User Score
6.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 135 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 89 out of 135
  2. Negative: 24 out of 135
Watch 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
  1. KentB.
    Jul 9, 2004
    9
    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 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. ChristopherA.
    Jan 7, 2005
    10
    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.
  3. Oct 18, 2011
    8
    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 veryThis 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
  4. paulinem.
    Aug 27, 2005
    8
    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
  5. Oct 12, 2013
    10
    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 realisticThis 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
  6. Oct 20, 2013
    8
    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?
  7. Oct 7, 2013
    0
    Despite being about King Arthur, It's simply name only, It does not follow the true Arthur story at all and that's sort of disappointing. As for the film itself, The acting is ok but hurt by the poorly written dialogue and god awful story. The action is ok but rather unrealistic. It's basically a very generic action film in an Arthur setting and that simply does not work what so ever.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. Satine
    Nov 27, 2004
    10
    Good movie! Awesome!
  18. 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!!!
  19. Feb 24, 2013
    4
    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.
  20. 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.
  21. JP
    Jul 9, 2004
    8
    The Matter of Britain receives another valid interpretation.
  22. yoonc
    Jan 7, 2005
    5
    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 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
  23. WaylinnR.
    Oct 3, 2004
    10
    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!
  24. ChadS.
    Jul 9, 2004
    5
    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 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
  25. AmyB.
    Sep 9, 2004
    10
    I think it is amazing!!!
  26. 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
  27. MarcW.
    Jul 20, 2004
    5
    The show was dull and pretty flat. The only reason I gave it a 5 was because of the gorgeous Miss Knightley.
  28. Seamus
    Jul 6, 2004
    5
    Interesting for an hour, then devolved into a death spiral of battle-movie cliches. Not worth your time.
  29. BobH
    Jul 9, 2004
    1
    Need to waste your time and money then go see it. Otherwise stay away. God Awful.
  30. Wongi
    Aug 1, 2004
    5
    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.
  31. ScottH.
    Sep 29, 2004
    10
    This move was really good. too bad alot of the people died by people I mean the knights.
  32. :):)
    Jan 6, 2005
    6
    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.
  33. LuisA.
    Feb 6, 2005
    10
    Excellent movie, great story.
  34. KevinK
    Apr 14, 2005
    4
    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.
  35. IlzeS
    Nov 25, 2004
    9
    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. 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
  36. MichaelM.
    Oct 21, 2004
    5
    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.
  37. JenniferS.
    Dec 27, 2004
    6
    Same as all the other warrior on horse back movie. Entertaining but nothing special.
  38. VinceH.
    Jul 12, 2004
    5
    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 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
  39. JaredC.
    Jul 12, 2004
    6
    Not as good as I expected it to be, but still interesting. King Arthur has its good and bad moments.
  40. 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.
  41. ConradC.
    Jul 24, 2004
    3
    The whole show was cliched. So if you want to wast ur money go and watch it. JERKS!
  42. Matt/Raj
    Jul 31, 2004
    5
    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.
  43. JerryH.
    Jul 5, 2004
    5
    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 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
  44. CameronS.
    Jul 6, 2004
    6
    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.
  45. FD
    Jul 9, 2004
    8
    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.
  46. Sam
    Aug 15, 2004
    10
    Intense Action, actually funny humor, and the bad@$$ lancelot make this one to remember.
  47. archeress
    Jan 20, 2005
    10
    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.
  48. Dan
    Jan 20, 2005
    6
    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.
  49. TaylanM.
    Jan 22, 2005
    10
    This is an amazing movie. Clive Owen is perfect as Arthur.
  50. Guy!
    Apr 23, 2007
    7
    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.
  51. Wolf
    Jun 20, 2007
    7
    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 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. Collapse
  52. DouglasH
    Dec 28, 2004
    2
    This movie was terrible. I hate Jerry Bruckkheimer.
  53. [Anonymous]
    Jul 11, 2004
    7
    Good movie, but someone should have had the guts to rewrite David Franzoni's script--as they did in Gladiator.
  54. 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
  55. Wongit
    Jul 15, 2004
    6
    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.
  56. PCaufield
    Jul 17, 2004
    8
    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 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
  57. ChristopherB.(age7)
    Jan 22, 2005
    7
    All right. I found the drums tensing. But Lord of the Rings was better.
  58. [Anonymous]
    Dec 24, 2005
    6
    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 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
  59. AaronM.
    Jan 23, 2006
    7
    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.
  60. Oct 26, 2010
    6
    its not my favorite action movie, but Keira Knightley is so frickin cute!!!!!
  61. Jan 2, 2012
    6
    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
    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
  62. Jan 3, 2015
    6
    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 rather enjoyable.
  63. Apr 15, 2013
    8
    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 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 prettyThe 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
  64. Apr 16, 2014
    10
    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 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, soThis 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
  65. Sep 4, 2014
    7
    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
    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
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.