Le Roi Arthur

What can I say that most already have not? Well not a lot.

My opinion on the movie is that, like many others have said, it's nothing like the legend. I went into this movie expecting it to at lease follow some of the story line for what I knew.. But nothing really happened. They touch small bases of the story and sure they say 'the true story' but no one knows if it even happened! So no one can really make such a statement. Also if they are trying to make a more 'realistic' one then they could of still used the King Arthur story that he actually dies? There is the love affair between Lancelot and Guinevere? King Arthur's love affair and his son? Really if they had to make 2 or 3 movies to fit it all it, I would be more happy with that than how this one turned out.

I went in knowing the story and didn't enjoy it as much, but my cousin went in not knowing much more than there was a King Arthur and a sword.. He enjoyed it a lot more.

It's just another war movie, and I really think it would be a good one! If it didn't use it as the King Arthur story.

Most King Arthur fans will be disappointed I believe, but none the less.. it's a good movie if you take away the whole 'King Arthur' legend from your mind.

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.

I have just seen King Arthur and what a disappointment! I have seen heaps of movies, and I am able to stomach a lot, having enjoyed mediocre films like, Van Helsing for instance. Van Helsing at least was silly, but had no pretensions of being anything else, King Arthur on the other hand, is a little movie, very predictable, filled with plot clichés that you have seen in countless other motion pictures, but has pretensions of being something extraordinary. Well, surprise, surprise it is not! There is not even enough camp in this movie to grant it a sort of je ne se quois to make it enjoyable. Even the soundtrack is a rip off of Gladiator, without even fitting the movie adequately. Hans Zimmer should know better than to copy/paste from is own work, some of us might notice!

Most of the acting is pretty good. I have especially enjoyed Ioan Gruffud as Lancelot and Clive Owen and Arthur, both of them make a very good effort given the silly lines they have, especially Owen who's lines are extra silly. Most of the actors are competent with the exception of Til Schweiger as Cynric and I felt that such a great actor as Stephen Dillane (Merlin) was completely wasted and given no chance to show is quality.

The direction was pretty bad and uneven. Antoine Fucqua doesn't show the talent he has demonstrated in Training day or even Tears of the Sun, the movie is a mess from start to finish. Visually, I must admit, it looks good. Slawomir Idziak's cinematography is really good and I hope to see some of his work in the future.

I have a lot more problems with this movie which I won't detail much further, with the exception of two that I cannot overlook. First of all, trebuches (the catapult thingies) were invented by the French during the 100 year old war, several centuries later, and not by Merlin. In a movie that brags about historical realism and accuracy, this strikes as odd. Besides, if Merlin had this kind of weapons, why not used it against the Romans in the first place? Another gripe, and this a big one, is the complete absence of gore! Did people in the "Dark Ages" not have blood? The battle scenes are violent but no blood! What's the point? Again if you want to have a realistic take on this period of history, why the absence of realism in the battle scenes? Do the filmmakers think that a PG-13 rating will get them more money at the box-office? Having seen this mess I seriously doubt it!

Summarizing, this movie is a complete mess with the exception of some of the performances, namely the Knights and most of all Gruffud's and Owen's acting. As for the rest, it is dumb, predictable, not very original in terms of plot and a complete disappointment! Long live Excalibur (John Boorman) that with it's 23 years it is still the best Kig Arthur story in movie history.

This isn't as bad a movie as many critics and viewers who write critiques have made it out to be, but isn't anything like a blockbuster that hasn't been matched or bettered before. Nice summer movie to watch when the heat wave breaks and you have a long rainy day. I have several complaints, but I'll start with the virtues:

It was well filmed, with good settings (although there is nothing like those Alpine mountains in Britain, except maybe in the Scottish Highlands during mid-winter). The battle scenes were fine, except to the extent they were toned down to get the PG rating (wait for the DVD) -- especially a really good one that takes place on the surface of a frozen lake. The depiction of Hadrian's Wall and its ancillary fortresses and villages -- with taverns and hooker joints -- was archaeologically and historically accurate, even if the purported site of the Battle of Badon is imaginary (could be presumed to be modeled on Housesteads combined with Vindolanda). And yes, the Romans did have draftees in the legions from other parts of the Empire in posts like the Great Wall, and they were inducted for 15 to 20 years before being granted civilian status and pensions. That Arthur's traditional knights were Sarmations, we'd call them Ukrainians now, has to be taken with a grain of salt. In these senses, the movie is a good approximation of the latter days of the Roman Empire in Britain, but it certainly doesn't break any new 'archeological or historical ground'. I have no imaginative problems, as some people with that kind of interest do, with the technology of the battle scenes -- the Romans had catapults and naphtha bombs (Greek fire), even if they were unlikely to have been used in the sort of battle shown here against a marauding horde of barbarians, and manned by another horde of barbarians, those so-called Picts who become Arthur's allies.

Doubtful elements: As I said, the Ukrainian Knights -- and in fact I was fooled into thinking the kid drafted from the steppes to join the Roman cavalry was supposed to be Arthur, but turns out to be Lancelot, and well, that just won't do. First of all Lancelot was French, an interpolation from the Middle Ages. Galahad was also a Norman French invention. The more traditional Arthurian characters, going back to the original Welsh legends, as close as we'll ever get to historical 'reality', were Gawain and Bors -- who were certainly not Ukrainians! Tristan or Tristram has his own mythology, involving the Irish princess Iseult, as we know from Wagner's opera and other sources, so why is he killed off before he can accomplish this? (Besides, it is Gawain who supposedly had a connection with hawks, not Tristan, and is also said to have killed giants.) It is likely that the historical Arthur was a Roman officer, perhaps related to the historical Ambrosius Aurelianus, who commanded a 'rapid reaction force', and in any case was definitely British -- that all fits. What the screenplay doesn't explain at all, probably because of very poor editing, is that bit about the sword in the stone and the burning of the young Arthur's house by raiders led by, presumably, the British (Welsh) Merlin, who by the way was not a PICT. Here I was, thinking he was the kid from the steppes, then all of a sudden we get this thrown in, and was that really supposed to have been his father who broke the ice on the lake to drown the Saxons, at the cost of his own life? Say, what? Where did this come from out of the blue? Cerdic and Cynric, the Saxon leaders, were definitely historical characters, but they were the founders of WESSEX in the south of England and had nothing to do with the Saxon invasion north of the wall when the Northumbrian kingdom was established.

Totally wrong and misleading elements: Even the historical sources mention several great battles of the Britons against the Saxons and Scots, which took place over several years, led by a great war leader. Many of them took place in Lowland Scotland and the Border country, but the famous battle of Mount Badon is generally considered to have taken place south west of London. Hadrian's Wall had been abandoned several years before. There was no one great decisive routing of the invaders before Badon. The so-called Pelagian heresy took place before these times and is one of those silly arguments whereby Christians killed other Christians over trivial matters -- the Victorians made Pelagius into a hero because he was British, but as far as I can figure out, his 'heresy' had nothing to do with Freedom and All Men Are Created Equal. Arthur is more likely to have been a Mithraist, like other legionaries, even if nominally Christian.

As for the script, all I can say is that it is muddled beyond easy comprehension. That could have as much to do with the way the film was finally edited as with any original deficiency, even granted that it is not a strong script to begin with. The acting is generally very well done -- again allowing for the fact that the roles and lines were chopped up for whatever reasons. One very laughable bit concerns the lovely Keira (Guinevere), who is rescued from a dungeon where everybody else has starved or been tortured to death, has Arthur treat her maimed hands, then a day or so later is an Olympic class archer. 'I see your fingers are better now,' says Arthur.

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.