King Arthur (2004)

If you're looking forward to a Arthurian film and thinking of going to see this movie Â… choose something else.

The Plot Summary of this movie begins ... Based on a more realistic portrayal of "Arthur" than has ever been presented on screen.

More REALISTIC? We're not sure if Arthur ever actually existed yet we're going to be ''treated'' to a more realistic portrayal.

Dear Movie-Makers, DON'T MESS WITH GREAT LEGENDS!

This movie has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Arthurian legend.

Its writer borrows the legend's 6 key characters: Arthur, Lancelot, Gawain, Galahad, Tristan and Guinevere, oh and there is Merlin Â… again, nothing magical about him or this movie.

I can only imagine that the writer thought he was the only person in the world who saw Braveheart, Last Samurai and quite possibly some other buddy western-horse riding type movie, and then thought because he makes Arthur a ROMAN that it somehow becomes more realistic. And what's with Arthur's last name: CASTOR, from the Greek mythology Castor and Pollux, Castor being the brother who was the great horse rider? Again, please stop messing with greatness.

What else can I say ... Disappointed! Especially since this writer had written Gladitor Â… by the way his next movie is entitled Hannibal Â… any guess what it's about? Van Diesel is in it Â… Geeze! Somebody help us!

Fmovies: They could also act better and write a decent script. Nothing in this film makes sense:

• the "britons" who live in Scotland and dress like their predecessors of 4 centuries

• Pretty much everything about the armour and weapons (far too much to mention in under 1000 words).

• In fact everything that tries to pass for history in this mess

• The ability of everyone to understand 3 or more languages

• Britons fighting Saxons in the Borders under a Roman flag

• Clive Owen thinking he can act

• Anyone thinking that script wouldn't make people laugh till it hurts

• Roman conscription lasting 15 years and ending with a return to Rome

• Low infant mortality rate and model-like mother of 11 healthy brats(particularly made me laugh)

• Leaving a well defended fort to fight superior forces in the open

• Magical Mystery Fort Doors that close their many-tonned-selves automatically

• The phrase "Historians agree"

• The world's lightest heavy cavalry and most accurate archers

• 100s of arrows from 8 bows

• The cruddy ripoff of Aleksandr Nevsky

• The many many cruddy ripoffs of Braveheart (a film which despite being historically laughable is excellent entertainment unlike this one)

And on and on and on and on.....

It's not just that it's poor history it's bad storytelling and makes the film painful to watch even if the script did engender any interest from the audience or the numerous dreadful performances didn't remove any prospect of caring for or about the characters.

1/10 and that's only because of the bit-part guy that put on a funny Somerset accent at one point. He, at least, clearly knew a little bit about the legends and history this farce pretends to represent.

As a final thought - I don't know why Miss Knightley is drawn to bloody awful adaptations of English legends but I wish she'd stop it.

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.

King Arthur fmovies. If you want a plot, read some of the other reviews. They cover more than enough and there's no need to repeat them.

This is probably as close to the "true" Arthur as has been portrayed in a movie to date. If you've followed any of the research into the origins of the legend of Arthur, then you might find this film mildly interesting.

To their credit, I think the main characters did a fairly good job with what they had. Unfortunately, what they had was almost nothing. I struggled for hours trying to figure out why exactly the movie just wasn't entertaining given that Clive Owen, as Arthur did an excellent job. Knightly is a talented actress, but she wasn't given much to work with. Skarsgard is also an excellent actor but again, not much of a part to work with. The dialog is incredibly weak.

The movie seemed like a really weak version of Braveheart overall. It was as if they had taken Braveheart, removed all the good dialog, weakened the battle scenes, and packaged it back up with new faces.

While it's possible you may care about Arthur and his knights, you're just not going to care about anyone else in this movie, and that's really where it fails miserably, I think. It's a shame because the "true story" of Arthur and his knights is as fascinating as the legend it spawned and better writing and direction really could have done something with it.

In recent movies coming out of Hollywood there seems to be a trend towards attempting to unveil the true character behind some of history's most mysterious individuals. With most of us having been brought up on tales of a medieval King Arthur and the magic of Camelot, it was a risk for those who initiated this movie to attempt to expose the man behind the myth, so to speak. In my opinion, through a combination of realistic battle scenes, stunning cinematography and well rounded characters this movie is successful.

This tale takes us on a journey with King Arthur's knights as they embark on a final quest for Rome. The issue of religious persecution is raised on numerous occasions in the duration of this movie and relates to contemporary circumstances where religious belief can be used as a form of power and means of superiority. Themes such as this raise the film above the average Bruckheimer production. However, the dialogue is still cliché in places, and mid-battle jokes can fall flat on audiences that have grown weary of them in films such as LORD OF THE RINGS and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. Fortunately, the battle scenes are realistic and don't bombard us with Jackie Chan like maneuvers that the knights have suddenly and inexplicably learned.

The movie is beautifully shot with a variety of landscapes ranging from Hadrian's Wall to icy snow-covered hills and peasant villages. This ensures that the audience always has something new to look at, but also paints a realistic picture of the poverty and harsh environment of the time.

My only complaint about this film would have to be that some of the acting and characterisation was a little disappointing. Clive Owen's 'Arthur' was a little internalised and predictable. While other characters, such as Lancelot (Ioan Gruffud), are fabulously flawed, Arthur is always thinking of others and making the right decisions. His humanity never falters. Owen delivers his lines woodenly and without the passion one wishes to see from such a great warrior and humanitarian. Whilst the writers have dared to put a different spin on the characters of Lancelot and Guinevere (Keira Knightly), they seem to have stuck with the Arthur of legend. Knightly's performance was certainly nothing special. Her role in the movie was unclear as she seemed to only be there to run around in skimpy outfits, although I'm sure the intention was to create a strong female character. I thought her survival in battle was unrealistic as she was much smaller and weaker than the thousands of large trained warriors she was fighting, particularly since she had apparently nearly starved to death after being walled up in a tomb for her Pagan beliefs. Although Knightly is beautiful, her performances in movies thus far have yet to convince me of her acting abilities.

Overall, I thought this movie was unique in that it depicted a time not often portrayed in modern cinema. It had strong themes with a good mix of humour, romance and action. Although the film had its flaws, I would definitely recommend it as I believe it would appeal to a wide audience.

I have just seen King Arthur and what a disappointment! I have seen heaps of movies, and I am able to stomach a lot, having enjoyed mediocre films like, Van Helsing for instance. Van Helsing at least was silly, but had no pretensions of being anything else, King Arthur on the other hand, is a little movie, very predictable, filled with plot clichés that you have seen in countless other motion pictures, but has pretensions of being something extraordinary. Well, surprise, surprise it is not! There is not even enough camp in this movie to grant it a sort of je ne se quois to make it enjoyable. Even the soundtrack is a rip off of Gladiator, without even fitting the movie adequately. Hans Zimmer should know better than to copy/paste from is own work, some of us might notice!

Most of the acting is pretty good. I have especially enjoyed Ioan Gruffud as Lancelot and Clive Owen and Arthur, both of them make a very good effort given the silly lines they have, especially Owen who's lines are extra silly. Most of the actors are competent with the exception of Til Schweiger as Cynric and I felt that such a great actor as Stephen Dillane (Merlin) was completely wasted and given no chance to show is quality.

The direction was pretty bad and uneven. Antoine Fucqua doesn't show the talent he has demonstrated in Training day or even Tears of the Sun, the movie is a mess from start to finish. Visually, I must admit, it looks good. Slawomir Idziak's cinematography is really good and I hope to see some of his work in the future.

I have a lot more problems with this movie which I won't detail much further, with the exception of two that I cannot overlook. First of all, trebuches (the catapult thingies) were invented by the French during the 100 year old war, several centuries later, and not by Merlin. In a movie that brags about historical realism and accuracy, this strikes as odd. Besides, if Merlin had this kind of weapons, why not used it against the Romans in the first place? Another gripe, and this a big one, is the complete absence of gore! Did people in the "Dark Ages" not have blood? The battle scenes are violent but no blood! What's the point? Again if you want to have a realistic take on this period of history, why the absence of realism in the battle scenes? Do the filmmakers think that a PG-13 rating will get them more money at the box-office? Having seen this mess I seriously doubt it!

Summarizing, this movie is a complete mess with the exception of some of the performances, namely the Knights and most of all Gruffud's and Owen's acting. As for the rest, it is dumb, predictable, not very original in terms of plot and a complete disappointment! Long live Excalibur (John Boorman) that with it's 23 years it is still the best Kig Arthur story in movie history.