Stream it now King Arthur 2004

 

5th Anniversary of my Rotten Tomatoes Journal.
K is for King Arthur.
Young Arthur Castus, born of a Roman father and Briton mother, loses both his parents at a young age. With time, he grows into Arthur (Clive Owen), leader of a band of brave knights, including Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Tristan (Mads Mikkelson), Bors (Ray Winstone), and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson). These brave knights have fought for 15 years in the service of Rome, and are on their final day before freedom when they are given a suicide mission: to go north of the protection of Hadrian's wall to save a Roman aristocrat and his family living there. While there, Arthur saves a mysterious native woman named Guinevere (Keira Knightley), and in doing so forms a common bond between the Roman knights and their former enemies. Together, Arthur and his knights protect what is left of the Roman outpost in Britain from the invading Saxons, with their fearsome leader (Stellan Skarsgard) and habit of killing everything in their path. And they are helped in this by their new allies, the native Britons (or Woads), and especially by their leader Merlin (Stephen Dillane). Despite insurmountable odds, with a little bit of military genius Arthur will have his day and live to marry Guinevere and become King of the Britons, but at what cost?
This film is not terrible, but it is a bit pompous in its rhetoric and anachronistic in its "updated and accurate" take on the legend of King Arthur. That's not to say that there aren't some good moments courtesy of the toned-down Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot love triangle. And nearly all the knights of Arthur's round table are even better and more famous actors than they were six years ago. It's simply that the film is too long, too slow, and too full of battle scenes. I'm sure the fight choreographer was well-paid and worth his hire, but filling a movie with scene after scene of dismemberment, spraying blood, and charging heroism is not the way to make a meaningful and interesting film.
Overall, the "true" King Arthur story fails to make itself nearly as interesting as all the "false" ones have over the years, and even a good supporting cast cannot make up for the endless battle scenes that drag its already long running length and diminish what little plot and romance there is.
Note that this review refers to the 140-minute "Director's Cut".

A powerful and emotional depiction of a much more original Arthur, although it leaves out most of its key points of the original story.

Clive Owen's performance in this movie wasn't his best, but I still loved it. This is one of my dad's very favourite movies. I thought it was an interesting take on the story of King Arthur and the birth of England. I think that even though it was historically inaccurate, it was a very well developed movie

A. Fuqua's director's cut of King Arthur is full of great action sequences and beautiful Irish scenery posing as the English countryside. However, the story was left behind by writer Franzoni (Gladiator) turning this film into a strictly B grade actioner. The romance subplot isn't very exciting or involving, although Keira did her best and kept me somewhat interested. The romance subplot should have had more conflict; it could have been beefed up a bit, why not have Arthur and Lancelot fight over Guenivere? For all intents and purposes this is a new version of Arthur, why not spice it up? There are many fabulous actors in this film, to many to list in fact, but unfortunately they don't have much to do except run around England wielding swords and battling Saxons and Woads. Skarsg

Let just start by saying what i think of this movie it

I sometimes feel I am the only one who really enjoyed this movie. It took itself seriously and really hit the mark. I can't but feel people never even gave it a chance.

The Arthurian legends have been the subject of continual debate and revision, historically this Antoine Fuqua adaptation based upon 'true archaeological findings' is interesting and fresh if not scholarly-sound. However to criticize 'King Arthur' for its historical accuracy would be unfair, there are plenty of other things which make it a disappointment.

The problems all reside or originate with executive decisions. Visually the landscapes are compatibly bleak, however not artistically enough so and subsequently lack the artistic spice that would add a stronger flavour to the uninspiring landscapes. The plot is simple and uncomplicated but not offensively so, maintained by impressive action sequences and well-delivered character (well, only Arthur) development, imbued by a simple philosophy providing sufficient reason to the various turmoils.

Whilst the acting is admirable, the thematic failing of the executive elements of the film continues with the poor casting in some roles and inability to capitalize on others. Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is not as prevalent as his legendary inspiration or acting potential justifies. Guinevere is another admirable revision in the form of Keira Knightley's fesity Pict princess, yet despite her confident performance she just doesn't seem correct for the role and is never entirely convincing. Ditto with Clive Owen's Arthur.

Its entertaining and the talent on display does its best to produce a worthwhile display. However they are hampered by a series of poor decisions from above which therefore hamper the potential power of a film which descends into a drag from one battle scene to another.

A diferent take on an old stort. Its not as bad as the rating says. Actually I enjoyed that the magical part was omited this time.

.....

A interesting take on the Legend with some intersting action scenes - good and violent. I enjoyed it as it rattled along and thought Ray Winstones character great.

Keira was good as a feisty and sexy pict.