King Arthur





A bit of a letdown, but good entertainment. C+

Really good movie. Even better as Directors Cut. A-

Director's Cut: B
Regular: C

Might have ta rewatch it. The DC was much better.

Still, maybe a B is generous.

EDITED: spelling.

Directors Cut - B+
Regular - A-

I actually thought the movie was pretty enjoyable. It's not a masterpiece of course, but it has a good enough story, decent action sequences and the cast isn't bad.

- B

I never found the Arthurian legend to be particularly exciting in its own right, but eliminating the romance and fantastical elements to make room for a "more plausible," action-packed storyline was something I found to work on no level. I've only read the usual high school Arthurian fare (La Morte..., bits of The Once and Future King), but watching this made me wonder if Jerry Bruckheimer (oh, Jerry) or anyone involved had actually read up on the material. I mean, I'm all for free adaptations, but Guinevere running around as some strange...blue...forest warrior...(still not sure what to make of that). I mean, come on, guys.

No entertainment value, no 'epic' feel, no characterization. Nothing.

D

Is the director cut any better? Last I saw it in the movie theater, I was really bored with it. Also all the mythlogical elements were removed from the movie YET it was not believable when they tried to stage Arthur's 6 man army vs what had to be 200+ Saxxons

I think I gave it a C-

King Arthur - A-

Brilliant movie. i loved this, Keira Knightley, apart from being gorgeous, was spectacular as Guinevere

B

It was entertaining, but still such a missed opportunity. It could have been much better. The battle scene on the ice was great, the second battle not so. Clive Owen is a good actor and mostly saves this movie. I was bothered by the fact that the whole tale of King Arthur seems to happen within around three days.

No, it is nothing better. It adds a few beheadings, a dumb scene with Arthur as a little child and it places the love scene between Arthur and Guinevere in a different context (before he agrees to help the british which makes it more feel like Guinevere is using him a little bit instead of thanking him). It doesn't change a single thing though. The movie is still an all-around mess and except the fight on the ioe and Keira being the hottest smurf on earth there's nothing to marvel about. (D-)

I don't really know what grade to give it. Technically there are much worse films than this, a movie in which the acting is not too bad and neither is the writing (It's by no means good either). I find it ironic that they left out all the stuff about the well known story, which isn't credible enough, and yet there is so much nonesense and lack of credibility in this story as well that anyone with half a brain would be rolling their eyes too.

Worst of all it's so lifeless, so pointless, generic, and downright painful to watch, which is the worse thing you can say about a movie, IMO.So...

F

What do you get when you take an up-and-coming director, a legendary story, and a great cast? Well, unfortunately you get this pale Braveheart imitation. It's too bad they removed the things that make the story of King Arthur so magical and reduced it to this. It's not a terrible movie, it just should have been a lot better. I grade it a C.

I wasn't expecting much, and I didn't get much. Shame, too. Makes First Knight look like bloody Shakespeare....

C-

I blind bought this back in December, the director's cut, and I still haven't watched it. I'll have to watch it over vacation.

Yes mods please delete that conversation above.

Now on to King Arthur. Pretty good performances and a decent overall atempt but it was just too English. By that I mean, just like Hollywood has it's faults and cliches, English movies tend to have theirs: they don't introduce characters clearly, they don't structure the drama with momentum, they just generally are not good in the whole mechanics department of storytelling. So it was all muddled and confusing and boring just like many English movies. But also like many English movies it featured good acting and a few original moments like the ice battle.

There was also an overall sense of English pride and nationalism in the movie which is not a bad thing, except I'm not English so I just didn't care about it and didn't buy into the whole "last outpost of civilization" message.

The vast age difference between Keira and her love interests deprived them of much chemistry. The guy who played Lancelot was good though.

It's watchable, it has a good cast and was a well intentioned attempt, but just didn't work. Without the magic element, it was just another middle ages story.

B (upgraded)

Spoilers below, but really you should assume there are spoilers in these threads.

I watched this again on DVD the other night with some friends and I am gonna add a few more comments, because while this movie is flawed it's a very interesting movie anyway, well worth seeing even if it has problems. I recommend people see it if they haven't already, even though I don't think it fully works.

-- Clive Owen's problem as a leading man is his voice, I'm beginning to realize. He just doesn't have a strong voice to match his strong features.
-- Keira's fighting in the final battle drained a lot of the realism out of that fight. It was just ridiculous that this waifish unmuscular girl is chopping guys up left and right.
-- As did Lancelot dying, since this is supposed to be the real incidents that led to the legend, he should live so as to be part of the events that happen after Arthur and Guinevere marry and are King and Queen.
-- If they had handled the ending better and not needlessly killed off Lancelot, they would have had room for a sequel, because the most interesting events in the Arthurian legend occur after he's King which is where this movie ends. With a better ending I'd have been very interested in seeing a sequel.
-- The director Antoine Fuqua composes some very interesting and exciting shots, he did a good job throughout most of the movie, or his director of photography did, one of them.
-- The music was one of the better scores of the year.
-- The movie needed another prominent woman to make it more 3 dimensional, it was a bit too barracksy all men.

Anyway there's some thoughts.

I need to add that all my comments are about the director's cut on DVD.

Saw the director's cut. I actually thought it was really good. Clive Owen is a better leading man than even Russell Crowe in The Gladiator. And Keira Knightly was a pleasure to the eyes to see onscreen. A little bit too slow in the beginning but rest of the movie was very compelling. I like it as much as I liked Troy, another film unfaithful to its source material but still well done. B+

I hated that they tosed everything about Arthur and just made a new story, only the names were the same.

the movie itself stinks too
C

It tried to be too real. Ended up boring as can be, the myth was all taken out.

C- and thats generous.

I'm a bit suprised because there are that many negative reviews. I saw the DC a few days ago and loved it again. A

Yeah I saw this again recently, ran out of stuff to rent and gave it another try. I like it even more. The director's cut version is a very good movie.

What a mess. One of the most boring and lifeless films of 2004, with only one somewhat interesting scene in the form of that ice fight which was still completely unbelievable but somewhat fun. Even though some of the performances are somewhat decent, the film's script is a mess. C'mon, if a supporting character goes on about the way he wants to be buried should he die, do you really think he's going to make it to the end? When the final battle came, I just lost all interest entirely, which I don't think was the film makers intention. D

I just don't see the point.

It's clearly not the historically based Arthur... that would be a fascinating film. There's a good documentary about the various people assumed to be the model for Arthur (there is like three, including a Roman general).

It's also clearly not the old myth, which despite how cool Excalibur was, hasn't really been done with what we've come to assume as great production values (come on, 60s swords and sandal epics had better production values than Excalibur).

So in general they just made a new story that was kind of a hybrid, and in doing so, kind of took the piss out of the whole thing.

I'm not a fan of the guy who plays Lancelot, and I didn't think Arthur was given enough to do.