Rate King Arthur [Spoiler-Free]

[Creamsteak]

IIRC, every character besides the 3 surviving Knights and Arthur are not in the oldest written books on King Arthur. Almost everyone was added by another author at a later time. It was just 3 knights + Arthur, and Lancelot wasn't added until the 1400's or such.

I liked the movie, but I felt like it wasn't worth paying much for. As another poster said, it's all beginning with no middle throughout the whole movie. Then a flat ending. What made it worse for me was that the story begins with a "historical premise" in the text, but the movie was so quick to start throwing fiction in there. It was too sudden for me.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Unless I'm mistaken, the character of Lancelot (who would have an adulterous affair with Guinevere) was created by Sir Thomas Malory in his novel Le Morte d'Arthur, which wasn't the first book written about Arthur, but is considered by many to be the definitive tale of King Arthur. Le Morte d'Arthur also introduced other elements we've come to associate with King Arthur such as the Sword in the Stone, the Quest for the Holy Grail, and the Round Table.

 

[Hand of Evil]

King Arthur is one of the great story myths, when you start to define it in reality it no longer is. This is where this movie failed to me, same with Troy, you need the myth or you alienate.

 

[Wombat]

Unless I'm mistaken, the character of Lancelot (who would have an adulterous affair with Guinevere) was created by Sir Thomas Malory in his novel Le Morte d'Arthur, which wasn't the first book written about Arthur, but is considered by many to be the definitive tale of King Arthur. Le Morte d'Arthur also introduced other elements we've come to associate with King Arthur such as the Sword in the Stone, the Quest for the Holy Grail, and the Round Table.

Most of these elements were in place by the 12th and 13th century (Malory wrote in the 15th); what Malory did was try to smooth the various elements together to make them more or less fit as a group. I think it was Chretien de Troyes who created the Lancelot-Guenivere love affair, but I may be a bit off there.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I gave this movie a 3. It wasn't very good at all. There were NUMEROUS errors and plot holes. ( I won't get into them here since doing so would requre spoilers.) I knew it wasn't drawn from the legends, so that didn't figure into my dislike of the movie. It was the simple nonexistant attention to detail. There are many silly scenes, characters appearing out of nowhere, unexplained character backgrounds, and various other errors in logic that ruined what could have been a great movie. The acting was great from everyone except Cedric..or whatever his name was. His accent was more akin to a hillbilly than that of a Saxon marauder. Add a lip full of chewing tobacco and a spit after talking about killing all the people and burning the homes to complete the effect.

Anyway, I was very disappointed in this movie. It would be worth a rent, but I advise not paying $8 or better to see it in the theatre. I wish I would have watched Spider-Man 2 or Anchorman instead.

Kane

 

[Wombat]

Just got back from it.

Ugh

I gave it a 4.

Forget the historical problems, I think they need to 1) talk to the Weather Continuity department and 2) get the guy playing Arthur to come up with a second facial expression.

I found many of the battle sequences comical -- have none of these people ever heard of tactics?

I was also amused over names in the film. Many characters had no discernible name (especially amongst the Saxons). One of the handful of Arthur's knights of legend who makes it into the movie is Dagonet, who was Arthur's fool according to Malory (and several others); then again, his counterpart wasn't overly bright either.

Not the worst Arthurian film I've ever seen, but far, far from the best.

But fear not! With that ending it is just crying out for a sequel... **yrg**

 

[Laurel]

I gave it a six... after lots of thought. I liked that it took no one story or myth, it added history with legend, it threw in some humor, it had some great battles, but it had too much information it was trying to get through and not enough time, so a lot was lost by either glancing over things or just hoping the audience would understand with a single phrase or glance or movement.

But with the pace of the movie needing to be kept up they rushed through the emotions and inner turmoil that could have appeared. Honestly though if they had to choose one, which it seems they did, I am glad they kept the action in and cut on the emotion.

But this is just one person's views and thoughts

 

[Krug]

I gave it a 6. Dour and serious and none of the characters felt real or believable. Did Skaarsgard have a Louisana accent or something?

 

[reanjr]

and an insulting portrayal of Christians (with the exception of Arthur himself, all the Christians in this movie were homicidal maniacs or scheming double-dealers).

I might be wrong, but I think it was more of a statement about Christians in Dark Ages Britain only. It could also be construed as a simplification of the persecution the natives of Britain (and Scandinavia) suffered at the hands of Christians.

 

[reanjr]

Another problem I had was with the whole Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot triangle. Arthur and Guinevere never seemed to really fall for each other, more of a lust. Also, wasn't Lancelot supposed to cheat on Arthur with her? The only signs of that was some quick shots of Lancelot eyeing Guinevere.

Just like with the sword being pulled from his father's grave, they were simply giving a nod to the familiar mythology. In truth, Lancelot never really existed, so...