Based on a more realistic portrayal of "Arthur" than has ever been presented onscreen. The film will focus on the history and politics of the period during which Arthur ruled -- when the Roman empire collapsed and skirmishes over power broke out in outlying countries -- as opposed to the mystical elements of the tale on which past Arthur films have focused. Written by
Members of the 8th Battalion D Company FCA in County Cavan, Ireland were originally asked to be extras in the making of the movie but the budget was cut and we were never used. See more »
The "traitor" outside the gate of Hadrian's Wall is seen hiding in a Horse Chestnut tree. However these were not introduced to Great Britain until the middle of the sixteenth century See more »
By 300 AD, the Roman Empire extended from Arabia to Britain. But they wanted more. More land. More peoples loyal and subservient to Rome. But no people so important as the powerful Sarmatians to the east. Thousands died on that field. And when the smoke cleared on the fourth day, the only Sarmatian soldiers left alive were members of the decimated but legendary cavalry. The Romans, impressed by their bravery and horsemanship, spared their lives. In exchange, these ...
[...] See more »
There are no opening credits, not even the production company and studio bumpers, only the title. See more »
I have loved the Arthur legends all of my life, and I am used to people interpreting them differently...but this movie went a little too far in its interpretation, okay, and it was just a bad movie.
First of all, the plot was extremely shoddy, patched together and full of holes. I got that Arthur and his men had to do one last mission before their retirement, but why, exactly, was this important Roman family living in hostile territory? And who the hell was Guinevere? Where did she come from...why did anyone pay any attention to her? Other than the fact that she loved to dress up in skimpy little dresses and leather bondage outfits in the middle of winter, that is.
Not to mention that all Arthur's gibbering about 'freedom' screamed twentieth century American idealism...people in the dark ages didn't think that way. And Clive Owen managed to deliver these Braveheart aping lines with about as much enthusiasm as a man having his teeth pulled. I especially loved his prayer scenes.
The knights were entertaining, and fun to look at to boot. Bors was funny in that bawdy soldierly way, and his bickering with Lancelot gave another side to the normally sullen and glowering Ioan Gruffydd. Joel Edgerton was charming as Gawain (who has always been my favourite knight) and Madds Mickkleson was mysterious and probably the most believable Samarian of them all. The head Saxon was wonderful too, Skellan Skarsgard was obviously having a ball hovering around in his black outfit and whispering lines like 'burn everything...kill everyone.' Whether he was supposed to be funny or not, he made me laugh.
Essentially, the names were the same, but other than that the movie had little in common with the Arthur legends. Though I have always like the idea of setting Arthur in the dark ages, where the origins of the story most likely spring from, this particular movie came off like a bad cross between Gladiator and Braveheart. Clive Owen had no charisma whatsoever, though, unlike good old Mel Gibson, so all Merlin's spouting about people needing a 'leader' to help them fight the invading Saxons (who never actually formally invaded Britain) came off as out of tune. Arthur's disillusion about the Roman empire was awkward, and didn't really seem to fit the story and his relationship with Guinevere was so mechanical the audience actually groaned when she said who she was.
Essentially, my complaints about the movie, though many, really just boil down to the fact that it was a bad movie. Great shots of men on horses, knightly humour, and lots of battles simply could not this clanking, bumbling, awkward excuse for a movie.
79 of 133 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?