King Arthur

I just saw King Arthur today with a friend. The theater was near empty (it was a beautiful summer day at about 3:45, but still worth mentioning I guess).

The film was pretty much your basic action-adventure Jerry Bruckheimer-produced movie. There were a few interesting twists, though, and, admittedly, one of the most intense action sequences I've seen in awhile.

They basically threw out the whole King Arthur legend for the film, opting for an apparently more "historically accurate" path. Frankly, I think that's a load of BS but whatever. As a matter of fact, Arthur isn't even a king in the movie, making the title somewhat misleading. Really, the only Arthur legend-related content were the characters.

The cast is led by mostly unknown actors, except for Keira Knightley who has come into the public eye recently. You may know her from Pirates of the Carribean. She's incredibly hot, as usual.

Seems like Hollywood has decided people think that historical epic = excellent movie. Maybe, this is just my thinking. Really I'm just taking this from this movie and Troy.

Anyway, an ok action film but nothing special, really.
4/10

what do they mean, "historically accurate?" arthur wasn't a real person, so i don't know what kind of history they're talking about. frankly, i can understand how hollywood would want to alter classic tales such as king arthur and the trojan war in order to make them into well-accepted movies, but i think it's totally unoriginal and just plain lazy to change them so much as to not even fit the original story at all. i haven't seen arthur, so i truthfully really don't know what i'm talking about with this movie. but based on what you said, and the previews i saw, i can make a few assumptions. all i know is that arthur was a squire before he was king, and that he didn't have excalibur or meat guinivere until afterward. so the preview i saw, in which arthur had excalibur and guinivere was fighting along-side him or whatever, was pretty far from the actual story. this is just another case of hollywood taking well-known names and creating publicly appealing, cheesy storylies with them to make a buck. im more upset about the unoriginality of today's writers than the fact that arthur's good name was brought down--i never really liked the old knights of the round table stories to begin with, to be perfectly honest. except of course, for monty python's versions.

At the beginning of the movie it tells us this is based on recently found "archaeological evidence". They're saying this is who they think the King Arthur myths were based on, some hero in the Dark Ages.

However, in the movie Arthur is not a king, there is no Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle story, and Merlin is almost a completely different person, for example.

So, according to them, this is the Arthur who the legendary King Arthur may have been based upon. Silly, I know.

AT the end of the movie he was named king of britian.


I thought the movie was quite good. I do not know anything about the "history" or the "story" of kink arthur but the movie was well done. All of the charcters did a grat job in their roles and was quite realistic I think.


7.75/10

Whoa!: "kink" Arthur? I bet he has quite the "dungeon" where does he put excalibur anyway? I saw the previews and that was it it looked bad and just the whole idea of a roman being Arthur seems just plain wrong. Man you have to see Excalibur that is a geat movie-

some friends of mine who have very similar movie tastes just saw it and said it was surprisingly good. so, i don't know--i guess i should probably see it and then decide.

They have not yet proven that there was a King Arthur, but it is strongly believe that there was a King Arthur who went by another name. But then again, it just might be a legend (story).