King Arthur

User Score
7.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 182 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 23 out of 182

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. PatrickM.
    Jul 10, 2004
    3
    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 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
  2. RobertH.
    Jul 17, 2004
    3
    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 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
  3. GregB.
    Jul 6, 2004
    2
    The Disney losing streak continues. One can only hope that The Village, Ladder 49 or The Incredibles can break the curse.
  4. KelR.
    Jul 9, 2004
    1
    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 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
  5. BobH
    Jul 9, 2004
    1
    Need to waste your time and money then go see it. Otherwise stay away. God Awful.
  6. JayH.
    Jul 9, 2004
    0
    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.
  7. NhatT.
    Jan 24, 2005
    0
    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 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
  8. JamesT.
    Aug 30, 2006
    0
    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.
  9. HuwW.
    Jul 12, 2004
    1
    Terrible script, poorly acted and derivative. Thank god I didn't have to pay to see it. Nice smoke though.
  10. ConradC.
    Jul 24, 2004
    3
    The whole show was cliched. So if you want to wast ur money go and watch it. JERKS!
  11. ChrisP.
    Aug 13, 2004
    0
    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 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
  12. MarkB.
    Aug 18, 2004
    3
    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, 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
  13. ElliottW.
    Jan 18, 2005
    0
    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.
  14. DouglasH
    Dec 28, 2004
    2
    This movie was terrible. I hate Jerry Bruckkheimer.
  15. EllenS.
    Jul 13, 2004
    3
    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 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
  16. JamesM.
    Dec 25, 2006
    0
    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!!!
  17. Feb 3, 2014
    1
    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.Waste of money.
Metascore
46

Mixed or average reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 39
  2. Negative: 8 out of 39
  1. Reviewed by: Marc Peyser
    40
    Unfortunately, none of this is very much fun. The cinematography is dark and depressing. The dialogue is stilted. And for some reason, director Antoine Fuqua has even ditched the Arthur/Guinevere/ Lancelot love triangle.
  2. Fuqua deliberately downplays the fantastical in King Arthur, but the gritty faux realism wears itself out quickly. You've seen one lancing, you've seen them all.
  3. An engrossing, highly intelligent reimagining of the legend of Arthur.