very hard evidence that there ever was a King Arthur, or battles of Baddon Hill and Celidon forest.

There was, however, an invasion and colonization of Britain by the Saxons and other Germanic tribes during the fifth and sixth centuries, following the Roman military withdrawal. And it is pretty clear that the native Celtic and Romano-Celtic population put up one hell of a fight, slowing but not stopping the Saxon invasions. My own opinion is that there is enough smoke to suggest that the Arthur of medieval romance probably had some kind of historical prototype (most legends of this type usually do: a "Dux Bellorum" (war leader) as named in Gildas, possibly this shadowy Aurelius Ambrosianus.

So, I had high hopes for the movie King Arthur. After all, the film had the time period right, and the context looked convincing enough. Unfortunately, rather than using the historical material and context, the filmmakers completely ignored them. There was no consistency to this movie, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of the early middle ages (the so-called dark ages) will be more than irritated by the pretended historicity of the movie. Some examples: 1. The film suggests the late-imperial Roman government and policy was directed by the Church, through the Papacy. This is absolutely false. Although the Empire was staunchly Christian at this time, it was the Emperor and his court -- at Constantinople rather than Rome -- that set and executed policy. Bishops did not order armies around. In fact, the See of Rome at the time was a relatively weak power centre at the time, especially compared to the Bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria.

2. While it is true that the Romans enlisted soldiers and units from border tribes like the Sarmatians, they were never posted at the other end of the empire. This would have made no sense, since the whole point of the foederati was to create a buffer between the empire and the northern and eastern barbarians. The Sarmatian soldiers were typically posted in Sarmatia.

3. Arthur would never have known Pelagius who, though a Briton or Irishman by birth, was in Rome from about AD 405. He was condemned by the Church, but never actually excommunicated or convicted of heresy, and probably died in Rome in AD 420, around the time the "historical" Arthur was born.

4. By the fifth century, the Roman occupied part of Britain had been quite thoroughly Romanized. The population was mostly Romanized Britons, and NOT an ethnically British population under the boot of a few foreign, ethnically Roman aristocrats. While there certainly were non-Romanized Celts like the Wodes about, most of the Britain that Arthur would have been fighting to defend would have been populated by Christian Britons who though of themselves as Romans.

5. Bishop Germanicus, or St. Germain, was not a former Roman general. He was a former Gaulish lawyer.

6. Hadrian's wall was built not to keep the Britonnic Celts and Saxons out of Roman Britain. It was built to keep the Picts and Hiberni -- who were explicitly NOT Briton and in the case of the Picts, probably not even Celts -- out of Britain. It runs/ran from Solway Firth to the River Tyne and thus is waaaaaaaaaaaaay too far north to have had much to do with the "historical" Arthur.

7. While the Church in the fifth century was certainly militant (read St. Augustine for that), the portrayal of churchmen as murderous ascetics who tortured and sacrificed pagans is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, by this time, most of the population south of Hadrian's Wall had been converted to Christianity.

What troubles me is that there is no reason why the filmmakers should have played so fast and loose with history to make this movie. I understand creative license, but the way in which they claim historicity on one hand, and then create a nonsense fabrication on the other – to no end other than the fact that they just seemed to want to do it that way -- makes it very difficult for me to respect King Arthur. I can respect Excalibur; at least no one claimed that it was historical.

'King Arthur' attempts a great deal with its screenplay but I'd be reluctant to say that it succeeds with any of it.

An effort to tell a dark ages, speculative "historical" King Arthur tale whilst also servicing a 'sword and sandals' historical action adventure film is beyond this script.

For the majority of film-goers confusion and complexity abound due to the convoluted choices taken in the films premise: something which a straightforwards adventure warfare central plot and thinly written characters can't mitigate.

A central plot hole is why the Roman high ranking family need rescuing....at all....the Roman's are withdrawing, we are told, but a very valuable Catholic/aristocratic family are living well beyond the frontier of the Roman Empire at a time when it's enemies are shown to be penetrating into its own territory on this very frontier.

Why are they there? Why did they go there? Stay there? Why haven't they already been destroyed by "woads" who seem capable of penetrating a guarded fortified Roman frontier and trapping Roman forces that enter their territory?

Answers? This film has none.

But it allows the script to motivate the "woads", Roman's, Arthur's knights and the Saxons all onto a convenient collision course.

Convenient is the word.

Essentially this is another stupid historical action adventure sword and sandals war film complete with desperate plot devices; but with thinly written characters, cartoon baddies, some wooden performances, under equipped production, unconvincing battlefield stunts; and all this attempting to sustain a heavy load of highly speculative and debatable pic and mix story treatments regarding the end of Roman Britain, the "dark age" transition, post and sub-Roman Britannia, Christianization, the Anglo-Saxon migration and of course the possible origins of the legends of "King Arthur" before the high medieval romance tradition.

My rating is a disappointed 4/10 because 'King Arthur' tries to be clever, interesting, unusual and different in its abstract values but then saddles itself with bilge levels of predictability and utterly usual story lines and plot mechanics and characterizations plus unconvincing production values.

Finally the number of horses running free at the end, that represents Arthur's fallen comrades seems crass and unsympathetic to Arthur...why would it just be those friends he lost during the events of this film? But not all his knights through his command. Those knights missing from his round table. Those friends and comrades he had lost which apparently meant a lot to him when he had to posture in front of a Roman Bishop? That sums up for me how unconvincing this film is with its own characters, even the filmmakers don't believe in the realness of their characters!

It is an excellent story about an ancient contemporaneous-to-post Roman occupation of Britain and the beginnings of the Saxon invasions. Merlin and Lancelot and Guinevere and Gawain and Galahad are all there, but in more ancient and believable roles. It is a different tale never before told and in a different time. The screenplay, acting, scenery, cinematography and casting are all extremely well-done. The men especially are cast well, and Guinevere is perfectly beautiful. The music is haunting and beautiful and fit for the time and reminds me of The Last of the Mohicans. The fights and battle scenes are exciting and done well. The only reasons I have read that some people did not like this film are that they wanted more of the same old Arthur/Camelot tale, and a 14th century setting, which, when you think about it, is totally unbelievable. This, to me, was much more believable and realistic. Move over Mallory. I really loved this one.

"King Arthur" the 2004 film is not really about the knights of old who held our attention as children but instead about a bunch of Samartian men who are contract bound to the Roman empire to fight in a certain number of battles before getting their freedom. Just when they think they're free, they get stuck with one last mission - find a guy and his son of political Roman importance and bring them back to safety. Along the way Arthur (Clive Owen), Lancelot (Ioan Gruffud) and the boys get side-tracked by a silly Celtic waif named Guinevere (a badly miscast Keira Knightley) and her silly Celtic chief Merlin, ringleader of the Woads - turns out there's a bunch of Saxons invading, led by the massive blonde Cedric (a raspy voiced Stellan Skarsgard) and they need Arthur and the lads to give them a hand in fighting them off while the rest of the Roman army pulls out of old Briton and protecting the locals. What ensues is a very historically inaccurate misadventure with lots of half-assed speeches about freedom/equality and fight scenes that look like they were stolen from better films like "Braveheart" or "Lord of the Rings".

While preferable to being poked in the eye with a sharp object and, to be fair, not as bad as I originally thought it looked, this is still a turkey. I'm not saying that the stories of King Arthur couldn't have been inspired by a real man - or the actions of various men - but this film's boasting of how it is the "true story that inspired the legend" (as Keira Knightley dully told us in a trailer voice over) and it's attempt to make you believe in it's story and characters is just plain pitiful. Perhaps if it had simply been marketed as "Historically Inaccurate Adventure Movie #101" and not as a movie about King Arthur it might have a stood a chance of being entertaining, but alas, this was not the route taken.

I'm going to agree with another critic though about one positive thing though - the film's vain attempt to examine the relationship Arthur had with his knights, often overlooked in favor of the love triangle formed by Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot. Clive Owen does what he can with the role of Arthur, as does Ioan Gruffud as Lancelot and the other men portraying Galahad, Gawain, Tristan, Dagonet and Bors (Ray Winstone hamming it up). It's funny that while the film is called "King Arthur" they put Guinevere, Keira Knightley on the middle of the poster, a clear sign of trying to market the movie based on the goodwill Keira established with audiences from "Pirates of the Caribbean". Keira's performance is pretty bad, just another case of cattering to political correctness by having an underfed, scantily clad waif with pearly white teeth and a pitch perfect English accent beat up a bunch of guys twice her size while she wears almost nothing outside of a chest thong and blue paint. I'm sure women could defend themselves when threatened but I could not believe Keira could be beating up these guys; despite those extra 20 lbs she allegedly put on, she still looks too thin and too frail to be a convincing warrior princess. Not only does she lack the physicality for the role, she lacks the intensity and passion as well. I could easily imagine her getting her ass kicked by Lucy "Xena" Lawless or Miranda Otto, the Australian actress who portrayed Eowyn in "Lord of the Rings".

Stellan slums it badly as the bored - and boring - villain. So generic and cumbersome he is.

Stick with John Boorman's "Excalibur".

Beautiful Irish scenery though.

I have been a huge King Arthur fan ever since the night that I sat in an empty theater, in my hometown, awestruck by John Boorman's Excalibur.

Since then, I have seen the legend of King Arthur mutilated in films such as First Knight and The Mists of Avalon.

My high hopes for the movie, King Arthur, were dashed before the film even opened in theaters, by critics who were panning the movie from advanced screenings.

So, I stayed away while it was in theaters and most definitely passed on special discounts on the week it was released to DVD.

After finally getting around to renting a copy, I am left with just one burning question - Why in the hell do I listen to movie critics? The movie King Arthur has it all - a tight, well written story, believable characters, gritty realism, a great musical score by Hans Zimmer, epic battles, and more blood and splatter than you probably really wanted to see.

The bottom line is that King Arthur is a very good film. No, it's not the mythical Camelot, but it does not try to be. Nor, does it trample all over the name of King Arthur by making him a shallow or less than heroic character.

This is not Braveheart or Gladiator , but it is a film worth seeing and appreciating. Now that I think about, it's worth buying a copy to add to the home video library.

I ve seen 1350 films thus far and this stays in my top 20. I dont get all the hate it gets. Its an epic tale, the music's sublime. Who cares its not historically accurate? The stupid avengers aren't neither...

Give this one a go, it's great.

This is NOT Camelot. But the plot is weighed down, but battle scenes that seemingly go on forever. These scenes do nothing to advance the plot, or tell you more about the characters.

The characters seemed thin, shallow, and one dimensional. Might be because this seems more like the spaghetti western version of Camelot.

Characters really had no depth. The plot was dull, boring, and un-interesting. I can think of other things, I'd rather waster 2.5 hours on.

The battle scenes were pure hokum. I mean it wasn't really good swordsmanship.

All in all, I'd pass on this version. At least the original Camelot had good music in it.

Wayno

I initially was content with King Arthur's medieval atmosphere and tone, given that I don't mind grey films, which was one criticism. In this case I didn't care that the violence was PG. The acting was adequate although Ray Winstone (Bors) reminded me more of a British Soccer Hooligan.

The film eventually dragged for me and strained my credibility on a number of points. Firstly, I just couldn't see Arthur and his seven or so "knights" single handedly being asked to traipse around the British landscape like some bad gun-slinger/Conan movie (I identified more with Arnold in Conan by the way). Secondly, it made no sense that Arthur kept referring to his cronies as "my knights" since he never actually became king until the end of the movie. Who knighted them and how can an indentured soldier of the Roman Empire have the status of knight? Even a squire has higher status than a slave-soldier. How pretentious can you get?

In the end the movie dragged and I didn't feel the sense of connection Arthur had for his people. It seemed as if he hardly knew them, but was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. The Excalibur explanation also seemed weak and devoid of the meaning that the legend gave it. It seemed almost pointless to include it. I also expected more of Merlin, who really didn't say much or earn his "sorcerer" title. It's unclear, other than Merlin's influence, why the Britons even bothered to make him king. I guess it's possible that he organized the final battle, but you didn't see that in the movie. The only ones he seemed to be motivating were his own buddies, the handful of knights, who for some reason were the only ones who had horses.

In short this film needed more depth and more of a connection between the myth and fact. Instead the screen writer just used the ambiguity of history to make up his own film based on a smattering of general historical facts.

I am amazed to see some of the hyperbolically bad reviews and "1" ratings on this site. People are complaining that the movie is not historically accurate. Seriously? It's King Arthur. No King Arthur movie, or book, or or TV show ever has been because it's ALL based on legend. Sure, this one brings in a lot more historical aspects such as Roman Britain, Hadrian's Wall, the blue paint on the pre-Christian Briton tribes, Saxon invaders, yada yada. And sure, Keira Knightley fighting is like a blue-painted savage warrior elf in a badass leather bikini. So what? She still acts the part very well. I don't recall it ever pretending to be a historical documentary of any kind. I don't care if the timeline is shifty, or if it overstates the zealotry of early Monks, or if Arthur's knights don't all seem to have the same ethnicity. It's not "Gladiator," but it's still highly entertaining. And Gladiator had huge historic gaps of it's own to put it mildly. I really liked the battle scenes and sorry, but I liked Clive Owen's Arthur. He's not a scenery-chewing kind of actor, but it works fine for me here. Maybe it's because I watched it on TV and not in the theater, but no complaints, generally. And the score is great.

Jerry Bruckheimer's yearly contribution to the annual `Low on Plot High on Style' Movie Fair that is the Summer Blockbuster Season is `Kind Arthur,' whose tag line is `The Untold true story that inspired the legend.' I guess when a movie claims to be telling the `true story' of a man that historians can't even agree ever existed, I get suspicious. And when this movie that claims to be telling the `true story' features current `it-girl' Keira Knightly wearing a belt for a top (and a cinched up belt at that), I determine that this movie is based on about as much fact as a grocery store tabloid. And I'm talking about those `Woman marries Werewolf and has a Bat Boy' tabloids too.

The `true story' claim is really just code for `no magic, no singing, just lots of dirty guys.' Arthur (Clive Owen), a general for the rapidly declining Roman Empire, and a group of knights protect one of the farthest and most vulnerable Roman posts. At the end of their tenure, a snarky Roman Bishop sends Arthur and the handful of remaining Knights on one last suicidal mission to retrieve a Roman family living living in hostile territory on the brink of being invaded by the Saxons (why they're living so far into non-Roman territory is a mystery to all). At the Roman estate, Arthur is determined to saved a few dozen villagers from the Saxons in addition to the Roman Family (he also rescues Guinevere who was in a dungeon being punished for her pagan ways). Arthur, though he had a Briton mother, considers himself a Roman above all and is eager to return to Rome. But, after learning his beloved Rome is on the brink of being sacked and Guinevere uses a little gentle persuasion, Arthur begins to care about the Britons he once fought.

Question: What would the story of Arthur be like without the Sword in the Stone or the Lady in the Lake? If Merlin was a rebel Briton leader rather than a wizard and Arthur's mentor? If Lancelot and Guinevere weren't lovers, and if Arthur's illegitimate child Mordred never came to crash the party? Answer: A big, gloomy movie that often feels like little more than a wannabe "Gladiator" and "Braveheart." "King Arthur" is one of those frustrating movies that had the potential to be good, but thanks to some missteps and mistakes only ranks as average. Some of the missteps are small, for example, Guinevere's little war outfit that just makes me giggle, or how her fingers were mangled in the dungeon she was kept in but Arthur resets them and by the next day she's shooting an arrow with deadly accuracy. "I see your hand is better," Lancelot quips. Glad to see someone in the movie itself found it ridiculous too.

My biggest grip with the movie is the way they handled Lancelot, well, I should really complain about all the knights since they were all cardboard cutouts at best. I figured since they went to trouble of starting the movie with a clip of Lancelot as a child that he would be a larger factor in the movie. But as an adult (played by Ioan Gruffudd, who I'd cheat on Arthur with any day) his role is relegated to some one-liners and a couple bitch-sessions with Arthur about how to much he doesn't want to do whatever. In what is probably the worst move in the movie, the love triangle between Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot is completely absent. Lancelot and Guinevere's relationship consists of Lancelot staring at her a lot, and it's hard to tell if he wants her, or if he's angry at her for taking Arthur affection. Now it's not because I was eager to see some Ioan/Keira make-out sessions, it's just Guinevere's betrayal has always been a core part of the Arthur legend, how when things seemed so perfect, Arthur's wife and best friend betray him and ultimately bring down Camelot.

With it already falling to 6th place at the box office in it's second week of release, King Arthur will likely go down as the big flop of the Summer of 2004. It's sometimes hard to figure out why some movies flop while other similar movies (Troy and Van Helsing, neither a box office smash but at least reached the $100 million level that King Arthur will never reach) enjoy moderate, and even great, success. "King Arthur's" problem is that the makers were so eager to demystify the legend that they stripped away all of the elements that made it a legend. All that's left are some uninspired battle scenes, a few mundane speeches about being born free, and footage of Keira in that outfit that talk-shows hosts will probably tease her about for the rest of her career.

Long before I went into 'King Arthur', the latest Jerry Bruckheimer film, I predicted that the film would have three things in accordance with the Bruckheimer formula.

1: A repetitive soundtrack provided by Hans Zimmer.

2: Lots of helicopter shots of lush scenery to make up for the lack of interesting dialogue.

3: Explosions.

Well now I've seen it, and even though the last item on the formula seemed unlikely seeing as how this was supposed to be a historically accurate telling set in the DARK AGES, it somehow found a way to throw big fiery explosions into this mix of drab and boring mud covered battle sequences and perhaps an even more dry and uninspired love story than the one in 'Star War: Attack Of The Clones'. The humour in this film is locker room at best (a joke from Austin Powers 3 was actually used), and was crafted to appeal to the under 18 'bathroom' crowd. I say 'bathroom' because there are a lot of intelligent teenagers, the humour in this movie is not for them - the jokes in this movie are for stupid teenagers. In fact during one particularly lame joke, I found it hard tell apart the laughter on screen from that of the four 16 year old guys sitting behind me, who were the only ones in the audience to find the joke about one of the Knights having a penis so large it was like "a baby's arm holding an apple" funny. The dialogue is dry and tedious, as is the pacing of the film. A scene involving a gate SO RUSTY AND HUGE that it takes two huge war horses to pull it open takes so long I thought I was going to pass out from lack of oxygen as the audience collectively yawned, and yet later in the film the door is opened by a single mortally wounded soldier in a matter of seconds – I guess even in the Dark Ages they had some WD-40.

The film's logic is so preposterous that it actually makes the simple mistake of KILLING THE NARRATOR and yet having him summarize the story at the end of the film! Perhaps the writer completely misunderstood the purpose of a narrator in a film - that the narrator has born firsthand witness to the story and lived to tell about it. How could the Narrator tell the story if he's DEAD?! Never mind, don't ask questions like that at this movie. At the start of the film Arthur and his Knights are sent on one final mission from Rome to rescue the beloved pupil of the Pope, who for some reason lives with his family in the middle of hostile territory. Why or how the Pope's star pupil came to live in the middle of Barbarian infested England is another question you're not meant to ask. The villain, a Saxon chieftain is like a really bored cross between Captain Barbosa and Darth Sidious, Guinevere looks like an angry 15 year old girl at an Avril Lavigne concert in her battle getup and is about as convincing as one when she's supposed to be noble and inspiring in her queen getup, and Arthur is a completely implausible moral centre of the film. Arthur in this story is a former Roman Centurion who is completely shocked when he witnesses torture. That's right, a Roman soldier, serving the country that invented such lovely devices as the Catherine Wheel and Crucifixion is shocked by torture! I'll leave you to figure that one out for yourselves.

A film with the audacity to call itself the 'true story of King Arthur' must be held to a higher standard than that of a fun popcorn flick, which is all this film seemed to be trying for. The sad fact is that this movie doesn't pull off even that meagre feat. This movie is not fun, it's drab, it's uninteresting, and it's boring. You'll have more fun eating your popcorn than you will watching this movie.

I haven't read the screenplay for King Arthur, but I'll bet it's far better than the piece of crap Antoine Fuqua put on the screen. It couldn't have been much worse.

If it had been done right, this would have been a compelling story of how a group of Roman soldiers, loyal and devoted to their Empire, gradually realize that the nation they loved is dead and adopt a new country for their home. No other version of the Camelot tale, at least that I've seen, approaches from this direction. It was a very good idea, and it deserved a better fate.

But Fuqua didn't understand that this process of British naturalization was the most important part of the material. Once Fuqua is done with it, Arthur is turned into a bore, Lancelot into a whiner, and Guinevere into a . . . I don't know what Guinevere was intended to be, but I know it takes considerable ineptitude to make a largely unclothed Keira Knightley look this unattractive.

We hear a great deal about "fighting for freedom," but as usual, only the fighting gets an examination, never the freedom. No thought is put into what freedom means or what impact it has on the lives of the characters. If they had said they were fighting for monarchy, not a single frame of film would have had to be changed.

Rating: *½ out of ****.

Recommendation: TV fare for hardcore D&D fans only.

Take all your preconceptions and the years of same rhetoric on the legend of Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table and throw it away save a few simple concepts, and you have King Arthur.

A refreshing change on the same old stories surrounding the beloved characters of Camelot. If you're looking for stories surrounding a mythical magic sword named Excalibur, an all powerful magician named Merlin, or a love triangle between Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot....well then go rent another movie. This particular version is based on a group of Knights in the Roman Empire Era led by Artorious Castus (Arthur), and takes place in the British Isles during the Saxon invasion.

In this version Arthur is a leader of different sorts, and his Knights are an eclectic band of fighters, each with their own motives and fighting styles. Referred to here as the Samatian Knights, they serve Rome, particularly the church. They are awaiting honorable discharge, but are handed one last mission before they can get it. Guinevere, a woad rebel (people who are fighting to free the land from the Roman rule) and advocate for the land, we actually don't meet until a good bit into the movie. This time though she isn't your regular damsel in distress, but a warrior of vast talents too, which is a nice change. Her role, aside from "love interest" eventually for Arthur, is trying to get Arthur to care about the land and freeing it's people from Roman rule, and the Saxon's who are now attempting to seize it.

The fight scenes between the various groups of people vying for control of Briton are good, visually stunning and intense. The acting is good, Clive Owen is a good and believable Arthur and would-be King. The Knights under his wing are also very good, each bringing their own personalities, but maintaining a good sense of camaraderie. Sometimes the banter between them had me rolling on the floor. Keira Knightley as Guinevere was OK, there were a few times where I wanted to smack her because she sounded as if she were a broken record. However, if you could stand her in Pirates of the Carribbean, then she won't entirely grind on you here either. I liked her best fighting...and NOT talking though.

A bit slow in some spots, but endearing characters, fresh take on the story, and extremely well done fighting scenes earn it a 8/10 from me. Hope to add it to my collection of home DVD's in the near future.

Oh dear, I'm sorry. My teenage niece wanted this DVD for Christmas and we decided to take a look at it before we gift wrapped it. Bad move.

If all you like is battle scenes with lots of swords and battleaxes cleaving off heads and body parts, if you want bows (and anachronistic crossbows) and arrows, and lots of people yelling "aaaaarrgh", with bright tomato ketchup everywhere, you'll love it.

If you want a plot, if you want acting, if you want something that remotely attempts to dramatise remote events of history/legend, that tries to touch on the social reality of the era rather than serve up 21st century concepts of liberty and democracy in 4th century costume, in fact if you want a serious attempt at movie making, please look elsewhere.

RUBBISH

Antoine Fuqua takes on a Herculean task in translating the legendary tales of King Arthur onto the big screen. To facilitate the adaptation, he takes the help of the King of all things overblown and Hollywood, Jerry Bruckheimer. The film is meant as a more realistic and down-to-earth portrayal of Arthur and his men, documenting their one last quest for Rome with as much historical accuracy as possible and sans fantasy-coating. So I'm thinking, if Fuqua wants realism, then why the hell hire Jerry Bruckheimer? But no matter, because Bruckheimer proves to be useful later on.

The cast, on the other hand, do not prove to be useful at any point in the film. Clive Owen does his best dry paint impression as Arthur, his voice sounding eerily like "a bored photocopier with one eye on the clocks for the pubs opening" (credits of Mr. cliveowensucks) and his face "looking like someone's who's waiting for the bus on a wet day in Rotherhyde" (credits of TrevorAlcea). His performance is totally unable to project so much as an ounce of charisma or presence on-screen. This is an absolutely fatal failure for someone who is the titular character and is supposed to carry the film, and it is through this inability to act that Owen drags all of King Arthur down in the mud with him.

I'd like to say Clive Owen is the only bad thing about King Arthur, but then I'd be lying. Keira Knightley is also atrocious as Guinevere because this character is interwoven with the most clichéd tough-chick attitude imaginable and it ends up feeling almost anachronistic. The writing of the film certainly do not facilitate things either, featuring cringeworthy one-liners between battle scenes and placeholder dialogue in serious moments. There are numerous off-putting attempts to establish a mood that is either reek of typical Bruckheimer overkill, or of blatant 'character depth' moments in which the director desperately feels the need to explore and add more depth to the main characters. He does this mostly by having Owen brood. Just terrible.

King Arthur has one redeeming thing, and that is the awesome battle on ice that takes place between Athur and his knights and about two hundred Saxons. It's borderline ridiculous, but gloriously entertaining. This sequence is so superbly handled with perfect CGI and suspense that it temporarily redeems the whole film. Overall, this is still mildly entertaining - but only for the action.

4.5/10

Avoided this one at the cinema and got it on rental not expecting much.....which is just as well as really terrible - set in Britian towards the end of the Roman occupation in 452 AD - which is the first of many howlers - the Romans had pulled out decades before and by this date the Empire itself had ceased to exists - anyway the plot has it that Arthur and his Knights are a bunch of Eastern Europeans from around the Black Sea shipped over to Britain.Arthur(Clive Owen) has led them for 15 years mainly against the Woads who are led by Merlin who is isn't a wizard at all and appears in need of a good wash - the rest of the Knights are a pretty grungy non-descript bunch with only Ray Winstones Cockney hard man of distinction. They are on the brink of ending their servitude to Rome when the local bishop has them head North from Hadrian's Wall to rescue a Roman family from their Villa that is under threat from the invading Saxons - as if by this time any Roman would chose to live North of the Wall and survive more than about 5 minutes.... This brings Arthur into contact with Guinivere(Keira Knightly) who is a woad covered warrior - albeit one with a posh totty Home Counties accent and the rest of the film is the battle against the Saxons led by Stellan Stersgard which entails much hacking and slaying.

What lets it down is the lacklustre direction,flat wooden performances - only Winstone enjoys himself snarling and roaring at everyone and Stersgard who has fun peering at us from what appears to several manes of hair - the script is appalling - every scene seems to have the entire cast discussing freedom and what it means to be free until you expect to see George W Bush's name to appear as script adviser - Owen(who is normally quite good) makes like an oak tree and the lengthy battle scenes go on so long you give up caring who is hacking who......I suppose giving a go at Arthur the non-legendary mystical hero is worthwhile but the whole thing is no inept that even that good intention goes down the pan...

Avoid...

This isn't as bad a movie as many critics and viewers who write critiques have made it out to be, but isn't anything like a blockbuster that hasn't been matched or bettered before. Nice summer movie to watch when the heat wave breaks and you have a long rainy day. I have several complaints, but I'll start with the virtues:

It was well filmed, with good settings (although there is nothing like those Alpine mountains in Britain, except maybe in the Scottish Highlands during mid-winter). The battle scenes were fine, except to the extent they were toned down to get the PG rating (wait for the DVD) -- especially a really good one that takes place on the surface of a frozen lake. The depiction of Hadrian's Wall and its ancillary fortresses and villages -- with taverns and hooker joints -- was archaeologically and historically accurate, even if the purported site of the Battle of Badon is imaginary (could be presumed to be modeled on Housesteads combined with Vindolanda). And yes, the Romans did have draftees in the legions from other parts of the Empire in posts like the Great Wall, and they were inducted for 15 to 20 years before being granted civilian status and pensions. That Arthur's traditional knights were Sarmations, we'd call them Ukrainians now, has to be taken with a grain of salt. In these senses, the movie is a good approximation of the latter days of the Roman Empire in Britain, but it certainly doesn't break any new 'archeological or historical ground'. I have no imaginative problems, as some people with that kind of interest do, with the technology of the battle scenes -- the Romans had catapults and naphtha bombs (Greek fire), even if they were unlikely to have been used in the sort of battle shown here against a marauding horde of barbarians, and manned by another horde of barbarians, those so-called Picts who become Arthur's allies.

Doubtful elements: As I said, the Ukrainian Knights -- and in fact I was fooled into thinking the kid drafted from the steppes to join the Roman cavalry was supposed to be Arthur, but turns out to be Lancelot, and well, that just won't do. First of all Lancelot was French, an interpolation from the Middle Ages. Galahad was also a Norman French invention. The more traditional Arthurian characters, going back to the original Welsh legends, as close as we'll ever get to historical 'reality', were Gawain and Bors -- who were certainly not Ukrainians! Tristan or Tristram has his own mythology, involving the Irish princess Iseult, as we know from Wagner's opera and other sources, so why is he killed off before he can accomplish this? (Besides, it is Gawain who supposedly had a connection with hawks, not Tristan, and is also said to have killed giants.) It is likely that the historical Arthur was a Roman officer, perhaps related to the historical Ambrosius Aurelianus, who commanded a 'rapid reaction force', and in any case was definitely British -- that all fits. What the screenplay doesn't explain at all, probably because of very poor editing, is that bit about the sword in the stone and the burning of the young Arthur's house by raiders led by, presumably, the British (Welsh) Merlin, who by the way was not a PICT. Here I was, thinking he was the kid from the steppes, then all of a sudden we get this thrown in, and was that really supposed to have been his father who broke the ice on the lake to drown the Saxons, at the cost of his own life? Say, what? Where did this come from out of the blue? Cerdic and Cynric, the Saxon leaders, were definitely historical characters, but they were the founders of WESSEX in the south of England and had nothing to do with the Saxon invasion north of the wall when the Northumbrian kingdom was established.

Totally wrong and misleading elements: Even the historical sources mention several great battles of the Britons against the Saxons and Scots, which took place over several years, led by a great war leader. Many of them took place in Lowland Scotland and the Border country, but the famous battle of Mount Badon is generally considered to have taken place south west of London. Hadrian's Wall had been abandoned several years before. There was no one great decisive routing of the invaders before Badon. The so-called Pelagian heresy took place before these times and is one of those silly arguments whereby Christians killed other Christians over trivial matters -- the Victorians made Pelagius into a hero because he was British, but as far as I can figure out, his 'heresy' had nothing to do with Freedom and All Men Are Created Equal. Arthur is more likely to have been a Mithraist, like other legionaries, even if nominally Christian.

As for the script, all I can say is that it is muddled beyond easy comprehension. That could have as much to do with the way the film was finally edited as with any original deficiency, even granted that it is not a strong script to begin with. The acting is generally very well done -- again allowing for the fact that the roles and lines were chopped up for whatever reasons. One very laughable bit concerns the lovely Keira (Guinevere), who is rescued from a dungeon where everybody else has starved or been tortured to death, has Arthur treat her maimed hands, then a day or so later is an Olympic class archer. 'I see your fingers are better now,' says Arthur.

With these simple constructions, its easy to see where they decided the hook would be. I imagine the pitch was that this would be "Braveheart" meets "Gladiator" but with a fighten' gal. I'm sure they took a model and put here in blue tattoos and unlikely leather seminude battlegear and took photos to say: here, see?

And perhaps there was some discussion about the two physical devices, the ice and the wall. The financiers would have called in the religious consultants to determine whether the script would offend the religious right, the script depicting the church as evil. But that's safe, the report would have come back.

The writer will have described great masses of flowing arrows and these would have been storyboarded and budgeted way early in the game. They would have selected a safe director, someone with no discernible style and no artistic ambitions.

So I will comment on it only as it was intended. The effects depend on exploiting the nature of space — the ice and wall I mentioned, but also the smoke and maneuvers in the final battle. There is no exploitation of space, not even to the extent of "Lord of the Rings," which we should probably call the WETA standard.

The battles are less manic than any I have seen even though "Seven Samurai" is clearly a model for several elements of this.

The girl here is Kiera Knightly, whose appeal I never understood. Here she is a sort of Joan of Arc character, and I found myself actually wishing for Milla Jovavich! The whole thing — the human parts anyway — revolve around her and she doesn't have the chops. She is the mother of an entire nation, her battles, her loves and she always looks like she is merely playing soccer.

Its an interesting notion, rewriting a legend. But you have to be a good writer, no?

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

"Now, from the producer of 'Pearl Harbor' and the director of 'Training Day'…experience the extended unrated director's cut of this hard-hitting action epic! Prepare for more thrills, more adventure, and more intensity as the heroic true story behind one of history's greatest legends explodes onto the screen! It is the valiant tale of Arthur (Clive Owen) and his bond of brotherhood with Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), and the loyalty of the 'Knights of the Round Table' as they fight for freedom and those they love. Also starring Keira Knightley as Guinevere, this never-before-seen 'King Arthur' is a longer, grittier, and more explicit motion picture - don't miss it!" heralds the DVD sleeve description.

It seems right knightly that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this re-imagined epic, since the last major feature film re-telling of the "King Arthur and His Knights" legend was in Jerry Zucker's "First Knight" (1995), which sought to make the story more realistic. Jerry, Jerry. The trend continues. Mr. Bruckheimer's update boasts "recently discovered" evidence for the changes it makes. It is a dubious claim, of course; and, nothing is added to make the basic story more appealing. Simply put, it adds up to more special effects, and less magic. And, given the presence of luscious-lipped Ms. Knightly, the lowered sex drive is disappointing. There is a lot of penetration, though - in the over-produced battle scenes.

***** King Arthur (6/28/04) Jerry Bruckheimer : Antoine Fuqua ~ Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Keira Knightley, Ray Winstone