3/5 King Arthur... How did you become king I didn't vote for you?
  by Julian Kennedy (St Pete Florida)
King Arthur: 6 out of 10: 2004's grimy and supposedly historical King Arthur benefits form two great assets; Kiera Knightly in a leather bikini... and some of the funniest scenes ever put on film.

I pretty sure the former was intentional. I am positive the latter was not. One would be harder pressed to find a more ahistorical, awkward, forced and unintentionally funny historical romp anywhere. And the fact the film takes itself so seriously simply adds to the already bountiful mirth.

As any kid who has answered a test question based on watching Mel Gibsons The Patriot has certainly learned, movies and historical accuracy are not friends. Not friends at all. Yet King Arthur wears its we are being historical here that is why everything is so muddy heart on its sleeve.

As if to multiply the historical missteps, the Arthurian legend is often awkwardly forced into the story line at strange places. As a result you have Osama bin Merlin head of what I'm guessing is the Picts. (They are called the Woats but of course there is no such thing. They do wear blue battle paint, which is historically accurate if you are doing a film about Scottish warriors. Scottish warriors attending a football match in the 1970's mind you.) Guinevere is now a leather bikini-wearing archer, and Arthur is a Roman commander fighting the Blue Meanies (after-mentioned Woats) of the north.

The Saxons show up out of nowhere and try to kill everybody. So now in that timeworn movie cliché the two former enemies (Arthur of the Romans and Merlin of the Blue Meanies) have to combine forces to defeat the new evil Saxons.

A lot of clichés are evident in King Arthur. The worst is the screeching about freedom in what seems to be every fourth sentence of the screenplay. It's irritatingly repetitive, ridiculous (Arthur doesn't become President Arthur after all or as Monty Python put it "How did you become king anyway I didn't vote for you") and it leads to one of the unintentionally funniest scenes ever in a major motion picture release. (As King Arthur gives an almost word for word homage to Mel Gibson's stirring Braveheart battle speech the camera pans back and instead of revealing an army of thousands it has five lone guys. They might as well have been holding coconuts.)

Yet despite all this and an ending that reminds one of Kevin Costner's Robin Hood, I actually enjoyed myself. The battle scenes were pretty well done despite the PG-13, the acting is okay and Kiera Knightly did prance around in a leather bikini for most of the film.

Like the movie Troy, the flaws of this film add a humorous dimension to the proceedings.
And don't forget we fight for FREEDOM from the unrepresentative Republic of which I am a commanding officer so we can create an absolute monarchy with a round table.

I am telling you if this movie was called Bob the Roman guy it would have been a lot better.

2/5 Historically innacurate
  by David K. Adam (Bakersfield ,California)
I hate the fact that this movie tries to come off as historical.There are historical inaccuracies.
1. Portraying the Roman occupation as lasting into late into the 5th century(historically they withdrew in 410AD).
2.The Saxon Genocide. Modern research seems to indicate that rather than destroying the natives, the invading Angles and Saxons settled amongst and intermarried with the native Britons.Also,the first Anglo-Saxons were invited to Britain as mercanaries by the Britons. The 'Anglo-Saxons' of later centuries were the decendants of both culturally Anglo-Saxonized Britons and the invading Anglo-Saxons.
3.The battle of Badon Hill takes place in southern England not in the north.
4.The Picts were the enemies, not the allies of the Britons and part of the reason why the Britons hired Angle and Saxon mercanaries.

5/5 KING ARTHUR
  by
IT WAS A MOVIE THAT WOULD APPEAL TO D DIVERSE GROUP OF PEOPLE. WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THAGT IS GRDAT FOR ADULT AND OLDER TEENAGERS, MAYBE NOT SO GREAT FOR THE YOUNGER CHILDREN. I HAD SEEN THE MOVIE SEVERAL TIMES BUT WOULD MISS SOME PART OF IT. I FOUND IT ON SELL AT OUR SAMS CLUB BUT IT WAS A BLUERAY DISC ONLY WHICH I DO NOT HAVE AT THIS TIME.-

2/5 Here lies Arthur.. the activist
  by elfgiva (UK)
This film claimed to presen 'the true story of Arthur'. So was it unreasonable to expect fair amount of accuracy?

I know few movies stick to the facts all the time, but seeing as
this one was trumpeted as the best Arthur film yet, and the only one set in the correct era, was it unfair to expect a presentation of Arthurian legend that refelected current historical knowledge to some degree?

Artistic licence is one thing, politically correct revisonism is another. There was no end to the Roman and Christian bashing, with the Roman Empire depicted as evil ruthless imperialists, and the church thier instrument of oppression.

Pelagius died a century before Germannus came to Britain, so the former could not have had any part in his death, yet the film claims he did, in an apparent attempt to blacken his name, and demonise the Romans.

The Picts lived outside Roman Britannia, and thier country was never conquered by the Romans, so they were not heroic freedom fighters as this film depicts. They were little more than oppurtunistic raiders who took advantage of Britain's weakness.

Finally, no Hollywood film would be complete without a shot at the English. So in this film the leader of the Saxons is a nazi like racial purist, and his army are an assorted bunch of bloodthirsty barbarian savages.
Perhaps nobody took the trouble to tell the producer historians now think the Saxons are not the ancestors of the English, after all.

This film is only worth watching if you want to ogle Kiera Knightley (for the guys) and gawp at Clive Owen/Ioan Griffith (for the girls.


1/5 King Arthur for Pagans!
  by Hangemhigh (California)
King Arthur is now a pagan knight who battles the evil Saxons and Christian church.

Arthur is a cavalry auxiliary for the Romans as they abandon Britain. He turns against the wicked Roman church and joins the pagan Woads in an alliance against the savage Saxons. Later, Arthur participates in a Druid pagan ceremony.

If you are a wiccan or just don't like Christians, this is a great King Arthur for you!

Keira Knightley as Guinevere just doesn't work for me. She is built like a 12 year old boy. That just doesn't cut it as a warrior-princess.

Good battle scenes, but I prefer the medieval armor of traditional interpretations.