Highly Overrated But Still Good

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

For those who wanted a film historically correct would be better off watching Discovery Channel, or History Channel.I loved the Gladiator because it was a fantastic film and not because it was historically correct. Idem with the last 2 Robin Hoods, and Braveheart, Ben Hur I enjoyed the STORIES. Titanic was not historically correct, but people loved it. I'm not a Titanic fan, but that's my point. In Titanic people enjoyed the love story between Jack and Rose.King Arthur is one of the rare films that I can see over and over without being tired of it. The actors are perfect for their roles, especially the alchemy between the handsome Arthur (Clive Owen)and Ioan Gruffud) (a very good looking Lancelot)and the knights with their differences, their bickering, their humor, each with their own fighting skills and their humanity. Guenivire less than the others. She was the person that I liked the least. But she was the perfect wife for Arthur. I really liked the actress who played Alecto's mom. She seemed to be a submissive but extraordinary woman, looking after the hostages Lucan with much human care, much like the knight Dagonet.The music is beautiful, as well as the scenery, the battles. There were some very sad moments, but they were necessary for the film. The Catholic church was bashed, but I wasn't surprised, because it became an institution and not a religion.To reply to one critic, Arthur wasn't shocked when he saw Roman torture, he was shocked when he saw the torture of the Catholic church, and when he found out that the priest he considered as his father was ex-communicated and murdered by the bishop "friend of my father". Don't confound the Romans and the Catholic Church. The Romans were as inhuman as the Saxons, but Arthur had a very naïve vision of the Catholic Church. All in all an excellent film that I really enjoy.Clive Owen was perfect as Arthur, an excellent fighter, yet a caring person, caring for others, especially for his knights. His attempt to save Dagonet was a perfect example of a man, of a king. His eyes were beautiful and added a dimension to the film.I loved the alchemy between the handsome Arthur (Clive Owens) and Ioan Gruffud (a very good looking Lancelot), and all the other knights. They were human beings, and they showed it marvelously.For those bashing the film because it wasn't historically correct, I DON'T CARE. I loved the film. I loved the story line, and I enjoy seeing it again and again.

Usually with a movie as terrible as this one, I don't even bother leaving a review. But this movie has such an unfairly high rating that I wanted to do my share to bring it back down to the reality: this movie deserves a solid 1/10.I think the image that sums it up best, the tragic loss of brain cells and the spiritual degradation that this movie inflicts on its viewers, is this: Keira Knightley, in a medieval bikini, leading an army of one-dimensional 'good guys' against an army of one-dimensional 'bad guys'.There, that's all you need to know. I suppose there is some historic value to this movie - I don't mean the story of King Arthur though, which this movie shamelessly butchers. What I mean is that this movie might illustrate very clearly the moment that Keira Knightley's career as a respected actress came to an end.

Actually I just reviewed the Magnificent 7 (2016) and realised this was the same director and he's still making the same mistakes. (in my opinion). Cartoon characters, weak plot and farcical logic.King Arthur I really liked the look of but rapidly as I watched felt more and more irritated. Film makers often treat history as some sort of plaything to abuse and the audience as too stupid to realise. Yet all to often the real story is so much more thrilling than the Hollywood 'spin' (Watch the Revenant - then research the real story)Perhaps we are just too stupid. Whats worrying is so many people think Hollywood's farce is historical fact. This film looks good, but it's a veneer, underneath its just chipboard and papermache. Clive Owen is wooden and most of the characters are unbelievable and cardboard. What a shame, take a bit of trouble to get it 'right' and fact is often so much stranger (and better) than directors fantasy fiction history. 4/10 pants

Although much-reviled on release, KING ARTHR gains a new lease of life when you view the Director's Cut of it. From a kiddie-friendly family film, it has been transformed into a gory, gritty adventure in which the blood sprays across the scene in frequent bursts and people are beheaded left right and centre. Dispensing with the mystical medieval aspects of the story, in this version the film takes place in a wild and untamed England, inhabited by the Woads and the Romans, who have decided to leave. The enemy are the Saxons, led by true Saxon Stellan Skarsgaard.KING ARTHUR is an old-fashioned story which questions religion, free will and man's calling in life. As a film, it looks very good, with excellent choreography in the battle scenes and fine camera-work all round. The Irish locations are wonderfully picturesque and the wildness of the elements is put across very plainly, as our heroes battles snow, ice and freezing rain. The plot, as many have mentioned, bears a little resemblance to THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, but that's the case with plenty of movies anyway. Production values are high as is the testosterone evident, with a shouty Ray Winstone on good form and Clive Owen as a rugged, working class Arthur. Sadly, Owen's acting is a little stilted, and he is outdone at virtually every turn by the excellent Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot. A cast of British regulars pad out the leads and the attractive Keira Knightley ably supplies the love interest.Action fans will be here for the battle sequences, which are impressive and carry on in the recent tradition of TROY, THE LAST SAMURAI, THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy and others. The battles are bloody and frenetic, true life-or-death down-and-dirty fighting, with clever tactics. The best moment of the film has to be the battle on an iced-over lake, which progresses pretty much the way you would expect, and is very much the better for it. The climactic battle is worth waiting for and seems undeniably epic. KING ARTHUR doesn't equal the status of rivals like BRAVEHEART, but it does prove to be a generally good film that is definitely worth a watch.