King Arthur

Buena Vista Pictures | Release Date: July 7, 2004

7.6	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 181 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

MovieLonely94Oct 26, 2010

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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

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

[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

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

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

JP32Aug 25, 2019

The slew of character actors at the round table leave no impression, generating the kind of faceless non-specificity that often infects historical epics. Listening to a parade of well-meaning but sub-par actors drone on in generic BritishThe slew of character actors at the round table leave no impression, generating the kind of faceless non-specificity that often infects historical epics. Listening to a parade of well-meaning but sub-par actors drone on in generic British accents about a pointless territory dispute just doesn't get me going.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

FilipeNetoMay 12, 2018

This is one more of those films that, under the popular saying "behind a lie there is always a true origin", seeks to reinvent a classic story, giving it new surroundings and new characters seemingly more realistic and historically accurate.This is one more of those films that, under the popular saying "behind a lie there is always a true origin", seeks to reinvent a classic story, giving it new surroundings and new characters seemingly more realistic and historically accurate. It is a high but calculated risk because if there is a myth about which many alleged historical origins have been pointed out is the King Artur legend. The film is set in the final centuries of the Roman Empire and depicts the abandonment of Great Britain and Hadrian's Wall. Artur is transformed into a hired knight who serves the Romans and that it has the duty to protect a pope's favorite (at that time Christianity was already the official religion of the empire, although Celtic paganism still prevails In the British Isles) from the Saxon incursions. Obviously there are historical errors, more or less obvious, but this is not as glaring as the absence of epic sentiment in a movie that tries to be epic and never succeeds. There are even some scenes that have been ruined by minor details such as incomprehensible battle cries or cries in Latin that are never properly translated or subtitled, and which end up appearing ridiculous.

Clive Owen is good at action scenes but lacks the presence and charisma that his character demands. Arthur's knights are never developed individually except for Bors (Ray Winstone) and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson) although they are usually played by talented actors, eventually becoming highly secondary characters. Keira Knightley, an actress used to period films, played Guinevere, a character who does not suffer from the same lack of development but has been poorly thought out, overly masculinized, very stereotyped and sometimes sexualized, in a development line that ruins later attempts to make credible her wedding with Arthur, a character who spends the entire movie without any romantic chemistry with her. The film is slow and boring at times, but I dealt very well with it.

In conclusion: it is a film with an interesting story, which entertains the audience, but that is far from good.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews