Customer Reviews

King Arthur [UMD for PSP]

5 star:		(163)
4 star:		(153)
3 star:		(101)
2 star:		(69)
1 star:		(67)

 

 

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.

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,

The movie is pretty good BUT watch the directors cut only, however, historically and geographically it's a bit awry.
YES there was a Romano-British warlord called Artorius Castus, YES 4000 Sarmatian heavy cavalry were sent to northern Britannia around 180 AD from southern Russia, it was part of a peace deal between Marcus Aurelius and the Sarmatians. YES the sword religon was a Scythio-Sarmatian ritual of the sacred sword, blood, plunging it into the earth etc
However most of their desendents by the 450's AD (when the movie is set) when the romans left britain would have been native british, and half were thought to have left to fight with Constantine in Europe.
NO they wouldn't have worn armour as in the film. The Picts were ORIGINAL peoples of northern britain (Scotti were immigrants from Dal Ria in North Ireland). They may have worn blue (Woad) body paint as modern research has suggested it had antiseptic properties to protect against wounds, they did use composite bows and crossbows. The romans invited in the Saxons as mercenaries against the Irish, Scots, Welsh (no such term as Celt then! thats an 18th century invention) and other Saxon raiders. They rebelled when they weren't paid and took over southern britain, brought they're families over and the rest is history (evenually to become Aenglaland...England). One of the biggest mistakes in the film though is that all the romano-british v saxon fighting took place in southern britain, not around Hadrian's Wall, and the final battle of Baden Hill is thought to be in south-western england.
But if you're not too bothered by that it's not bad, particulary the less sanitised Directors Cut version with the blood restored!
If you're interested check out the book "Arthur the Dragon King by Howard Reid" for a good comprehensive historical account.

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.

Here is yet another retelling of the King Arthur legend. It's not a romanticized version laced with magic. If that is what you seek then you would do best to watch the Mists of Avalon (also a thoroughly satisfying book then movie). This story is laced with gritty realism of what life may have been like back in the period of Roman occupation of Great Britain.

I have read countless retellings of the King Arthur legend. This movie probably creates a more historically accurate portrayal of the story of King Arthur and the people who surrounded him ... if he actually existed.

This story is told during the ancient history of the British Isles and their occupation by Roman forces. Arthur is the son of a Roman soldier and a British mother. He is torn by his duty to Rome as well as his duty to the occupants of Britain. He and his band of weary soldiers look forward to their release from their service to Rome after fifteen years of duty (forced upon them from childhood by Roman occupiers) but, instead of receiving their release papers, they are given one last quest. To do the final bidding of the Roman Empire is a nearly suicidal mission into the lands north of Hadrian's Wall. Those lands are primary occupied by Celtic tribes who value their freedom and fight fiercely against the Roman occupiers south of Hadrian's Wall. Told they will be "hunted down like dogs" if they don't go on this mission, Arthur has no choice but to go forward on the very dangerous quest.

Meanwhile, from the north, the isle is being invaded by Saxons - fierce, murderous people who plan to kill everyone they find and burn every village. Squeezed between the Romans to the south and the invading Saxons to the north, the native Celts have no choice but to attempt to forge a bond between themselves and the powerful warrior Arthur and his band of warriors (not called knights in this story). Thus begins the classic battle between good and evil, right and wrong.

Of a historical note, the women (including Guinevere) were portrayed as fierce warriors themselves - running into battle nearly naked and screaming - running into battle along with their Celtic warrior males. This was a fairly accurate portrayal of how things may have been according to historical texts. Women in ancient Celtic history were leaders and warriors along with the men of their tribes. And, yes, historically the Celts did run screaming into battle nearly naked - often their ferocity frightened away their opponents.

Finally, this is a gritty, realistic retelling of the King Arthur tale. It is a also a satisfying story of the battle between good and evil. This would likely be a great addition to your DVD library.

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.

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.

King Arthur as Roman warlord? It's possible, but as that plot device is handled in this movie, it doesn't necessarily make for the best story. Gone are the courtly, courteous knights of Malory and Tennyson, replaced by a troop of surly, pagan horsemen with little to admire in them save their great fighting prowess and their unifying loyalty to Arthur. Arthur himself is far and away the most charismatic figure, as it should be, and at least he is a Christian (though at times it seems he places as much faith in humanism as he does in God). Guinevere is introduced as a barbarian warrior-woman (and not a particularly likeable one either) and Merlin is reduced to a primitive shaman, but at least we still get Excalibur and the Round Table. The chilly scenery and cinematography are breathtaking and the combat scenes are powerful, but this is not the legend's best version. Like MISTS OF AVALON and some other modern retellings, this movie succumbs to revisionist agendas that almost always fail (neo-paganism, feminism, etc) and while the result is by no means a failure, it is nonetheless highly disappointing. Even the argument that this film's departures from legend are justified because this is *the way it really was* doesn't hold water because it's just not true. For example, Lancelot is featured prominently in the movie (though there is no illicit romance between he and Guenevere) but Lancelot is one of the Arthurian characters who is not based on a real person--he is the fictional creation of French author Chretien de Troyes. Be that as it may, the problem is not that changes in the legend are made (every storyteller will change the tale to reflect his own vision) but rather how those changes are handled. Would it have been so hard to make the knights more likeable? Or to portray Christians as something other than oppressive tyrants (except Arthur, who usually comes across very well)? I don't think so. In any event, the core of the legend remains more or less intact, and as an inspirational action movie about fighting for your freedom and never giving up on your ideals KING ARTHUR succeeds more often than it fails. For Athurian fans I definitely think this film is worth seeing--just don't expect too much. EXCALIBUR or CAMELOT this is not...

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 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".