Move over Mallory. I really loved this one! **** (by Geff)
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 <more>
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.
If you plan to watch this Movie I recommend the Directors Cut (by donald-campbell-1)
The Directors Cut of this movie must be one of the best ever made. Most times you see a Directors Cut you might get an extra scene here bit of dialog's there and you ask yourself what was the point of shelling out the extra money to see basically the same movie, in the case of King Arthur, you haven't seen anything until you see the Directors Cut. So much more action in the battle sequences, more Saxons, also the original ending, was much cooler than the light airy fairy ending that it received. You got to see the reality of conflict. Seeing Arthur marry Guinevere what was the point, <more>
we all know they get married. The theatrical version of the movie or Arther Lite as i now call it is OK, but the directors cut is better.Also Keira Knightley kicked butt in this movie as Guinevere she was believable as a warrior in the battle scenes and a lady during the peaceful times. I think I'll have to keep an eye out for more movies by Director Antoine Fuqua.
When I heard about this movie, I was expecting another remake of the old legend. Which was fine with me, as I am a great fan of the legend. I went and saw it, and was completely surprised. What we have here is not a fairy tell brimming with completely selfless men in shining armour, doing their duty to protect peace without a thought for themselves. No. This is a much more realistic take on the legend, in the sense that it shows the actual harshness of the period in which it takes place. Nobody Romans and Arthur aside wears flawless armour and carries a jewel-encrusted sword. The knights <more>
are just ordinary men, taken from Sarmatia by the Romans to serve in the Empire as knights. They are not at all pleased to be fighting, and long to get back to home. Doesn't that sound so much more likely?This movie takes place at the end of the fifteen years a group of Sarmatians Lancelot, Galahad, Gawain, Tristan, Bors, and Dagonet have to serve to Rome. They are eagerly anticipating returning home, when they are sent on one final mission. They are extremely displeased, as would be expected. They must rescue an important Roman family in the north from a massive Saxon invasion.I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I don't actually care if the history was slightly off Saxons and Romans at the same time , it was just a very entertaining film. The characters are interesting, the scenery is terrific, the battle scenes are brilliant, and the script can be funny even in such a serious plot. My only criticism would have to be that I found Arthur himself a little wooden. But that does not affect the movie in any way, because he is still an extremely cool character. All the knights were, in any case. Bors was hilarious, Tristan was just so stylish in his fighting, and Dagonet my favourite was a formidable fighter but turned out to be the soft one, when it came to children.If you are expecting the traditional legend and seeing it differently will anger you, do not watch this movie. Myself, I actually liked this one more than the old one. I give it 10/10!Bors: "Beautiful Sarmatian woman? Why d'you think we left in the first place? Moooo!"
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 <more>
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.
I loved this movie. It is closer to the truth than any other movie about King Arthur. Yes there was some literary license but for the most part I found it more real and believable than any "Knight in Shining Armor fantasy" about King Arthur that has been put out in the last Century... I liked it because it made the knights more like real humans instead of the perfect Chivalry living Holy Warriors of the Fantasy stories. I also liked the way it portrayed the Church as a bunch of conniving lowlife scumbags which they were. There should be no holy cups, lances, 16th century ceremonial <more>
armor and Saxons/Vikings in horned helmets. To me the time period at the end of the Roman Conquest of Britain is much more interesting than the later time period when the fantasy Arthur was supposed to have lived. I would recommend this movie to anyone...
OK the history was a bit off. But then we are supposed to believe that the story lines of Troy and Alexander are accurate. Apart from that, this was brilliant. I was told to dislike this by the stupid critics in the press. IMDb reviewers however seemed to like it so I gave it a chance. Am I glad. The Saxon leader. What a psycho ! Totally believable. The battle scenes were mostly good. Only one Braveheart style charge, and this from the Picts. They were supposed to be this stupid, ignoring childishly the tactics of more sensible armies. Kiera, despite being beautiful, would have been chopped <more>
to bits by the Saxons as she has little or no muscles and limbs like matchsticks. Her berserker antics were a tad silly. Clive Owen, who I really didn't have time for before, was excellent. They should have made him Bond not that blond bloke. Ray Winstone. Pure class ! Everyone else, even Schlockmeister, well done. You are forgiven for Pearl Harbour.
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 <more>
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.
~ A Refreshing Change On An Old Story ~ (by Aysen08)
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 <more>
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.
You will either love it or hate it....... (by manofhonor24-1)
I saw this movie, and it shocked me after seeing other renditions of the tale behind the legend. The cool thing about this movie is that it is believable. It uses real events in history that have been found to tell you this story .I'm sure we all like to think that Merlin was a wonderful magician that helps Arthur become the King that he was destined to be. But a lot of the things in previous renditions of the same tale that were magical are unfounded and unrealistic.If you like movies like Gladiator, The Last Samurai, you may like this movie. If you think that this movie is going to be <more>
like King Arthur, or Excalibur, you might not like this movie.The actors and actresses play their respected roles very well. And they are very believable.