King Arthur Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Rule Your Fate
Rule Your Destiny
The Untold True Story That Inspired The Legend
The Roman Empire is stretched across many nations, including Britain. In their conquest for more land, the Romans went into Sarmatia where they fought the very brave Sarmatian cavalery. The Romans, impressed by the Sarmatian's weaponery and fighting skills, included them into their army as knights. After 15 years of serving and fighting for the Roman Empire the Sarmatian Knights, lead by Arthur/Artorious Castus, are about to receive their freedom as the Romans are leaving Britain. But the Knights must carry out one final order before they are free. A Roman priest and his family, especially his son Alecto, must be rescued from the invading Saxons. But there is another danger lurking on the road to freedom - the Woads, British rebels who hate the Romans.
| Stellan Skarsgård | Cerdic |
| Ray Winstone | Bors |
| Keira Knightley | Guinevere |
| Clive Owen | Arthur |
| Ioan Gruffudd | Lancelot |
| Mads Mikkelsen | Tristan |
| Joel Edgerton | Gawain |
| Hugh Dancy | Galahad |
| Ray Stevenson | Dagonet |
| Stephen Dillane | Merlin |
| Til Schweiger | Cynric |
| Sean Gilder | Jols |
| Pat Kinevane | Horton |
| Ivano Marescotti | Bishop Germanius |
| Ken Stott | Marius Honorius |
| Antoine Fuqua |
6.10 out of 10 (19092 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Rent Exalibur instead
posted on 30 Aug 2009Perhaps worse than being awful this movie is plain mediocre. It just sits there like a box of hair, never moving to the viewer nor ever impressive. Just there. I know this was an attempt at a historical telling of the story of King Arthur, but why bother doing that with a film? Why not watch a good documentary? If you want to drain the mythic quality out of a great myth, then save it for a History Channel special. Failing that, this movie even failed to even feel 'real.' Peter Jackson and the LOTR series felt much more 'real', despite being an absolutely unabashedly fictional creation of Tolkien's mind and the Weta art department. For a much more exciting telling of Arthurian legend, I highly recommend Excalibur.
Awesome New Take on the Legend!
posted on 26 Aug 2009When I heard about this movie, I was expecting another remake of the old legend. Which was fine with me, as I am a great fan of the legend. I went and saw it, and was completely surprised. What we have here is not a fairy tell brimming with completely selfless men in shining armour, doing their duty to protect peace without a thought for themselves. No. This is a much more realistic take on the legend, in the sense that it shows the actual harshness of the period in which it takes place. Nobody (Romans and Arthur aside) wears flawless armour and carries a jewel-encrusted sword. The knights are just ordinary men, taken from Sarmatia by the Romans to serve in the Empire as knights. They are not at all pleased to be fighting, and long to get back to home. Doesn't that sound so much more likely?This movie takes place at the end of the fifteen years a group of Sarmatians (Lancelot, Galahad, Gawain, Tristan, Bors, and Dagonet) have to serve to Rome. They are eagerly anticipating returning home, when they are sent on one final mission. They are extremely displeased, as would be expected. They must rescue an important Roman family in the north from a massive Saxon invasion.I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I don't actually care if the history was slightly off (Saxons and Romans at the same time), it was just a very entertaining film. The characters are interesting, the scenery is terrific, the battle scenes are brilliant, and the script can be funny even in such a serious plot. My only criticism would have to be that I found Arthur himself a little wooden. But that does not affect the movie in any way, because he is still an extremely cool character. All the knights were, in any case. Bors was hilarious, Tristan was just so stylish in his fighting, and Dagonet (my favourite) was a formidable fighter but turned out to be the soft one, when it came to children.If you are expecting the traditional legend and seeing it differently will anger you, do not watch this movie. Myself, I actually liked this one more than the old one. I give it 10/10!Bors: "Beautiful Sarmatian woman? Why d'you think we left in the first place? Moooo!"
Griveous cinematic sin, but sometimes entertaining
posted on 26 Aug 2009Antoine Fuqua takes on a Herculean task in translating the legendary tales of King Arthur onto the big screen. To facilitate the adaptation, he takes the help of the King of all things overblown and Hollywood, Jerry Bruckheimer. The film is meant as a more realistic and down-to-earth portrayal of Arthur and his men, documenting their one last quest for Rome with as much historical accuracy as possible and sans fantasy-coating. So I'm thinking, if Fuqua wants realism, then why the hell hire Jerry Bruckheimer? But no matter, because Bruckheimer proves to be useful later on.The cast, on the other hand, do not prove to be useful at any point in the film. Clive Owen does his best dry paint impression as Arthur, his voice sounding eerily like "a bored photocopier with one eye on the clocks for the pubs opening" (credits of Mr. cliveowensucks) and his face "looking like someone's who's waiting for the bus on a wet day in Rotherhyde" (credits of TrevorAlcea). His performance is totally unable to project so much as an ounce of charisma or presence on-screen. This is an absolutely fatal failure for someone who is the titular character and is supposed to carry the film, and it is through this inability to act that Owen drags all of King Arthur down in the mud with him.I'd like to say Clive Owen is the only bad thing about King Arthur, but then I'd be lying. Keira Knightley is also atrocious as Guinevere because this character is interwoven with the most clichéd tough-chick attitude imaginable and it ends up feeling almost anachronistic. The writing of the film certainly do not facilitate things either, featuring cringeworthy one-liners between battle scenes and placeholder dialogue in serious moments. There are numerous off-putting attempts to establish a mood that is either reek of typical Bruckheimer overkill, or of blatant 'character depth' moments in which the director desperately feels the need to explore and add more depth to the main characters. He does this mostly by having Owen brood. Just terrible.King Arthur has one redeeming thing, and that is the awesome battle on ice that takes place between Athur and his knights and about two hundred Saxons. It's borderline ridiculous, but gloriously entertaining. This sequence is so superbly handled with perfect CGI and suspense that it temporarily redeems the whole film. Overall, this is still mildly entertaining - but only for the action.4.5/10
One piece of dialogue sums up this wretched film for me
posted on 26 Aug 2009Merlin - Rome was my enemy, not Arthur. We have no fight between us now.Arthur - You tell that to the knights you killed before my eyes, whose bones are buried in this earth.Merlin - We have all lost brothers.Arthur - You know nothing of the loss I speak!This deathless prose is but one example of the myriad affronts to the English language perpetrated on an innocent movie-going public by one David Franzoni.A screenwriter, allegedly.Even more stupefying is the news that Touchstone have released a director's cut on DVD.
Pray that the DVD is a "Director's Cut"
posted on 20 Aug 2009This movie suffers from extremely obvious over cutting to acquire the PG-13 rating so sought after by the Hollywood woosies who call themselves "investors"/"producers." Interestingly(?) enough, some kids at the matinee I attended actually slept(!) through parts of the film. Several teenagers who also saw this disappointment of a film at the same showing afterwards joined me in convincing at least 30 people waiting in line for the next showing -- at full price -- not(!) to waste their money. We were so successful that the theater owner threatened to call mall security to remove us.The "battle" scenes are so toned down as to be akin to the those done by Hollywood in the '40s and '50s. There is none of the visceral violence evoked by "Braveheart" or even this summer's "Troy." There is far too much essentially meaningless dialogue, probably left in to make up a decent running time caused by truncating the battle and other action sequences.
That said, the cast is good to excellent and one can only pray that a "Director's Cut" DVD version will reflect their work even better.I seldom advise people to avoid a film. This is one of those rare occasions: SAVE YOUR MONEY (AND YOUR TIME) - DO *NOT* SEE "KING ARTHUR!
As entertainment just passable-as history total rubbish
posted on 18 Aug 2009Attn: Contains spoilersThe chief problem with this movie is that it takes itself very seriously. The opening scroll-down boldly announces that historical research has now established the truth behind the legend of Arthur. With that said, we, the audience, are then supposed to believe that what is presented in the movie is historical fact. It is suggested that the `real' Arthur was in fact one Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman cavalry commander in charge of a group of Sarmatian horsemen stationed at Hadrian's Wall. Well, there is some historical evidence that such a man existed. But that particular Artorius Castus lived in the second century CE.The movie, however, takes place in 452 CE, about three hundred years later. Our film's Artorius Castus is half Roman-half British, and his knights of the round table, yes, there is a round table in the movie, are Sarmatian cavalrymen. Let's see. The Sarmatians came from the region north of the Black Sea, and they are known to have been closely related to the Persians. So, they almost certainly would not have resembled the movie's Sarmatians, and they certainly would not have had names like Lancelot, Gawain, and Galahad. These are pure Thomas Malory. I guess giving them Sarmatian names would have been too `historical'. We don't need no stinking history to confuse things!And while we're mentioning history, all the books that I've ever read say that the Roman legions departed Britain around 408 CE, forty-four years before our story takes place. Oh well. And a Roman villa north of Hadrian's Wall? I don't think so. No Roman would have been that insane. And then there's Keira Knightly prancing around on the ice in a Peplos-type gown that has no more consistency than a modern nightgown. Hmm! Wouldn't she have been a bit cold? Didn't appear so though. No doubt she'll be playing Queen Boudica soon.I did find the Saxon army convincing, even if they didn't use crossbows. But in Dark Age battles, it generally wasn't death to every last man. The battle stopped when one of the war-leaders was slain, and his head and hands hoisted on poles for all to see. And for those who know their `history', those nasty, brutish Saxons of course did succeed in repulsing the British, driving them out of what is today England, and becoming in the process the `English', the name just a variant on one of the other Germanic tribes that was invading Britain at the time, the Angles.It's been pointed out numerous times that Hollywood epics aren't meant to be historical. OK, then why imply historical accuracy at the beginning? Why don't such movies just be forthright and honest? Either strive reasonably for historical accuracy or else just say that the story's meant to entertain. Unfortunately, this King Arthur lamentably fails in both departments.4 out of 10 (as I said, I liked the depiction of the Saxons)
King Arthur Can Claim Better
posted on 14 Aug 2009There is no doubt that King Arthur is a very much known character in our culture today. His story has spawned movies, a vast array of literature, and he has become an icon for the dark ages. Thus, it is no surprise that his story has been taken again to the cutting room floor and posted for summer viewing; however, this time with a different twist.The filmakers, through advertising and a brief paragraph that precedes the movie, are pushing their movie as the true story of King Arthur (or at least as true from what we know today). Whether this claim is true or not, the legendary King Arthur has been seen in better days.This is not because the premise of the movie is bad. The attempt to make the film have a real and authentic feel as opposed to a fantasy feel was done decently well. We have the commoners fighting for their land, the noble knights, and the savage Saxons. However, what is missing is a little more plot depth and a more engaging development of the premise.The movie finds Arthur's knights about to depart to their homes until a final task comes for them, to save a family from the Saxons. Fromt there the movie rocks back and forth between the marching knights and the marching Saxons, with a little conversation.As far as the characters go, they appear rather two-dimensional and dense.
Only one of the knights seemed to have a real personality, and it was not King Arthur. Keira Knightley, although not great, did help give a variety being the only female in the movie with more than two lines. Although none of the acting is bad, I would have liked to see more personality behind the characters.In all, KING ARTHUR is not a total loss. There are some fast-paced battle scenes, and it seems the filmakers put out a good effort to make something out of this film. With just a little more personality, and a quicker pace KING ARTHUR could have been great; however, as it stands I give it a 5/10.
Good movie spoiled by one character...
posted on 12 Aug 2009I went to see this because I was fascinated by the idea that it was a 'real', semi-historic version of England's favourite myth, rather than the usual lady in the lake gubbins. And it seemed, from a layman's point of view, good and pretty realistic until sodding Guinevere showed up. She is supposed to be a savage ancient Brit, but swans around looking like a Roman empress, with perfect teeth, plastically modified lips, and a grating Cheltenham Ladies College accent. What an insult to Britons, most of all Boudicea and all those real female warriors! I'm not blaming the actress, rather the miscasting. I guess the boys might disagree, but hey, the flow of the movie's more important than your desktop wallpaper. I gritted my teeth each time she appeared, it rather ruined it for me. And the 'comic' relief lines of Bors made me wince too. Otherwise, though, enjoyable and I liked how they worked the sword in the stone idea.
Disappointing overall
posted on 10 Aug 2009If you want a plot, read some of the other reviews. They cover more than enough and there's no need to repeat them.This is probably as close to the "true" Arthur as has been portrayed in a movie to date. If you've followed any of the research into the origins of the legend of Arthur, then you might find this film mildly interesting.To their credit, I think the main characters did a fairly good job with what they had. Unfortunately, what they had was almost nothing. I struggled for hours trying to figure out why exactly the movie just wasn't entertaining given that Clive Owen, as Arthur did an excellent job. Knightly is a talented actress, but she wasn't given much to work with. Skarsgard is also an excellent actor but again, not much of a part to work with. The dialog is incredibly weak.The movie seemed like a really weak version of Braveheart overall. It was as if they had taken Braveheart, removed all the good dialog, weakened the battle scenes, and packaged it back up with new faces.While it's possible you may care about Arthur and his knights, you're just not going to care about anyone else in this movie, and that's really where it fails miserably, I think. It's a shame because the "true story" of Arthur and his knights is as fascinating as the legend it spawned and better writing and direction really could have done something with it.
Good film, but it looks a bit artificial sometimes.
posted on 10 Aug 2009When I saw that "King Arthur" was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, I knew what to expect: a bombastic, beautifully directed film! And that's also what I got. The cinematography was very good, some scenes were absolutely beautiful! But sometimes the special effects looked a bit artificial. But actually I didn't really mind. The story itself O.K. and also the acting is O.K.. Keira Knightley looked pretty good :p The music by Hans Zimmer is also (naturally) very good! It's certainly not a masterpiece, but this film is good entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. I mean, you can't compare it to Gladiator or to Braveheart, but it's a nice, spectacular film!
An Arthur we haven't seen before
posted on 08 Aug 2009While I'm the first to admit that this version of Arthur is flawed I still think that this is a very interesting and gritty film that does try to show what things were probably like during that period. Story shows that young boys were taken to serve in the Roman army for 15 years until they are discharged and Arthur (Clive Owen) and the rest of his knights of the round table are just days away from being discharged but are ordered to do one more dangerous task. Arthur and his men are to escort a group of Romans to Rome before the invading Saxons try and take over. The Saxons are led by Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgard) and his son Cynric (Til Schweiger) who want to take over England but a group that live in the woods called the Woads decide to help Arthur thanks to Merlin (Stephen Dillane).*****SPOILER ALERT*****On the trip Arthur finds a female prisoner named Guinevere (Keira Knightley) and saves her and eventually a romance blooms between them despite the flirting of Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd). They finish their dangerous task and are discharged but with the Saxons on their way Arthur decides to stay and fight much to the chagrin of the other knights who at first just want to go home to Sarmatia but their loyalty to Arthur cannot be ignored.This film is directed by Antoine Fuqua who made "Training Day" and he once again shows that he is one of the most promising directors to come along in years. He doesn't seem to be the right choice given the material but he handles it well and the overall look and mood of this film is quite effective. In this film there is no shiny armor or flowing gowns for Guinevere, instead we see Arthur and the rest of his knights as dirty and tired men. They're angry and grouchy and if in the wrong mood (Which is most of the time) they will kill if needed. Merlin in not portrayed as some seer or magician but as just a disheveled old man asking for forgiveness. There is a strong sense of realism to the film and for the most part the script goes back to it's origins but this is not a great film and it's hard to ignore the flaws. Knightley is a strong presence on film but I feel she was miscast and in a film that was striving for more realism it practically went out the window once she appears on screen with her perfect lips and model features. Her Guinevere was on deaths door one minute but a few scenes later she can split an apple with a bow and arrow at 100 yards. And the romance between her and Arthur just seems forced and Arthur looked as though he had other things on his mind instead of her as he should. The accents range from traditional Oxford English to Cockney and the Romans speak in thick Italian. This is a vastly different take on the story of Arthur and it's both a hit and miss but with the dark and dirty look and a pretty strong performance by Owen I found this to be a fairly effective film.
There was the bad and the ugly but where was the good?!
posted on 08 Aug 2009There's so much wrong with this film it's difficult to know where to start! And I've so much to do (like clean the toilet, walk the dog, pay those not so urgent bills I just got today!!!) that I need to keep this succinct.The script is awful - it's full of bad clichés, inane garblings and dreadfully scripted, delivered and edited scenes. Ray Winstone CAN deliver a hateful line but far too often was made to look and sound like some odd figure in a regional panto! The Saxon leader was plain comical - I can imagine he was intended to be brutal and menacing ... and for one or two fleeting moments he KINDA did ... but to a greater degree he was a whispering hairball of a baboon. He simply wasn't vicious enough - his was a marauding army flattening all before them, yet all he did was brood and look around for a worthy opponent.The casting is equally weak - Kiera Knightly may be elfish enough to convince us she's some form of mystical spirit even a fighter of sorts ... but a full grown warrior of a tribe that lives on the very margins of 'civilisation'?! Come on! And her accent! I didn't realise Oxbridge predates the Romans in Britain!! The directing also left a lot to be desired - only a handful of stand-out scenes: the face off on the frozen lake, the opening gambits of the main battle scene between the knights and the main Saxon army at the Roman garrison/ Hadrians wall. Apart from that I'm being kind by saying it was uninspired.Overall the tone of the movie is horribly morose - the whole story being taken too seriously by Fuqua.As an interpretation of the legend of Arthur this offered so much potential (fascinating historical context, contemporary relevancy, an interpretation of freedom, justice and nationhood) and it simply failed to deliver on all of them ... perhaps because it didn't know how to deliver on any of them.Arthur represents more than just raised arms and fists with swords and some loud battle cry and equally more than just some overwrought, over-dramatic and badly scripted lines and reference to nationhood and identity. This film epitomises one that starts out as a good idea but somewhere along the line is turned into a bad film. Which is a real shame because now that we've had this turkey we're unlikely to see another interpretation for some years.
what is with all the speeches..
posted on 06 Aug 2009OK, the film was not as bad as I thought it would be (really bad) Bur one thing that irritated me was the constant speeches and morals being pumped out by the characters.Like in Braveheart we get the "FREEDOM" speech about fifty times.. In a land in the dark ages freedom was not the first thing that people probably thought about.. More like "A bowl of oats"! or "death to our enemies". Most Roman soldiers and mercenaries would be thinking more about plunder and gold than freedom.Interesting the saxons shouted something that sounded like Slakta fienden which is Swedish for "butcher the enemy". A bit more rousing than "freedom"..
a dark descent into stupidity and cliché
posted on 04 Aug 2009I adore history, and well told stories. This one started out charmingly, but by the end I was just silently mocking all the ridiculous decisions. If you have a great wall, and horde outside it determined to get in, and you open the gate just for the fun of it, you are not a great leader. Same with shooting a random volley of arrows into a smoky battlefield where your knights were just seconds before. The stupid speech Arthur gave his knights before they rode off together into battle: my god. These are not hordes to be inspired, these are friends of yours who just decided, entirely on their own, to sacrifice their chance at freedom because of your noble notions. They don't need your self-important posturing. I cry bullshit! I give a couple of points for the historical notions.
Boring and uninspiring
posted on 02 Aug 2009Lame fights, cardboard characters with ray winstone bellowing all the time and ioan grufford looking moody, a complete absence of tension or reality with guinevere battling saxons on a frozen lake wearing an off the shoulder chiffon number while everyone around wears sheepskins rugs, the usual 'tennage mutant ninja turtles' approach of having one with double swords, one with sworded knuckledusters, one with a big sword etc, an assortment of tired clichéd arthur on horseback in front of fire, arthur on horseback covered in snow, a dreadful saxon king who sounds like a texan, appalling formulaic uninteresting battles and a woefully uninteresting script.It had more holes than a connect four board, more cheese than the cheddar gorge and less imagination than an e-sure advert. It truly is utter pants.
~ A Refreshing Change On An Old Story ~
posted on 02 Aug 2009Take all your preconceptions and the years of same rhetoric on the legend of Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table and throw it away save a few simple concepts, and you have King Arthur.A refreshing change on the same old stories surrounding the beloved characters of Camelot. If you're looking for stories surrounding a mythical magic sword named Excalibur, an all powerful magician named Merlin, or a love triangle between Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot....well then go rent another movie. This particular version is based on a group of Knights in the Roman Empire Era led by Artorious Castus (Arthur), and takes place in the British Isles during the Saxon invasion.In this version Arthur is a leader of different sorts, and his Knights are an eclectic band of fighters, each with their own motives and fighting styles. Referred to here as the Samatian Knights, they serve Rome, particularly the church. They are awaiting honorable discharge, but are handed one last mission before they can get it. Guinevere, a woad rebel (people who are fighting to free the land from the Roman rule) and advocate for the land, we actually don't meet until a good bit into the movie. This time though she isn't your regular damsel in distress, but a warrior of vast talents too, which is a nice change. Her role, aside from "love interest" eventually for Arthur, is trying to get Arthur to care about the land and freeing it's people from Roman rule, and the Saxon's who are now attempting to seize it.The fight scenes between the various groups of people vying for control of Briton are good, visually stunning and intense. The acting is good, Clive Owen is a good and believable Arthur and would-be King. The Knights under his wing are also very good, each bringing their own personalities, but maintaining a good sense of camaraderie. Sometimes the banter between them had me rolling on the floor. Keira Knightley as Guinevere was OK, there were a few times where I wanted to smack her because she sounded as if she were a broken record. However, if you could stand her in Pirates of the Carribbean, then she won't entirely grind on you here either. I liked her best fighting...and NOT talking though.A bit slow in some spots, but endearing characters, fresh take on the story, and extremely well done fighting scenes earn it a 8/10 from me. Hope to add it to my collection of home DVD's in the near future.
Guinevere misses the mark
posted on 02 Aug 2009I agree with almost everything jiujitsu_jesus said in his post HOWEVER I disagree whole heartily in regard to casting. Kiera Knightly ruined this movie for me, although I have to say her physical addition in many scenes added more to the film than her acting. There is no denying she is lovely but she overacts in every scene and what it that thing she keeps doing with her chin? God it was so distracting and annoying! Every time she was on screen I ended up staring at her weird jaw movements, she was just plain terrible, there was nothing convincing about her performance. ( I did like her in Pirates) With that exception I found the rest of the cast to be convincing and Clive Owen most compelling as Arthur. jmho
Not Epic but still fun!
posted on 29 Jul 2009I agree with a prior post about the fun of this movie. I have studied Medieval and Renaissance literature and I know my Arthur mythos. However, I also went into this movie knowing that it was going to attempt a pseudo-historical interpretation. Also, even in a movie dedicated to "legendary" focus, it would be impossible to include every single aspect from every single myth. Where would the director choose from? Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? Mallory's Morte d'Arthur? The Chretien de Troyes romances? The Welsh stories in the Mabinogion? All of those show vastly different aspects of the myth. Different portrayals of Arthur. Different opinions of the greatest knight. Different mores. Because of this, all I wished from this movie was a fun way to spend an afternoon. The movie had some interesting battle scenes although not as visually intense as the recent Troy. The story itself does seem to be slightly less than epic although it is obvious that the director is striving for that label. My recommendation? Check your prejudices at the door, get a big helping of the snack of your choice, sit back, and enjoy a matinée.
I think the director played too much Diablo....
posted on 25 Jul 2009This movie in ,every sense of the word, was awful. As I sat in the theater with friends to watch this, 2 were drove crazy with boredom, two others slept, I tried on every level to like it, as i love the Athurian Legends, but to my dismay, loathed the film.The first thing I will say, is I did miss the magic, I did miss the WIZARD Merlin, I did miss King Arthur becoming KING by drawing Excalibur, so maybe I did go to the wrong film, but I thought it would be interesting ti see the possible real side to the legend. It didn't work, as the characters were just plain dumb!! They looked like the line up for a new Diablo, Arthur was a mope through and through, and I'm sorry, but Guinivere was not in any way or form a friggin' feministic warrior who managed to get one man to fight a band of Saxons, and somehow win! She was a dark ages wife! No shot at the feminists, but for the time and place and the character is was based on, Keira Knightly was just playing to an audience of horny little boys and goofus little girls!! Also, the idea of why he fought for england, didn't make sense, there was no justice or real duty like that of the Arthur legend, he was just antsy in his damn pantsy! Overall, this movie was for the damn kids anyway! Who the hell makes a PG-13 medievel warfare movie anyway? It just does not work. They played on everything to make it cinema friendly, they beat up condemning Christians(which I have no prob with, even as one as fundamentalists make my beliefs look bad dammit!), the man fought for the woman, and there was no true adultery, like there was in damn legend!!!! Also, can ANYone tell me what the whole back story to Lancelot had to do with anything throughout the film other than a bad a attempt at making the movie deep???
double failure (myth and history)
posted on 30 Aug 2009This movie is a double failure: on the mythical literature side, because of no Camelot, no wizardry, no Guinevere-Lancelot love affair, just to name a few things, and on the historical side, because of wrong geography, wrong weapons, unbelievable situations (Roman legions in outer regions were constituted by many experienced tough soldiers, not by such a half dozen goofy chickens, and Saxons warriors were not idiots to walk tight to each other in rows of dozens over a frozen lake's thin surface. Not to mention the Roman noble family living in a villa placed outside the Empire's most outer defences, in a barbarian land!) I thought that Troy was bad, but this is even worse!