IMDb user comments for
King Arthur (2004) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 84:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

833 comments in total

---

288 out of 435 people found the following comment useful :-
I cannot respect King Arthur..., 26 December 2004

Author: friedman-8 from Canada

I did not hate this film. It was fairly entertaining, with well-staged battle scenes and high production values. The acting, though often either overblown or slightly wooden, was passable, and Ioan Gruffydd was actually quite good.

What bothered me is that the text at the opening of King Arthur promised a portrayal of the "historical" Arthur, and then manifestly failed to deliver. For the record, there is no "historical" Arthur. There are scattered references in the works of Gildas and Bede to an Arthur, or an Aurelius Ambrosianus upon whom the legend of Arthur is based. There is a fairly detailed story of a King Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth's History, though most of this seems drawn from Welsh and Cornish folktales of the type later collected in the Mabinogion. There is, however, very hard evidence that there ever was a King Arthur, or battles of Baddon Hill and Celidon forest.

There was, however, an invasion and colonization of Britain by the Saxons and other Germanic tribes during the fifth and sixth centuries, following the Roman military withdrawal. And it is pretty clear that the native Celtic and Romano-Celtic population put up one hell of a fight, slowing but not stopping the Saxon invasions. My own opinion is that there is enough smoke to suggest that the Arthur of medieval romance probably had some kind of historical prototype (most legends of this type usually do: a "Dux Bellorum" (war leader) as named in Gildas, possibly this shadowy Aurelius Ambrosianus.

So, I had high hopes for the movie King Arthur. After all, the film had the time period right, and the context looked convincing enough. Unfortunately, rather than using the historical material and context, the filmmakers completely ignored them. There was no consistency to this movie, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of the early middle ages (the so-called dark ages) will be more than irritated by the pretended historicity of the movie. Some examples: 1. The film suggests the late-imperial Roman government and policy was directed by the Church, through the Papacy. This is absolutely false. Although the Empire was staunchly Christian at this time, it was the Emperor and his court -- at Constantinople rather than Rome -- that set and executed policy. Bishops did not order armies around. In fact, the See of Rome at the time was a relatively weak power centre at the time, especially compared to the Bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria.

2. While it is true that the Romans enlisted soldiers and units from border tribes like the Sarmatians, they were never posted at the other end of the empire. This would have made no sense, since the whole point of the foederati was to create a buffer between the empire and the northern and eastern barbarians. The Sarmatian soldiers were typically posted in Sarmatia.

3. Arthur would never have known Pelagius who, though a Briton or Irishman by birth, was in Rome from about AD 405. He was condemned by the Church, but never actually excommunicated or convicted of heresy, and probably died in Rome in AD 420, around the time the "historical" Arthur was born.

4. By the fifth century, the Roman occupied part of Britain had been quite thoroughly Romanized. The population was mostly Romanized Britons, and NOT an ethnically British population under the boot of a few foreign, ethnically Roman aristocrats. While there certainly were non-Romanized Celts like the Wodes about, most of the Britain that Arthur would have been fighting to defend would have been populated by Christian Britons who though of themselves as Romans.

5. Bishop Germanicus, or St. Germain, was not a former Roman general. He was a former Gaulish lawyer.

6. Hadrian's wall was built not to keep the Britonnic Celts and Saxons out of Roman Britain. It was built to keep the Picts and Hiberni -- who were explicitly NOT Briton and in the case of the Picts, probably not even Celts -- out of Britain. It runs/ran from Solway Firth to the River Tyne and thus is waaaaaaaaaaaaay too far north to have had much to do with the "historical" Arthur.

7. While the Church in the fifth century was certainly militant (read St. Augustine for that), the portrayal of churchmen as murderous ascetics who tortured and sacrificed pagans is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, by this time, most of the population south of Hadrian's Wall had been converted to Christianity.

What troubles me is that there is no reason why the filmmakers should have played so fast and loose with history to make this movie. I understand creative license, but the way in which they claim historicity on one hand, and then create a nonsense fabrication on the other – to no end other than the fact that they just seemed to want to do it that way -- makes it very difficult for me to respect King Arthur. I can respect Excalibur; at least no one claimed that it was historical.

---

232 out of 328 people found the following comment useful :-
The legend?, 8 January 2005

Author: tjacks from United States

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 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.

---

155 out of 227 people found the following comment useful :-
Fresh Look On An Old Theme, 4 August 2004

Author: lillian.lee from USA

And I loved it!

Not just the new take on the King Arthur legend and the able cast, but the colors, the costumes, the landscapes, the horses, and Hans Zimmer's heart-pounding score.

I'm no King Arthur scholar but I have always been enamored with the chivalric ideals. It's great to see the knights in shining armor and Merlin conjuring up the mists and casting spells, and the young Arthur pulling Excalibur out of the stone.

But I went into this movie with an open mind. I was swiftly transported to that earlier time and happy for the journey. I could see where the elements of the now oh-so-familiar Arthurian themes may have had their beginnings. I found the on-screen chemistry between Ioan Gruffod and Clive Owen to be very powerful and it provided poignant counterpoint to Lancelot's most fateful choice.

The love triangle was never my favorite part of the Arthurian legends, so the subtle treatment of it here didn't bother me at all. In fact, I found it more intriguing in this film than in any other King Arthur movie I've seen.

I loved that there was no hocus-pocus-type magic. Instead the magic was in nature itself - the landscapes, the forests, the rain, the fog, the ice and snow - all creating an other-worldly atmosphere along with Moya Brennan's haunting vocals and Hans Zimmer's stirring score.

I loved the knights. I loved the idea that they were just regular guys and, in effect, drafted into military service. Not the privileged elite who volunteered their services to a king. Yet it is apparent that the Sarmatian knights fought more out of their love and respect for Arthur than any duty to Rome. That comraderie feels very organic and the sentiments, pure. I liked that they're not all wearing the same uniform, that they might have picked up pieces here and there as spoils of war.

I was especially captivated by Mads Mikkelson's Tristan. There appeared to be Eastern influences in his tattoos, clothing, sword, and fighting style. I love the idea of Lancelot using two swords. And I learned something about battlefield strategy, too.

Whatever shortcomings this movie may have, I found heart and soul in it. It was not only entertaining, it touched all my senses, and I felt good when I walked out of the theatre.

---

168 out of 259 people found the following comment useful :-
It's all about atmosphere, 18 December 2004

Author: jiujitsu_jesus from Faulconbridge, NSW Australia

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 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.

---

87 out of 126 people found the following comment useful :-
The realism behind the magic, 31 December 2004

Author: Kendra from New Zealand

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.

---

67 out of 96 people found the following comment useful :-
Dire, 7 March 2005

Author: jmoody1977 from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Sorry, but this film is dire.

Primarily it suffers from a BAD case of Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves Geography... Saxons invading from the North of Hadrians Wall? With nice round shields and pretty hair? Surely Mr Bruckheimer is thinking of the Vikings? Only a few centuries early eh Jerry!

And Stone Henge on Tintagel?

Maybe if you're not familiar with the layout of England and if you don't have even a rudimentary grasp of British history, you could enjoy this film as a mindless bit of action fluff. But if you do posses either of the two above attributes, you will find this film to be another frustrating example of Hollywood not letting silly details like facts or Geography get in the way of a fast buck (a la Braveheart, U571, The Patriot etc.. etc..)

So for any non Brits reading this who like a bit of Arthurian action, allow me to give you a few tips...

Stonehenge not near sea. Tintagel near sea but no stones. Hadrians wall at top of country... Stone Henge, King Arthur, Avalon, Tintagel and Saxons at bottom of country!

See! It's easy when you know how!

Oh! And for any Robin Hood fans, white cliffs not near Sherwood Forest. Sorry.

Anyway. Poo film. Even without the Arthur stuff, it's just plain wrong in so many ways. Giant frozen lakes in England? Where?

Even without the stupidity, it's a bad film.

These actors should have known better.

---

74 out of 121 people found the following comment useful :-
Jerry Bruckheimer's answer to realism, 24 May 2006

Author: Doc_Gibbons84 from Champaign, Illinois

I was intrigued by the concept of a more realistic look at the Arthur legend, but I should have known better than to trust another cookie-cutter Jerry Bruckheimer movie to do it justice. Normally I can forgive a little historical inaccuracy in movies because they're meant as fiction, but since this film tried to sell itself based on its "realism", I couldn't help but be irritated at the screenwriter's clear lack of research.

I was put off right away when the movie began, because they tried to convince us that the Roman legions were just preparing to leave Britain in 467 A.D., even though in reality Rome had abandoned Britain 57 years earlier! A minor mistake, perhaps, but one that could have been corrected by spending a mere five minutes on Google. Furthermore, the Saxons (hailing from modern Denmark and Holland) invaded Britain from the south and the east, NOT from north of Hadrian's Wall as it shows in the movie. North of the wall, Britain was under attack by Picts, Celts, and Scots. Clearly this was overlooked simply so the climactic battle could happen at Hadrian's Wall.

I also didn't buy the way Arthur and his knights were fantastic, unbeatable warriors both on and off their horses. Cavalry soldiers were almost useless without their mounts, because fighting on horseback and fighting on foot are two completely different kinds of combat, not to mention that the weight of their armor would make them slow and ungainly on foot. Cavalry troops trained solely for horse-mounted combat, because that was their function. They wouldn't get down off their horses like the knights do in this movie, because that would be stupid and they would needlessly deprive themselves of an advantageous position. And if a cavalry troop was knocked off his horse, he was probably a dead man anyway, so why waste time training for hand-to-hand infantry combat? Though not impossible for someone to be both an effective mounted and unmounted soldier, the better explanation is that screenwriters don't consider the difficulty of different types of combat; they see people do it in movies and so it looks infinitely easy to them.

Historical goofs aside, the movie played like just another brainless action-epic that just happens to be set during the Dark Ages. The good guys were perfect and had ridiculously modern concepts of freedom and equality, and the bad guys were shown as mindless, barbaric marauders and murderers. They might as well have just changed them from Saxons into demons hailing from Mordor. And I don't know who told Stellan Skarsgaard, playing the Saxon king, that he should mumble all his lines, but apparently being almost unintelligible is considered solid acting.

Also, I don't know how Clive Owen became an overnight star, but the man is in dire need of being humbled. I've seen him in a slew of recent movies, and I'm convinced that he has two facial expressions: bored and mildly excited. He is about the last person I would cast as Arthur, having all the charisma and leadership of a radish. He needs to star in a slew of real box office flops to put this un-emotive upstart in his place.

If you're looking for an exciting *and* believable historical-based fiction of King Arthur, I would recommend reading The Warlord Trilogy by Bernard Cornwell. And if you're more interested in the traditional mythic legends, then I would *certainly* suggest you steer clear of this movie and rent John Boorman's "Excalibur".

---

72 out of 118 people found the following comment useful :-
If you plan to watch this Movie I recommend the Directors Cut, 6 April 2005

Author: donald-campbell-1 from New Zealand

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, 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.

---

96 out of 166 people found the following comment useful :-
Move over Mallory. I really loved this one! ****, 29 July 2004

Author: Geff from LI,NY

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 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.

---

65 out of 107 people found the following comment useful :-
~ A Refreshing Change On An Old Story ~, 6 January 2005

Author: Aysen08 from Lincoln, NE

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 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.

---

---

Page 1 of 84:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history