UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Adventure >

King Arthur

King Arthur (2004)

July. 07,2004
|
6.3
|
PG-13
| Adventure Drama Action History

The story of the Arthurian legend, based on the 'Sarmatian hypothesis' which contends that the legend has a historical nucleus in the Sarmatian heavy cavalry troops stationed in Britain, and that the Roman-British military commander, Lucius Artorius Castus is the historical person behind the legend.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

spam_ebay_al
2004/07/07

Well, First, the positive. Overall good acting, and not bad as movie, could have got happily twice the stars. So, why did I not give more ? Some elements are correct, e.g. the "tabula" with wax and the stilus (yep, the stylus was not invented with tablet computers :-)), but form a film that at the start pretends to be a true accurate historical reconstruction... Well, another comment made a list of 7 points historically wrong (though making some reference that could itself be disputable, e.g. Picts are in general considered part of the vast Celtic family), in reality, the list can be much longer, but just two examples... The Sarmatians were known for their cavalry, but it was heavy cavalry more similar to the "knights" (though not with the same type of rigid armor) than to what shown in the movies. Also, the "vallum" (by the way, that is the origin of the word "wall" ), to be historically accurate, should have shown the ditches etc. (effectively, a "vallum" was more than just a wall). And while it is true that in ancient time having hostages and tributes including slaves was not unheard of, the mechanism shown in the movie about enlisting in the Roman army is completely wrong. Is Hollywood famous for its historical accuracy (thus is this film really such a bad exception) ? Definitively NOT, and many times it goes straight into "propaganda" - that why some movies use the non committal (lawyer approved ;-)) "inspired by true events" ("inspired"). Again, the problem is that it that pretense at the start to be "THE" historical reconstruction. To enjoy some time, and see a different reinterpretation on the "Arthurian cycle", it's one thing, but do NOT pretend after seeing this movie that you know the story of "true Arthur", or the story or situation of the Europe, the Roman empire, or England in that period, because you will not.

More
forster-80382
2004/07/08

A movie is a fantasy presented to allow an individual the pleasure of escaping the real world for an hour or two and yet her I observe many who have not quite realized that simple fact. There are too many verbose analysts presenting critic level opinions while lacking any credentials. The Movie was very enjoyable, the music score was outstanding. A suggestion go immerse yourself in the presentation and leave your stupid hat at home. IT IS A MOVIE. When I go to a movie I take no baggage, if I enjoy the presentation I am satisfied. Also if you can do better pack your bags and accomplish the challenge, if not your opinions have no merit. I found this movie an enjoyable experience. After all nothing on this planet is perfect, much less poor reviews

More
javi-y-se-acabo
2004/07/09

I don't know if it's very historical accurate or not. I'm not an expert so I won't say anything about that, just that I enjoyed this movie but for me it was missing a bit of something.It's a new take on the tale of the legend of King Arthur but in a very different way we are used to, showing him on the Dark Ages. The story is quite simple and in fact nothing very important ends up happening, beside the main reason that is the invasion of the Saxons, but apart from that, that is one of the things I felt missing. I don't know, but I would have liked more story and more development of it.Most of the actors were great, specially Keira Knightley in this bad-ass role, and also the Knights who were with Arthur were great, like the one who played Lancelot, Ioan Gruffud, and I specially like Madds Mikkelsen in the role of Tristan. But King Arthur (Clive Owen) had the same facial expression through all the movie and for me that is one of the main flaws, because if it's the main character you need to have someone who can make you feel emotions, and he didn't showed this up until the very end, and in that part it wasn't that good. I also felt that other great actors were underused like Stellan Skarsgard who was just walking around killing people and not so much more. And there are some characters that could have been better used like Merlin, who appeared no more than ten minutes and he could have bring some very good moments.But the visuals are amazing. I really like this kind of final-epic-to- death battle and this in here is very well created, with very good sword fights and with some very epic and also emotional moments. To this, you have to add the epic score Hans Zimmer created, that is surely among his bests.I recommend you this movie for having an entertaining time while watching it, and specially for the final battle.

More
AgentSniff
2004/07/10

If there is any historical truth to the legend of king Arthur, it probably originates a romano-British warlord fighting the Saxons. Then we have to accept the centuries of exaggerations, mixing with other legends, re-writes to fit the times and so on. This is a still living tradition, because we continue to re-purpose and retell the story. Excalibur, for all it's faults, managed to get this point across pretty well. What the filmmakers set out to do here is to try to relocate de- myth the story and try to tell what might have actually happened. To bad they did not do that.Instead we get an absurd and confused "historical" mess. Very well, at least it's sometimes necessary to salt history for the sake of a good story? Right? I mean, the cast is great. We have Clive Owen, Stellan Skarsgård, Hugh Dancy, Ray Winstone, Joel Edgerton, Ray Winstone, Keira Knightley, Til Schweiger and Mad Mads Mikkelsen. What could go wrong? A lot. Sadly, these actor's has to work with a frightfully dull script. Clive Owen only has to stand around and hold speeches. Everybody keeps talking about what a great leader and warrior he is. He has no faults, makes no mistakes. He's just a flat character. Skarsgård walks around sounding like he just woke up and is bored by everything. The character of Cerdic comes off as a stupid evil character. Schweiger just snarls and glares. These villains are generic and duller than carpenter's thumb. As a supposedly historical film, it baffle one that the Saxon land in Scotland, north of Hadrian's Wall. Why? It's far from the closest part of the Saxon homeland and just plain dumb. An why are the woads/picts/(scotsmen?) fight the heavily armored Saxons wearing leather bras? How is that a sustainable means of protection? Why are the Saxons not shooting back at the heroes when they are fired upon. They do have crossbows.The cheesy music keeps pumping over the film, and is little more than noise in the background. It sounds like any other Hans Zimmer score. I could not tell which film it was from if I heard it on it's own. Through the cinematography is pretty competently done. And through many of the costumes are pretty unhistorical, they look pretty good for the most part. I liked Ray Winstone, even through gobbled the scenery I enjoyed him. At least he put some personality into his performance. This is a dull, dull, dull and generic "retelling" of the story. Every other decade there is another Arthur-movie. Let's hope we get a better one. The characters are flat and dull, the story is unimpressive and boring, the music is forgettable and the script is dumb.

More