Customer Reviews

KING ARTHUR

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

You don't usually expect much from a film script novelization, but it's years since I read anything as lame and clunkily-written as this. (The film script wasn't all that dazzling, but the book is much worse.)

The author can't be blamed for the historical absurdities of the general story; after all, he had to stick more or less to what was in the film, which - however it may have been puffed as "The Real Story" - was, historically and archaeologically speaking, complete tripe (fun, but tripe). But the book adds new daftnesses all of its own. Characters who weren't named in the script of the film are given the most bizarre names in the book. You have a Sarmatian tribesman called Lansdowne (an English place name of Saxon origin), a renegade British scout called Geoffrey (a medieval Norman name), and two Picts called Harold (a Saxon name) and Arrian (a famous Roman historian!) Even if the author couldn't be bothered to look up any real Sarmatian, Celtic or Pictish names, at least he could have made up some that didn't blatantly belong to a different race or period of history.

But what really put the tin lid on it for me was the bit where Guinevere eats potatoes, only a thousand years or so before Sir Walter Raleigh and the conquistadores first brought potatoes to Europe from America....

This novel, adapted from the 2004 screenplay by Frank Thompson, disappoints initially in its bland and awkward wording, but no matter how inept the adaptation the novel will prove itself hard to put down. It's an easy read, describing in detail the exploits of Arthur, Gawain, Galahad, Bors, Tristran, Lancelot, Dagonet, Guinevere, and the host of characters who find themselves at or saved by their mercy. It's exciting, ultimately satisfying, and while it lacks suspense, the action will keep you wide-eyed and engrossed.

I cannot vouch if this book accurately reflects the movie because I have not yet seen the movie. What I can say is that this book can stand on its own as a gripping read that holds your interest. I normally do not read novelizations of films but I bought this one on a whim- and I am glad that I did. The author does a remarkable job of writing battle and action scenes in an exciting and believable manner. Plus, I finished this entire three-hundred and fifty page book in a single weekend without once being tempted to set it aside out of boredom- that is a mark of an excellently written piece of historical adventure fiction.

The premise that Arthur and his knights were Sarmatian is interesting. Sarmations (from the Black Sea- Caucasus region) did serve in Roman Albion- and around the Wall. Nor is the idea that Romans would uproot a people and place them on a hostile frontier thousands of miles from their home ridiculous- it was common imperial policy. However, there are some questionable historical inaccuracies- if I am not mistaken, Mt. Baden is far to the south where it strategically protects Cornwall and Wales (the traditional area associated with Arthur.) Plus, the Legions left around 407 C.E.- and the Battle of Mt. Baden occurred about 500 A.D. There is also the little fact that the Saxons were INVITED in by the Romanized Britons to REPLACE the withdrawn Legions. In spite of all this I still found the story to be readable and interesting. After all- research DOES place Merlin in the north- perhaps he was a spiritual/war leader of the "Picts"...

I'm not saying that this movie is exactly anti-Catholic, but the Church is portrayed as the enemy of free will and the chief promoter of serfdom in the coming Dark Age. Arthur is however shown to be an enlightened follower of the heretic Pelagius- and fights with an image of an avenging warrior Christ upon his shield. The rest of the Knights are unabashed pagans. Once again, just to be accurate, the idea that the Pope would be commanding Legions during this period does not seem very plausible- unless you are really talking about the Emperor in his role as Pontifex Maximus....

Wow. Considering that I forked over 10 damn bucks for this thing, I am SERIOUSLY disappointed with the book, King Arthur. I bought it after seeing the trailer for the new movie, which will doubtless be amazing with its steller cast and crew, since I like to read books before I see the movies, because they are usually better. Not in this case. Although I haven't seen the movie yet, ANYTHING they put out will doubtless be better.
This book has very little going for it. The only reason it has ANYTHING going for it at all is because it is about King Arthur, and anyone reading it will start to fill in the stuff it lacks with other bits and pieces of the legends they've picked up elsewhere.
The characters are completely two dimensional. The author gives us absolutely no reason to want to like these characters. In fact, I end up hating them. They're rude, brash, arrogant, and just plain mean.
Frank Thompson does what every grade school English teacher will tell you to avoid at all costs- instead of telling us things by showing us (ie, learning about a character because of the way he interacts with others, etc.) Thompson shows us by telling us about it (simply inserts statements about characters). I felt like I was reading a screenplay rather than a novel. The book's basic structure is, okay, first this happens, and then there's this, and then this... This makes it difficult to get any sort of rhythm with this novel, because you are never able to connect with any of the characters, see what makes them tick, or find a reason to like them.
The book is full of cheesy one-liners that fall hopelessly flat, with the rest of the book padded out with the Thompson telling us at every opportunity about how more of Arthur's poor knights are going to die on this new quest and how heartbreaking it is.
I didn't find it heartbreaking at all. 15 pages into the book I was more than ready to see them all be killed off and have the book end. Instead, it keeps going for another few hundred pages of boring, uninteresting trials.
Overall, I was very disappointed with this book. I just hope the movie turns out to be better.

The only reason I enjoyed this book is because I saw the movie first. I hope you will forgive me as a multi-published author that I had no idea you could write a book almost exactly about a movie. Is this not pleagerisim in reverse? Enlighten me.

While the movie EXCALIBUR directed by John Boorman remains my steadfast and undeniably favorite King Arthur story, I found that this take on the legend was a refreshing change as it depicts him more the man than the king. Using Merlin as a pagan leader to finally unite the clans was an interesting twist and the darkness of the time added to its believability for me.

There are many historical inaccuracies in the book and I feel that the author took most of what he saw in the movie and just put it to paper. (I Wish we could all do that.)
I actually thought the portrayal of the lesser Knights was rather good, but in reading it, I kept seeing and hearing the movie in my mind and knew almost exactly what was coming.

I can give the book three stars for entertainment value but zero on originality.

All right, I may be one of the few people that fell in love with this movie, but I liked it a lot, despite the fact that it wasn't historically accurate. I was very excited to read the book, but was sorely disappointed. I know a movie's novelization isn't supposed to be exactly like the movie persay, but this was very poorly written. I will give him props for developing Lancelot's character, but that was it. The author took Dagonet, for example, (who was my favorite character from the film) and changed him from a quiet, brave warrior into this dumb, brute-like brainless idiot. The book had a few spots where the dialogue was sweet in its way, mostly in the parts dealing with Lucan, but all in all this novelization wasn't worth reading, in my opinion.

I don't care what people say, this is a good book. Yes, the battles were in detail, and I did kinda cringe at some parts, but nonetheless it deserves as many stars as I gave it. I am a big fan of the movie and pretty much believe that how they based it is the true man king Arthur was. So don't let other reviews stop you from this book... it's worth your time!

Both the book, and the film are as close to an accurate telling of the true life of King Arthur, or Artorius, as the current archaeolgical record can provide. I have been mystified by the legends of this great man since my early childhood. But alas, as legend is legend, things become distorted and changed, and exagerated over time....such has been the case with the tales of glory of Arthur, his friends, and his family.

They myths that we commonly associate with Arthur are just that, myth. A mythos created out of a necessity for hope. Current historical record places the true Arthur, or Artoritus, in approximately the 6th century AD. While some of the history in the book and the movie are slightly off, there are far more things accurate:

1) The Picts, or Woads as they are called in the film, were a formidable force in Britannia during this time. Renowned for their prowess on the battlefield, documentation by Roman soldiers that have been preserved through the ages tell of "blue painted barbarians" whose "bare breasted women" fought just as viciously, and with as much skill as any of the male warriors that they encountered.

2) The Celtoi word for 'leader' is very similar in both spelling and pronunciation to the word Merlin. It is through mistranslation over the ages that this shamanic leader has turned into the wizard of legend. As the child of such s leader, Guinevere held high rank amongst her people as both warrior and political force. The tribal societies of Britan at this time were egalitarian, and women held ranks of rulership, owned land, and enlisted as soldiers in time of need. One small detail pertaining to this greatly impressed me with the film. During the battle scenes against the Saxons Guinevere wore a torqe...which was a symbol of royalty amongst Celtic tribes.

Those who argue against both book and film based on differences associated with the legends and myths really need to get their hands on a recent history book dealing with the subject. They will see just how on the mark this book and the subsequent film are. If you wish to maintian your romantic fantastical view of King Arthur and idealistic Camelot...then by all means avoid this book, for it will shatter all of the illusions. If, however, you wish to find some of the truth behind the myth then this book is a must.

I don't understand why people seem to not like this book. If you want mythology then it's obviously not for you, but the alterations people are complaining about are from the myths, not the history, and so aren't really that great of an arguement.

This book is not completely historically accurate, but it can't be since so little is known of Artorius and the others including Guinevere. However, it is the best attempt I've ever seen. Stuff like Guinevere being a warrior IS accurate, there are several records of her fighting, though that's not something mythological fans would have read.

I saw the movie yesterday and the book & movie are fast becoming some of my all time favorites, right up there with J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Silmarillion" and Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Firebrand".

I bought this book after seeing the trailers for the movie. The trailers show great potential for the film but they do NOT show the underlying themes that are contained in the book. The book boils down to the idea that all the knights (except Arthur) are pagans. And vicious, cruel ones at that, but according to the author, that's ok. They're to be commended for their viciousness apparently. Now, Arhtur is a Christian, but a Christian of pretty weak faith. Compound that with the fact that ALL of the other Christians (except the heretic Pelagius) in the book are pure evil and are to be hated. Look, I'm not expecting the author to write a book where all the Christians are perfect little angels, but the fact remains that there is really not a single good person of the faith in the book. The author spares no expense in showing his virulent attitude towards anyone professing faith in the Christian God. He repeatedly mentions how it is the "hated" faith by the knights, and his constant attacks don't let up. All of the monks who show up in the book are either insane or just plain evil, and he has the knights killing them with glee. I mean, let's be real here for at least one minute, don't you think, somewhere throughout the course of this "book" (and I use the term loosely) with the amount of monks the knights come across there would be one who is not evil incarnate? Apparently the author doesn't think so.

The movie clips do not show any of this hatred so either the film version leaves it out, or they decided to keep that aspect of the film as a little surprise until the actual film is released. Either way, the pagans (somehow we're supposed to cheer for these guys even though they slay monks left and right because they enjoy it) are evil but to be applauded and anyone who is even remotely a Christian is to be disregarded as the manifestation of evil.

It seems to be business as usual in Hollywood. It's a shame as this film could have had great potential. Again, I'm not asking for all the Christians to be saints, but a little fairness across the boards would have been appropriate. That seems to be something the author just couldn't achieve. Instead, it becomes a mantra for the evils of the church.

In short, don't waste your money.