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

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.

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. 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

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

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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

Same as all the other warrior on horse back movie. Entertaining but nothing special.

This movie was terrible. I hate Jerry Bruckkheimer.

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

Good movie! Awesome!

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.

This move was really good. too bad alot of the people died by people I mean the knights.

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!

I think it is amazing!!!

Intense Action, actually funny humor, and the bad@$$ lancelot make this one to remember.

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

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

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

The show was dull and pretty flat. The only reason I gave it a 5 was because of the gorgeous Miss Knightley.

Need to waste your time and money then go see it. Otherwise stay away. God Awful.

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

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

Not as good as I expected it to be, but still interesting. King Arthur has its good and bad moments.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting for an hour, then devolved into a death spiral of battle-movie cliches. Not worth your time.

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

The whole show was cliched. So if you want to wast ur money go and watch it. JERKS!

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

The Matter of Britain receives another valid interpretation.

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.

Good movie, but someone should have had the guts to rewrite David Franzoni's script--as they did in Gladiator.

Terrible script, poorly acted and derivative. Thank god I didn't have to pay to see it. Nice smoke though.

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

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

The Disney losing streak continues. One can only hope that The Village, Ladder 49 or The Incredibles can break the curse.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

All right. I found the drums tensing. But Lord of the Rings was better.

This is an amazing movie. Clive Owen is perfect as Arthur.

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

Excellent movie, great story.

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.

its not my favorite action movie, but Keira Knightley is so frickin cute!!!!!

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 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