Search - King Arthur - The Director's Cut (Widescreen Edition) on DVD

Wendy W. from KANSAS CITY, KS
Reviewed on 11/28/2009...

Totallly different version than what you are used to I loved it

2 of 3 member(s) found this review helpful.

Kyle T. (KingKong) from SNOW HILL, NC
Reviewed on 11/12/2008...

Superb filmmaking! Sure, it's cliche, it's at most times unoriginal, and basically just another midevil war movie. So what! It is loads of fun. The special effects during the ice cracking scene were spectacular. And, Antoine Fuqua proves once again that he is a great action director. King Arthur, and what remains of his knights must perform one last duty before being given their release papers. That's basically the plot, but they do a lot with it, including a hidden love triange, great batte sequences, and a lot of fun humor thrown in. The movie is not all magical fantasy, which is what the other critics are complaining about. That's the point! This movie is trying to suggest the idea, that many historians have come to, that the legend of King Arthur is in some way based on an actual brave knight. So, for instance, rather than being an all-powerful wizard, Merlin is depicted as being the leader of a savage warrior tribe. He is rumored by those that fear him to be a wizard, which makes perfect sense, historically, because as we all know, many tribes back then practiced different forms of spiritism. So, it could be concluded/exaggerated that merlin was possibly a wizard or sorceror. I like this take on King Arthur, and I loved the action, which is expected to be good since it is directed by Antoine Fuqua ("Training Day," "Tears of The Sun") and is produced by Jerry Bruckheimer ("Bad Boys," Pirates of The Caribbean," "Pearl Harbor").

7 of 7 member(s) found this review helpful.

BJ W. (BJ) from LILBURN, GA
Reviewed on 12/15/2007...

If you're a fan of King Arthur and Camelot, you'll love this movie! I enjoyed the history behind the legend, the battle scenes and the discussions about the church at Rome. Wonderful movie!

6 of 7 member(s) found this review helpful.

John C. (bookwheelboy)
Reviewed on 12/6/2007...

I'm going to own this some day.

0 of 10 member(s) found this review helpful.

Pseudo-historical, but entertaining

R. L. T. Miskell | Norwood, MA | 10/26/2005

(2 out of 5 stars)

"As a grad student in medieval history, let me first say that this movie's announced intention seemed intriguing. Then I saw the film. My hopes for a decent, responsible historical revision were smashed by its crass attempt at appearing revolutionary, innovative, and important.



The majority opinion is that Arthur, if he existed at all, was likely a Romanized Briton who fought against the slowly rising tide of Angle, Saxon, and Jute immigrants (many of whom were actually hired as mercenaries by the resident Britons to defend against Picts, etc. He would more likely have lived toward the end of the fifth century, or the beginning of the sixth; the Roman legions evacuated around the beginning of the fifth century.



Regarding the choice of Sarmatia (against one far-off vassal of Rome was as good as another), it makes no sense that the Roman Army would send such a small contingent so far afield from their origin, especially considering their utility against the Parthians. It would have been logistically irresponsible. Plus, Sarmatians would have fallen under the control of Constantinople; the Eastern emperors would likely not have sent useful auxillaries to the Western fringe, to their own military detriment.



Most horrendously, the film makes a gross mockery of the Church. While some might enjoy this, it is almost completely inaccurate, historically. (1) The bishop is shown in a most disrespectful and inaccurate manner; clearly the director/producer wanted to take a hit at the Catholic clergy with this movie. (2) Also, the Church did not resort to forced conversions, at least in the manner demonstrated in the film. The Church had only a century before come around to accepting the justifiability of warfare and capital punishment when carried out by Christian rulers. Torture didn't enter into accepted ecclesiastical practice until several centuries later, and then only in extreme inquisitorial cases. Furthermore, the inquisitorial procedure, we know it, was only initiated in pursuit of heresy under Innocent III, who reigned from the end of the 1100's to early 1200's. (3) The armies of the Roman Empire in the West did not serve the pope. There were no such things as "papal armies" at this time. There were odd, rare occasions that popes would lead defensive measures in the vicinity of Rome itself, but the popes did not send out pontifical armies to squash resistance, either political or doctrinal. This is terribly anachronistic. (4) Just as the popes did not have armies to enforce their will throughout the western half of the Empire, nor did they have the authority to make liberal, nepotistic land grants throughout the breadth of the Empire, as the movie portrays. This would be a dangerous act for any pope to take, considering both the reigning emperors in Rome itself (last was deposed in 476, long after troops were pulled from Britain), and the reigning emperors in the East, who lasted until 1453. And to argue on the basis of the Donation of Constantine is also anachronistic, as it dates from the mid to late eighth century.



All in all, this movie's claim to historical accuracy is null and void.



It is at least enjoyable for the martial violence and occasionally cheesy effects.

"

As Fantasy, Okay--As History: NOT!

wysewomon | Paonia, CO United States | 10/24/2005

(2 out of 5 stars)

"_King Arthur_ purports to set the historical record straight, making Arthur (Artorius) a Romano-British Legion Commander in charge of a band of "knights:" warriors from a conquered middle-eastern tribe, the Sarmatians, renowned for heir horsemanship. Stationed in the north of Britain, near Hadrian's Wall, they defend the land from the Saxon Threat and marauding bands of blue-painted natives, or "Woads," under tribal leader Merlin.



As a fantasy movie, _King Arthur_ was really pretty enjoyable. The hero is struggling with the usual fantasy choice between loyalty to a country and loyalty to his inner sense of what is right, discovering along the way that the country he serves is not what he thought and the "savages" he's been fighting so long are more noble than some of his own people. Although this means that every time Clive Owen opens his mouth he's delivering some variation on Henry V's "Saint Crispin Day" speech, it makes for a good enough plot device. The sets and costumes are well done; there are some exciting battle sequences and lovely visual imagery. Even as Arthurian interpretation, this movie wasn't bad. There's plenty of historical evidence that Arthur was, in fact, a legion commander under just such circumstances. And I really liked the portrayal of Merlin and Guinevere as Picts--although I thought the movie could have made much better use of both of them.



However. If you're going to present something as history, revisionist or otherwise, you really need to get your details straight, and there was so much wrong with _King Arthur_ in this department that I spent a good part of the film groaning. For example: in the fifth century, the crossbow hadn't yet been invented. Even if they had, the Saxons wouldn't have used them, because they considered anything but hand-to-hand combat cowardly. The Saxons didn't raid to the north--the Wall was to keep the Picts at bay, not Raiders--and they didn't raid in winter. Nor did they come in large organized armies bent on conquest. A Roman villa would never have been built north of the Wall, which marked the boundary of the Empire. And why would a band of Indentured Sarmatian knights have names from 15th century French Romances?



I'm firmly of the opinion that much folklore and legend has root in historical events. The Matter of Britain is a complex tale and probably had complex roots. _King Arthur_ oversimplified them and eliminated any reference to possible causes except the names. By the end of the movie I was left wondering how such a moving story could have come from such banal source material.



I'd like to see a historical Arthur done well some day, with the attention to detail and character that it deserves. This wasn't it, but it's an okay movie as long as you can ignore the names."