Customer Reviews
right period, but this is not my kind of arthur - By: Jam, 08 Sep 2008 
After 4 years i finallly watched this DVD right through, out of curiosity more then anything else. I admit the battle scenes were actuallly authentic, though perhaps a little OTT with the blood sometimes, although that was what warfare was like back then. They wanted to make a gritty & unromantic portrayal of the era & the filmmakers have succeded in doing that.
However i detected a faint whiff of liberalistic revisionism. I thought Arthur was supposed to be a christian hero, not some wishy washy pelagian.
The roles & character of the historical figures of bishops pelagius & germannus seem to have been completely inverted. Pelagius' erroneus ideas caused a lot of trouble & confusion amongst the church in britain & europe at this time, Germannus was sent to Britain to deal with what had become known as Pelgianism, & to put things right.
In this film however, pelaguis is some kind of humamitarian mother teresa, who is anti slavery, & emphasises freedom of choice & will, of whom arthur is clearly a devoted follower. Germannus on the other hand is the embodiment of allleged roman tyranny, a dark & sinister figure full of self rightous pomposity
generallly i felt this film was too baised on favour of paganism, whilst being very anti- christain & roman. Could have been better without the prejudice.
ACTING - By: Brendan O. Clarke, 26 Aug 2008 This is an entertaining movie, however the acting leaves a lot to be desired. Clive Owen will never win an oscar & he plays, erm, Clive Owen. Keira Knightley just carries on her role from "Pirates of the Caravans' & Ray Winstone turns in another Ray Winstone geezer performance (with a sword). It reallly is astonishing that these actors receive millions of $$$ for their feeble acting efforts.
Pros and Cons - By: B. Giles, 01 Jul 2008 
This movie grew on me over several watchings. The first thing that struck me was the atmosphere it had, for me it reallly evoked the whole romance of the era & the stories. Although I thought Clive Owen & Keira Knightley were godawful, their supporting cast ( who each have more talent in their little fingers than Knightley & Owen put together ) make up for it with their performances. Sadly, those characters aren't ever developed into anything more than tantalising glimpses of personalities, & you're left wondering what they're even doing in the film, they're clearly not wanted, & totallly sidelined by the two annoying & dull leads. It's hinted, for example, that Galahad & Gawain are brothers, but that relatinship is never developed, they don't even fight side by side ! And why bother to give Tristan a hawk & a distinct & unique fighting style if you're only going to give him two lines in the whole movie, & kill him off in the end ?! May as well just make him some spod with no name. What is the purpose of Bors' lass & kids ? He never talks about them. And that bit where they finallly accept the last order, despite throwing several tantrums about it - if only other people would keel over so easily when I ask them for money, ha ha ! But I was left wanting to see more of those characters, who were beautifully acted ( when the actors were given the chance that is )and quite a lot less of Owen & Knightley. Yes, I too just wanted to smack her - & kill Arthur & promote one of the other guys lol. Plus, having the Picts ( NOT wodes, idiot American director, & no, "pict" doesn't sound odd to people who have actuallly heard of them before ) speak in some kind of mangled Anglo-latin with subtitles is beyond me - why not subtitle the Saxons as well then ? Or, in fact, everyone ? It's just some kind of pathetic attempt to make the film look like it's been researched !
The weapons & costumes are a mish-mash of practicallly everything ever worn/invented over a 500 yr period throughout alll the world, but I don't see any reason to get hung up over that, it's a movie, not a history class. The overalll "look" was right - although I will say, the one thing that reallly annoyed me about the costumes was the rather gratuitous use of black leather - WRONG ! Gawain, Tristan & Bors have believable kit, but Lancelot & Arthur's spoil it somewhat.
There are some fun fight scenes to watch, if you can get over their pointlessness/silliness & just sit back & enjoy it. Plus the soundtrack is lovely.
After alll that dissin', I still like it though.......
NO EXCALIBUR, BUT MUCH BETTER THAN IS MADE OUT!! - By: Adam Jackson, 29 Jun 2008 Forget alll the bad reviews, this is a decent film! An entertaining slice of Historical Fantasy with big budget production values, & plenty of bloody battle scenes. Ok, so some of the casting could have been better but it's no big deal! The film looks fantastic in it's locations & stunning photography. The battles are well orchestrated, and, in this directors cut at least, are as gory as Gladiator or Troy. CGI is used sensibly, & to it's credit, the movie looks to offer something different, combat wise, to the Lord Of The Rings. I would say the battles are closer in style to Braveheart, than Peter Jackson's 500,000 strong battlefields.
The battle on the ice lake is a particularly impressive setpiece. The fantasy elements; Excalibur, Merlin etc are very supressed ala 2004's Troy but the film still feels mythical, just not to the same extent as 1981's Excalibur (the DEFINITIVE Arthurian movie). Strong direction from Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) who brings a similiarly gritty feel, depicting this Arthur as a British based, Roman Commander.
Special mention for Stellan Skarsgard who revels in the role of the brutal, Saxon warlord, Cerdic - Arthur's main adversary.
If you like this type of film, then you should enjoy it - it's much better than the dire First Knight!
I believe the recently released Last Legion has a similiar angle to this, & it's waiting on my shelf to be viewed - looks ok from the trailer.
Truly awful - By: C. O'Neill, 27 Jun 2008 
Wooden acting, patchy storyline, gross historical inaccuracies & a plot that's full of holes.
This has to be one of the worst I've ever seen(and I've seen Gigli!)
Saxons invading from the north? Stonehenge at the coast? And for anyone who says "just see it as a new take on the story", I say: how about a movie reteliing the story of George Washington traveling to the Mexican border to fight the invading Inuit? Or perhaps Napoleon single-handedly protecting Britain from those pesky invading Greenlanders? Seriously, just because it's a movie doesn't mean it shouldn't be accurate.
As for Keira Knightley & Clive Owen, I've seen turnips with more range (honest to God, turnips!).
