User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 100 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 57 out of 100
  2. Negative: 23 out of 100

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. Oct 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. 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. Oct 7, 2013
    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.
  3. Oct 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?
  4. Oct 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, 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
  5. Oct 26, 2010
    its not my favorite action movie, but Keira Knightley is so frickin cute!!!!!
  6. Jan 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 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
  7. Feb 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.
  8. Apr 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 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
  9. Apr 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 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.
  10. Feb 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 of money.Waste of money.Waste of money.
  11. Sep 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 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.

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
    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.