Buena Vista Pictures | Release Date: July 7, 2004
7.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 183 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
117
Mixed:
43
Negative:
23
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
9
KentB.Jul 9, 2004
I'm not sure what movie all these other reviewers watched, but it must not be the same one I did. King Arthur is fantastically done. The take on what could be a plausible explanation for the British King Arthur and his knights is very I'm not sure what movie all these other reviewers watched, but it must not be the same one I did. King Arthur is fantastically done. The take on what could be a plausible explanation for the British King Arthur and his knights is very well done with a good attention to the details of what was happening in 5th Century Britain. This movie is not intended to be the MYTH of Arthur, but the truth of his existence. Phenomenal movie, must see!!!! Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
10
ChristopherA.Jan 7, 2005
The critics show no understanding when they give this film low marks. The fighting was excellent and realistic, and the storyline was believable, which is much more than can be said for typical Hollywood films. King Arthur was a completely The critics show no understanding when they give this film low marks. The fighting was excellent and realistic, and the storyline was believable, which is much more than can be said for typical Hollywood films. King Arthur was a completely enjoyable movie for educated men. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
8
MediaCriticOct 18, 2011
This movie is full of fast paced action. It's a good one and the movie is fast going. The storyline is quite good, and it displays the brutality of war well. There are some sort of fantasy elements included in the film, hardly any though. TheThis movie is full of fast paced action. It's a good one and the movie is fast going. The storyline is quite good, and it displays the brutality of war well. There are some sort of fantasy elements included in the film, hardly any though. The film is done well, and features lot's of action, and tell's the tale of King Arthur well, along with his knights. It's a very serious film but a very enjoyable one that can be watched many times over and over. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
8
paulinem.Aug 27, 2005
This movie was an absolute travesty. Clive Owen did a horrible job of playing Arthur. Merlin looked like that homeless guy on bum fights. The fighting was excellent and realistic, and the storyline was believable, which is much more than can This movie was an absolute travesty. Clive Owen did a horrible job of playing Arthur. Merlin looked like that homeless guy on bum fights. The fighting was excellent and realistic, and the storyline was believable, which is much more than can be said for typical Hollywood films. King Arthur was a completely enjoyable movie for educated men. It Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
BlazzeredOct 12, 2013
This movie is VERY underrated. I believe it should be as remembered as the much as the movies Troy, Gladiator, LOTR, etc. Great soundtrack, great battles, fantastic storyline, and timeline with the Roman Empire is epic. Loved the acting,This movie is VERY underrated. I believe it should be as remembered as the much as the movies Troy, Gladiator, LOTR, etc. Great soundtrack, great battles, fantastic storyline, and timeline with the Roman Empire is epic. Loved the acting, lived the actors/actress's, and loved how realistic it goes. Instead of being all about wizards and medieval magic swords, it's more into a realistic perspective. I found myself obsessed with this movie, still love it today and it think EVERYONE should watch it. Very historical as well. I don't like how it's so underrated and has so much hate towards it. Guess people are more into medieval King Arthur than this. This is a must see movie in my opinion. I LOVE this movie. Will always be one of my favorite movies of all time. I could watch it over and over again all day and night. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
oblique15Oct 20, 2013
This was a great movie, no idea why It got such a low rating.The characters, and fight scenes made it fun to watch.I guess the complete story is nothing Original, but how many movies are?
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
PatrickM.Jul 10, 2004
Anyone else sick of these cookie cutter movies? You know, the ones with the dramatic non-creative music, the same battle scenes looped, the boring conversations between Arthur and people that I don't care about, etc. I think a real flaw Anyone else sick of these cookie cutter movies? You know, the ones with the dramatic non-creative music, the same battle scenes looped, the boring conversations between Arthur and people that I don't care about, etc. I think a real flaw of this was the rating and the lack of ANY blood...and I basically mean any. A guy gets his throat slit and hardly a trickle of blood appears. I don't want to give stuff away, but what the hell was with Merlin? I had no idea he looked like Rob Zombie. Just too much bad about this to list. The snow in one scene with a clear blue sky in the background, the incredible cool tattoos and face paint that Keira Knightley used to slay the barbarians with (LOL), and the Saxons just waltzing about on the brittle ice. Better than Troy, but clearly that's not sayin much. Ah, all sounds like a Bruckheimer masterpiece to me. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
GregB.Jul 6, 2004
The Disney losing streak continues. One can only hope that The Village, Ladder 49 or The Incredibles can break the curse.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
KelR.Jul 9, 2004
Why in the hell is Guinevere in the battles? Can someone tell me this? This is a discrace on the name "King Arthur." I'm sick of the feminazi's injecting movies with completely unrealistic views of women as the "bad ass" warriors. Why in the hell is Guinevere in the battles? Can someone tell me this? This is a discrace on the name "King Arthur." I'm sick of the feminazi's injecting movies with completely unrealistic views of women as the "bad ass" warriors. Wake up and smell the coffee you morons, these sorts of movies are mostly for men. The tales of King Arthur have always been about the glory days of men being men, and women being women, CHIVALRY, got it? So why are you making Guinevere the man you bastards? Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JayH.Jul 9, 2004
Am I to believe that after hundreds of years of legend, that the one person who got the "true" story is Bruckheimer? Want a good Arthur movie? Rent Excalibur.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
NhatT.Jan 24, 2005
This movie was an absolute travesty. Clive Owen did a horrible job of playing Arthur. Through out the film Owens character was very dissatisfying and at some parts even annoying. Merlin looked like that homeless guy on bumfights. They made This movie was an absolute travesty. Clive Owen did a horrible job of playing Arthur. Through out the film Owens character was very dissatisfying and at some parts even annoying. Merlin looked like that homeless guy on bumfights. They made Keira Knightley look like a man. The casting people need to be fired because there wasnt one actor in the whole movie that was believeable. Not to mention the actor who played the leader of the Saxons, just pure crap. It seemed like they picked the actors off the street or something. Also the director Antoine Fuqua needs to stick to modern day action movies and should never ever do an epic again. EVER! Don't watch this movie it's a complete waste of time! Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JamesT.Aug 30, 2006
This Movie was a disaster.It was completely anti-catholic.The catholic characters had completely ridiculous accents. Whereas Clive Owen sounded like a computer programmer from London on a 5 day work do to Scotland.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
ChrisP.Aug 13, 2004
Considering this movie is supposed to be fact based, it seems they through the history books in the fire before they started! I am a big fan of anything King Arthur and I was looking forward to a decent film based on the few historical facts Considering this movie is supposed to be fact based, it seems they through the history books in the fire before they started! I am a big fan of anything King Arthur and I was looking forward to a decent film based on the few historical facts and archelogy we have from that era...but sad to say, hollywood won out! Fact no1 .. In the film (which is set at the end of the roman empire) they call them selfs knights...which were not around, indeed Knighthood (a title awarded by kings to there followers ) was not even invented then , and did not arrive in the UK untill 1066 and the norman invasion. Fact2 there was no tribe called the Woads..Woad is infact the plant used to make the puple dye, they used to paint them selfs with (the celts that is) fact 3 ... Since when did the celts use giant siege machines and treblcheas ??? ..now all this and more could be forgiven if the acting and script were anygood..unfortuneatly they were both crap and the film was worse than watching paint dry! ...take my advice go and watch john boormans Excalibur if you want an arthur film, it may be complete fantasy but at least it a fantastic film to watch, which is way more than you can say for 2004's King Arthur!!! Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
MarkB.Aug 18, 2004
The most thrilling aspect of this terminally dull, pretentious and intellectually dishonest take on the Arthurian legend is noting its disastrous box office returns and realizing that a fair and just Movie God has taken vengeance on Jerry The most thrilling aspect of this terminally dull, pretentious and intellectually dishonest take on the Arthurian legend is noting its disastrous box office returns and realizing that a fair and just Movie God has taken vengeance on Jerry Bruckheimer for having a $100 million hit with Gone in 60 Seconds four years ago. It's not Clive Owen's or Keira Knightley's fault, although their rising stars have undoubtedly dimmed a bit in the past few weeks; I feel especially bad for director-for-hire Antoine Fuqua, who not only directed Denzel Washington to a much-anticipated Oscar for Training Day (and is the only director besides Richard Linklater to get a really good performance out of Ethan Hawke) but did one of last year's most underrated movies, the terrific character study-as-war movie Tears of the Sun. Here, though, he's stuck trying to make the beloved legend as dim, dark and primitive as possible; they really should've gone for broke and made this a minimalist animated feature in which Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot are amoebas battling for tribal supremacy in the primordial ooze. Continuing the regrettable cinematic tradition represented earlier this summer by Troy, King Arthur is an incredibly drab-LOOKING movie epic. God, how I miss the old days of The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur,when art directors worked with a full pallette of colors and not just various shades of brown, grey and booger-green. You'll note, though, that in its hypocritical quest of the Holy Grail of the PG-13 rating,one color that King Arthur definitely DOESN'T include is red; it attempts to compensate and to fake a semblance of realistic violence in its battle scenes by endless camera movement and Michael Bay-like Cuisinart editing. The inevitable result of this is that millions (OK, thousands) of 14-year-old male moviegoers, suckered in by the casting of Knightley as Guinevere the Ass-Kicking Kung-Fu Warrior Action Babe dressed in Barbara Eden combat attire, shook empty theaters nationwide with the clarion cry of "FOR %#@!'s SAKE, HOLD THE %#@!ING CAMERA STILL ALREADY SO I CAN GET A GOOD %@#!ING LOOK AT HER!!!" I never much liked John Boorman's Excalibur--to me it's always been kind of an incoherent mess--but at least it had undeniable passion and conviction, and it acknowledged the role of magic in the Arthur saga. By default, it's still the best movie so far in this limited genre to take its subject seriously;maybe the conclusion we can draw about Arthur movies judging from this, the lavish but dull 1950s MGM spectacle, the terrible early-60s Disney cartoon and the bloated late-60s movie musical is that we should take a hint from our neighbors on the other side of the pond and not even try to make an Arthur movie that doesn't include rude Frenchmen, killer bunny rabbits or knights that say "Ni!" Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
ElliottW.Jan 18, 2005
Actually, worse than "Alexander." Script is terrible, and it seems that they shot every scene at night to save money. Even a myth like that of King Authur deserves better treatment.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
SatineNov 27, 2004
Good movie! Awesome!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JamesM.Dec 25, 2006
Complete,abseloute rubbish.All i thought of this film was a complete anti catholic load of nonsense!Clive Owen (King Arthur) was a complete nerd who i wish died in the first battle scene.In all of Rome and Greece would fancy a gaul!!!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
Tss5078Feb 24, 2013
It was really cool to see King Arthur from a more historical viewpoint, rather than the mythological one that's been done and done. The movie had its moments, but overall it was pretty dull. I can't recommend something that put me to sleep.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
MrAroFeb 3, 2014
Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste ofWaste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.Waste of money. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
JPJul 9, 2004
The Matter of Britain receives another valid interpretation.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
yooncJan 7, 2005
Not exactly disgraceful but a far cry from masterpieces such as excalibur and 13th warrior--best of its kind. king arthur offers an interesting scenario where a man and his eternal faith may save the world from total war between primitive Not exactly disgraceful but a far cry from masterpieces such as excalibur and 13th warrior--best of its kind. king arthur offers an interesting scenario where a man and his eternal faith may save the world from total war between primitive paganism and the corruption of high civilization(declining rome). the characters are either rudimentary or symbolic; or, just studly or sexy. the story does little more than lay out the basic outline. and action scenes are chockful of usual cliches. still, fuqua has gone easy on CGI, a full-blown epidemic among every big budgeted spectacle. also, some of the details--soiled armor, tangled beards, rugged garb--are soaked thru with a flavorful authenticity. unlike the warriors of LOR movies, these really look like battle-hardened men who paid their dues in countless battles against formidable enemies. far from great but its relative matter-of-factness is a welcome relief from bloated exercises such as Troy and LOR. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WaylinnR.Oct 3, 2004
It was one of the best movie I have seen this year. I almost fell out of my seat is was one of the best war film I have ever seen!!!! when I saw it was only 5.1 I wondered why it would be rated that!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChadS.Jul 9, 2004
You want an example of bad screenwriting? Arthur (Clive Owen) has just rescued Guinevere (Keira Knightley) from certain death; highly principled and seemingly unaware that she's lucky to be alive, this ungrateful, whiny nubile chastises You want an example of bad screenwriting? Arthur (Clive Owen) has just rescued Guinevere (Keira Knightley) from certain death; highly principled and seemingly unaware that she's lucky to be alive, this ungrateful, whiny nubile chastises the future king for being a traitor to his people. And this is where the badness, and contempt for the audience kicks in. Guinevere's ensuing relationship with Arthur seems to preclude this initial friction between the future lovers. It's forgotten. Rising above the mediocrity is Stellan Skarsgard, who gives an impassioned performance as the Saxons' leader. Surely, Cerdic is a seasoned enough commander to know that one man on a horse shouldn't be taken at face value. During that final battle, the Saxon soldiers kneel and use their shields to deflect the southward arcing arrows. Why don't they do this on the ice? It's like the fight sequences in "Rocky"; there's no blocking, no defense. "King Arthur" would've benefited from a love triangle with Lancelott, so Guinevere could choose between loving the moral, or the immoral one. Keira Knightley, however, is fun to watch in battle. She doesn't need fancy editing. Her facial tattoos convinces us that she can fight. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AmyB.Sep 9, 2004
I think it is amazing!!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RobertH.Jul 17, 2004
Previews have been misleading, Keira Knightley isn't the star of this movie, but merely the stongest of the supporting players. No chemistry between Guenivere, Arthur, and Lancelot. Soundtrack is weak, doesn't help the movie build Previews have been misleading, Keira Knightley isn't the star of this movie, but merely the stongest of the supporting players. No chemistry between Guenivere, Arthur, and Lancelot. Soundtrack is weak, doesn't help the movie build up tension or any other emotion. Clive Owen is okay, but the movie could have used a more charismatic leader - no real feeling as to why or how he becomes the leader that the movie says he is. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MarcW.Jul 20, 2004
The show was dull and pretty flat. The only reason I gave it a 5 was because of the gorgeous Miss Knightley.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SeamusJul 6, 2004
Interesting for an hour, then devolved into a death spiral of battle-movie cliches. Not worth your time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
BobHJul 9, 2004
Need to waste your time and money then go see it. Otherwise stay away. God Awful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
WongiAug 1, 2004
Its not exactly bad, but it could of been much better. When a character died, i felt nothing for him. the battle scenes just seemed old. if it werent for kiera knighty, i may of went to get my money back.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ScottH.Sep 29, 2004
This move was really good. too bad alot of the people died by people I mean the knights.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
:):)Jan 6, 2005
ok i liked the play and story but is that the way the legend goes? doesnt arthur become king once he pulls the sword out and isnt merlin supost to be arthurs best friend or something ?? also lancealot didnt die that way either, if they did ok i liked the play and story but is that the way the legend goes? doesnt arthur become king once he pulls the sword out and isnt merlin supost to be arthurs best friend or something ?? also lancealot didnt die that way either, if they did this more to the legend it would be a lot better noy that im saying its not good the carcters were awsom. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LuisA.Feb 6, 2005
Excellent movie, great story.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KevinKApr 14, 2005
What I don't understand is, if they wanted to make a gritty, quasi-realistic retelling of this legend, then why did they hire the entire cast of the O.C. to do it? Either go with the Ridley Scott formula, and cast some believable What I don't understand is, if they wanted to make a gritty, quasi-realistic retelling of this legend, then why did they hire the entire cast of the O.C. to do it? Either go with the Ridley Scott formula, and cast some believable characters, or go ahead cast Paris and Nichole, just please don't ask them to deliver any lines. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
IlzeSNov 25, 2004
It?s not a bad movie, only too much bloody actions and noisy fightings. Keira Knightley as Guinevere is great and Clive Owen too. Especially I liked the actors. They were very good, really good acting. But also I think that King Arthur story It?s not a bad movie, only too much bloody actions and noisy fightings. Keira Knightley as Guinevere is great and Clive Owen too. Especially I liked the actors. They were very good, really good acting. But also I think that King Arthur story is very dark and sad. And where is the Arthur, Guinevere & Lancelot love triangle? Anyway I think that this is one of the best movies this year. Better than other historical films of the year. Perhaps it get some Oscar. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MichaelM.Oct 21, 2004
You know, I'm going to be honest, I really didn't like this one. It had great special effects and some good performances, but something I couldn't put my finger on didn't sit well with me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JenniferS.Dec 27, 2004
Same as all the other warrior on horse back movie. Entertaining but nothing special.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
VinceH.Jul 12, 2004
While "King Arthur" has a very intersting take on the old Lancelot/Guinevere myth by deconstructing it by leaving out many of the old things we're used to (no wizardry, no Holy Grail, no Camelot, etc.). Unfortunately David Franzoni has While "King Arthur" has a very intersting take on the old Lancelot/Guinevere myth by deconstructing it by leaving out many of the old things we're used to (no wizardry, no Holy Grail, no Camelot, etc.). Unfortunately David Franzoni has a tin-ear for dialogue and Antoine Fuqua's comic-book direction make the film (especially the last half) very plodding and dull. Not to also count the cliched, drawn-out and uninteresing sword fight scenes as well as the usually excellent Hans Zimmer's overblown and saccharine music. The only redeeming things are Clive Owen, who is the real deal folks. This guy can do ANYTHING (rom com, drama, action, thriller, etc.) and make it not only convincing, but interesting as well. He is always fun to watch on screen. Other than that, this has nothing going for it. A huge dissapointment. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JaredC.Jul 12, 2004
Not as good as I expected it to be, but still interesting. King Arthur has its good and bad moments.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
HuwW.Jul 12, 2004
Terrible script, poorly acted and derivative. Thank god I didn't have to pay to see it. Nice smoke though.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ConradC.Jul 24, 2004
The whole show was cliched. So if you want to wast ur money go and watch it. JERKS!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
Matt/RajJul 31, 2004
Matt: i did not think this movie was all that great. first of all there were some scenes that i didn't know what the heck was going on. was he on the outside of the wall or the inside. it was really confusing. i liked that girls end Matt: i did not think this movie was all that great. first of all there were some scenes that i didn't know what the heck was going on. was he on the outside of the wall or the inside. it was really confusing. i liked that girls end outfit though... hehehe. anyways. they shoud of kept the bird guy alive. sheesh. oh well i guess thats holywood for you. Raj: it was good. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JerryH.Jul 5, 2004
There will be no spoilers, just opinion and to start ? Hans Zimmer is god awful. When will this guy stop doing film scores? I can?t take it anymore. Bruckheimer, find someone else ? Phil Keddie is ready and waiting. Speaking of Bruckheimer, There will be no spoilers, just opinion and to start ? Hans Zimmer is god awful. When will this guy stop doing film scores? I can?t take it anymore. Bruckheimer, find someone else ? Phil Keddie is ready and waiting. Speaking of Bruckheimer, don?t try to make this movie with a pg-13 rating, witness Excalibur. The cast is strong ? tons of people I like so they were easy to root for, but damn the dialogue is brutal even the great Ray Winstone can?t pull it off. There are a couple of action set pieces that are well done, but overall my opinion of ?the Fuqua? has not improved. He?s a hack who got lucky with a ?great? (in some people?s opinion) performance by Denzel in Training Day, and he?s been living off it ever since. Some of the shots are brutall, so I hope it was some second unit guy. The plot?s not much to speak of ? it?s about male bonding, etc and, yes, there is some strength ? Mads Mikkelsen among them, so go see the film and laugh at the awfulness and revel in the warrior mentality and male bonding that the cast bring to it. Long live Excalibur. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
CameronS.Jul 6, 2004
It was an okay movie. There wasn't really any plot to it. The battle scenes were fantastic but there was no plot and that is why it is just an okay movie. More of a Rental.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
FDJul 9, 2004
For me the message of scrifice and honor came through very strongly in this film. Some of the acting was a little forced but I enjoyed the tale.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
SamAug 15, 2004
Intense Action, actually funny humor, and the bad@$$ lancelot make this one to remember.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
archeressJan 20, 2005
If anybody knew anything about Celtic lore they would realize that this film is an awsome rendition without clouding the story to hollywood's liking. I am sorry that so many of you watched Disney's version when you were little so If anybody knew anything about Celtic lore they would realize that this film is an awsome rendition without clouding the story to hollywood's liking. I am sorry that so many of you watched Disney's version when you were little so that you don't know the real lore that was passed down by the bards of that time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DanJan 20, 2005
Good movie, but Guienvere should not have fought, Lancelot should not be wearing plate armor, and a dutch guy should not have an asian/ middleeastern sword, and should not dress like a samurai. All these factors brouight it down to seven. Good movie, but Guienvere should not have fought, Lancelot should not be wearing plate armor, and a dutch guy should not have an asian/ middleeastern sword, and should not dress like a samurai. All these factors brouight it down to seven. Since when did they have plate armor in 300 A.D.? it didn't debut until the Crusades. Dumb movie makers. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TaylanM.Jan 22, 2005
This is an amazing movie. Clive Owen is perfect as Arthur.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
Guy!Apr 23, 2007
All in all, I liked this movie, although it got really dull and hard to understand at times. I know this movie puts down Roman Catholicism in a number of parts, but it's not offensive. I'm sorry you feel offended James, but face All in all, I liked this movie, although it got really dull and hard to understand at times. I know this movie puts down Roman Catholicism in a number of parts, but it's not offensive. I'm sorry you feel offended James, but face the truth: the Roman Catholic church did do a lot of things like that at the time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
WolfJun 20, 2007
Now this movie was decent. It Offers a darker side of the tale as other reviewers have said and it has good action sequences as other reviewers have said. Now for everybody who things that this is anticatholic please shut up. During this Now this movie was decent. It Offers a darker side of the tale as other reviewers have said and it has good action sequences as other reviewers have said. Now for everybody who things that this is anticatholic please shut up. During this time the catholics were on a rampage of rubbing out paganism so catholism would be the only recognized practice. I agree completely with guy. This is how the Catholics were in these times so get used to it. I think that some parts in the film seemed to have dragged on a bit and some parts to the myth weren't really addressed so i give this movie a 7. Not bad but could have done better. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DouglasHDec 28, 2004
This movie was terrible. I hate Jerry Bruckkheimer.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
[Anonymous]Jul 11, 2004
Good movie, but someone should have had the guts to rewrite David Franzoni's script--as they did in Gladiator.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
EllenS.Jul 13, 2004
This was pretty bad. In fact, it was so bad that I was grateful for the distraction of the girl down the aisle talking on her cell phone. What I could hear of her conversation was significantly more interesting than the movie. "King Arthur" This was pretty bad. In fact, it was so bad that I was grateful for the distraction of the girl down the aisle talking on her cell phone. What I could hear of her conversation was significantly more interesting than the movie. "King Arthur" had no real plot, no character development, no meaningful dialogue, and very little point. At the end of the movie - which, unfortunately, did not come nearly soon enough - I couldn't even recall which name went with which knight. At one point, I actually found myself rooting for the Saxons, anything to get the film over with quicker. The battle scene on the ice was pretty cool, and Guenivere is nice eye candy for the guys - even if she nags a little too much. The sad thing here is that there was so much potential, even for a 'historically accurate' (whatever that means) Arthur. To experience this movie without actually having to waste the $8.50, sit down and remember everything you know about the Arthurian legends. Now mentally remove every part of those stories that was even vaguely interesting. Think about what's left for two hours while eating some popcorn. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
WongitJul 15, 2004
Not great, a big disapointment. I really didnt feel the characters or anything in this movie, its one of those films that could just be better.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
PCaufieldJul 17, 2004
What I liked about this movie was the close-ups. They revealed the intense relationship between Arthur and his Knights without any of the usual drivel banner about courage, honor and lust usually thrown in with this genre. I liked how they What I liked about this movie was the close-ups. They revealed the intense relationship between Arthur and his Knights without any of the usual drivel banner about courage, honor and lust usually thrown in with this genre. I liked how they handled the Guinevere, Lancelot, Arthur passion with a few glances. The last battle scene seemed to Bruckheimerish, but you gotta love those flaming arrows. How anyone over 12 could rate Spiderman 2 over this is beyond me. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ChristopherB.(age7)Jan 22, 2005
All right. I found the drums tensing. But Lord of the Rings was better.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
[Anonymous]Dec 24, 2005
Despite some good battle scenes, King Arthur is ultimately a dull dissapointment. It doesn't really follow through on anything it presents, and none of the ideals were clear cut. Thus, there is little, if any, resonance, and when even Despite some good battle scenes, King Arthur is ultimately a dull dissapointment. It doesn't really follow through on anything it presents, and none of the ideals were clear cut. Thus, there is little, if any, resonance, and when even the best battle are rolling, you don't care much. Kingdom of heaven, Gladiator, LOTR and even the underrated Troy are more clear cut, refined epics that do much better jobs. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AaronM.Jan 23, 2006
Confusing, and often a little hard to follow. There are some great fight scenes in this movie though, and I liked the new take on the story of King Arthur.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MovieLonely94Oct 26, 2010
its not my favorite action movie, but Keira Knightley is so frickin cute!!!!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
spadenxJan 2, 2012
It was ok but (and some huge buts) there is a lot of terrible acting through out the film. Clive Owen wasnt that good of a lead (which was rather suprising because I tend to like Clive Owen's films). The action sequences were too generic andIt was ok but (and some huge buts) there is a lot of terrible acting through out the film. Clive Owen wasnt that good of a lead (which was rather suprising because I tend to like Clive Owen's films). The action sequences were too generic and slow placed. The script was terrible as well. Also it pretty much butchered the entire story of King Arthur.

Suprisingly though it was still a somewhat likeable film for some unknown reason.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
oxanaJan 3, 2015
The movie was entirely something I did not expect. I am not am expert in knowledge of King Arthur and his Knights, but this was different. It portrays the time before Arthur became king. After getting to that mindset, the full movie is ratherThe movie was entirely something I did not expect. I am not am expert in knowledge of King Arthur and his Knights, but this was different. It portrays the time before Arthur became king. After getting to that mindset, the full movie is rather enjoyable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
drakensengApr 15, 2013
The movie is overall a great adventure centered around a group of warriors. The main character was not very interesting for me, kinda fell short and the supporting actors were much better. It has some nice battle scenes but it was a good guyThe movie is overall a great adventure centered around a group of warriors. The main character was not very interesting for me, kinda fell short and the supporting actors were much better. It has some nice battle scenes but it was a good guy always wins type movie. There are some casualties on Arthur's side but i didn't feel that deep sense of loss or revenge. The protagonist was pretty good and you got a sense of his overwhelming power but then it got disappointing in the battle scenes. the sword pulling scene was also very simple and to the point and not very dramatic. In the movie, about Arthur i still felt like i didn't know him that much to feel attached. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
IamthejuanApr 16, 2014
This movie was awesome-- I don't know how I missed it for 10 years. This is the only King Arthur movie that I've ever seen that was based in (arguably) textually substantiated history, actually mentioning the original record that Arthur was aThis movie was awesome-- I don't know how I missed it for 10 years. This is the only King Arthur movie that I've ever seen that was based in (arguably) textually substantiated history, actually mentioning the original record that Arthur was a Roman who became famous for fighting off the northlanders NOT for finding the holy grail. Lancelot was not added to the legend until much mater, so it was appropriate for them to relegate him to a supporting role like they did. The knights being pagans was awesome, as it is much more likely this was the case at that time in Britain. The portrayal of the vikings was very good. The fight scenes were good but not unnecessarily bloody.

The people who rated this low obviously have no appreciation for a well written piece of historical fiction. The reason it "doesn't follow the King Arthur story" is most people have only heard the romanticized version. So they took out all the magic and made it more realistic. If that's all you have to complain about then go watch Sci-Fi/Fantasy.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
juliankennedy23Sep 4, 2014
King Arthur: 7 out of 10: If this movie was called Bob the Roman guy it would have been a lot better. Arthurian legend is often awkwardly forced into what is a decent dark ages romp.

As a result you have Osama bin Merlin head of what I'm
King Arthur: 7 out of 10: If this movie was called Bob the Roman guy it would have been a lot better. Arthurian legend is often awkwardly forced into what is a decent dark ages romp.

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 wear blue battle paint, which is historically accurate if you are doing a film about the Scottish. The Scottish watching 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 of the north. The Saxon's show up and try to kill everybody. So now in that timeworn movie cliché the two former enemies (Arthur and Merlin) have to combine forces.

A lot of clichés are evident in King Arthur. The worst is the ahistorical 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 well done, the acting okay and the story moved along nicely.

Like Troy the flaws of the movie add a humorous dimension to the proceedings. Plus it has an incredible ice battle unmatched outside of Russian cinema. 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.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
smiyamotNov 29, 2015
Guess most Users don't like a different take on history; I like that. Who really knows what happened a thousand years ago? I thought this was going to be Camelot but no. We're talking a whole new ballgame here. If you want to see familiarGuess most Users don't like a different take on history; I like that. Who really knows what happened a thousand years ago? I thought this was going to be Camelot but no. We're talking a whole new ballgame here. If you want to see familiar names in unfamiliar circumstances, this is for you. I don't have a lot of DVDs but this one is in my collection. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
choomtabi31Apr 29, 2016
This puts a different spin on the legend of Arthur. I like that it doesn't glorify Arthur and his knights, rather it shows a more brutal reality.

Watch it online for free: https://www.primewire.ag/watch-2064-King-Arthur
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MovieMasterEddyApr 7, 2016
"King Arthur" claims to be "the untold true story that inspired the legend." In the name of accuracy, apparently, some familiar legendary elements have been altered or dropped altogether. Merlin (Stephen Dillane), it turns out, was not a"King Arthur" claims to be "the untold true story that inspired the legend." In the name of accuracy, apparently, some familiar legendary elements have been altered or dropped altogether. Merlin (Stephen Dillane), it turns out, was not a magician but the shadowy leader of the Woads, a guerrilla army of Pictish freedom fighters with stringy hair, blue faces and tattooed bodies. Since the knights of the Round Table are stubbornly pagan (and skeptical of their leader's Christianity, which is wobbly at best), they are not about to go off in search of the Holy Grail. And though Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) at one point casts a smoldering glance in the direction of Guinevere (Keira Knightley), nothing more comes of the mythic triangle of king, queen and knight. Lancelot, in any case, is more of a fighter than a lover, and so, in spite of an obligatory cuddle with Arthur on the night before the big battle, is Guinevere.

Historians will debate the veracity of all this, assuming they have nothing better to do. But it will be clear to most moviegoers that this true story, far from being untold, was inspired by at least a half-dozen previous movies, from "The Seven Samurai" to "Braveheart."

David Franzoni, the screenwriter, also wrote "Gladiator," and Clive Owen's Arthur, like Russell Crowe's Maximus, both faithfully serves the Roman empire and turns against its authoritarian abuses. He and his knights are sent on a rescue mission that recalls the one undertaken by Bruce Willis in "Tears of the Sun," the previous movie directed by Antoine Fuqua, who directed "King Arthur."

Really, though, originality is not the point of this movie, any more than historical verisimilitude is. It is a blunt, glowering B picture, shot in murky fog and battlefield smoke, full of silly-sounding pomposity and swollen music (courtesy of the prolifically bombastic Hans Zimmer). The combat scenes, though boisterous and brutal, are no more coherent than the story, which requires almost as much exposition as the last "Star Wars" movie. Luckily there is an element of broad, brawny camp that prevents "King Arthur" from being a complete drag.

In this version Arthur's knights are a ragged band of foreign conscripts stationed in the shadow of Hadrian's Wall, where they fight an occasional skirmish with the pesky Woads, who gyre and gimble in the wabe. Arthur's mixed parentage — he is half Roman and half British — results in an identity crisis as he simultaneously grows disillusioned with the corruption and cruelty of Rome and succumbs to Guinevere's Woady charms.

Arthur's men, for reasons efficiently explained in the first 10 minutes of the movie, are required to serve the empire for 15 years. They complain about the English weather, which was even drearier back in the fifth century, but their devotion to Arthur is absolute. Although they have earned their freedom, the knights are sent off on one last mission, which acquaints them with both the evils committed in the name of Rome and its church, and with the threat of the Saxon invaders, who are waging a vicious war of conquest with armor-piercing arrows and the scariest blond hair extensions since "White Chicks."

Cerdic, the Saxon leader, is played by Stellan Skarsgard, whose halting, throaty delivery and gleefully hammy villainy confirm his stature as the Swedish Christopher Walken. Cerdic's lieutenant is his son Cynric (Til Schweiger), who sports a spiffy plaited soul patch and a slightly different accent, and who leads the Saxons into a battle on the ice that is the film's most original and satisfying set piece. The rest of it is mostly grunting, roaring and hacking, conducted by some fine, cheerfully slumming actors, notably Ray Winstone (as a lusty, cantankerous knight named Bors) and Mads Mikkelsen (as the enigmatic Tristan).

Arthur, who will somehow establish freedom for England by being declared its king, is a worrier as well as a warrior, and Mr. Owen brings a certain wariness to the role, as if he were, like his character, reluctant to commit the full force of his charisma to a cause he doesn't quite understand. Ms. Knightley, on the other hand, throws herself bodily into every scene, sighing her way through the gauzy love-making montage and appearing at the climactic battle the next morning in face paint and a smashing leather combat brassiere, hurling herself at the Saxon invaders with full-throated Woad rage.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews