King Arthur
 

Director Antoine Fuqua offers a bleak depiction of Arthur’s legend, devoid of the magic and majesty most have come to associate with Camelot. Instead we are presented with a gritty, supposedly more realistic view of Arthur and his knights, one that bears little resemblance to traditional legend and only hints at the love triangle between the story’s central players. Short of Keira Knightley this Braveheart clone offers the viewer little in terms of serious entertainment and should be avoided if at all possible.

http://www.toefuzz.com/stars/star_15.gif

To be honest I would have to say that this movie was outstanding and very good to watch. I liked the story better then most of the past movies telling the story about King Arthur, it really seemed more real to the story rather then the big love story in other films. I would recommend this movie really to anyone.

It still does not beat “Excalibur” and does beat the movie “First Knight” loved the story line and was more real to the times and places.

My mom borrowed it from me and really enjoyed it... Perhaps it's one of those devisive movies that people either really like or really dislike. Most people I've talked to seem to dislike it, but I have heard from a few people who think I'm out to lunch :)

So, what's on the menu...

;)

Sorry, I couldn't resist... :p

:D

I thought King Arthur was awful.

Clive Owen sleepwalked though some truly bad dialogue and appeared a bit embarrassed with the whole thing, though for his career's sake I hope he gets another shot at a 'big' movie.

Keira Knightley's surname was apt.......and that's about all.

Weirdest of all was Stellan Skarsgård - a Swede playing a Saxon with an American accent (Rutger Hauer must have had a cold).

The only thing that held any interest, for me, was good 'ole Ray Winstone who was as watchable as ever.

Excalibur was much better - livelier, better acted and humerous when it needed to be (bonus points for Helen Mirren ;) ).

Re
 

King Arthur was an ok movie. It wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible. It was worth seeing once. The movie is only about 2 hours long which I also prefered compared to the usual 3 hour films (i.e. Alexander, Troy, etc).

Overall, King Arthur was good for a rent. It probably won't go in my DVD collection though.

6.5/10

I went to see this at the cinema back in the summer and thought it was decent, and recently got it on DVD as a gift for Christmas... I watched it yesterday but probabley won't again now for a long while, but at least I didn't pay for it.

I wish I hadn't seen it :(

King Arthur has got to be one of the worst movies i've seen in recent years. Although it's supposed to show what King Arthur may have been like, that doesn't mean that it will be enjoyable and with Clive Owen and his monotone voice almost putting you to sleep, I would also suggest that you stay away from this movie, believe me, you won't regret it.

The problem is is that you have this preconceived notion that "King Arthur" should resemble John Boorman's rendition, "Excalibur." In fact, "King Arthur is more historically factual. "Excalibur" should be classified as fantasy. The whole Arturian legend is just that, legend. If you want a more historically accurate portrayal of how Merlin, Cerdic, and Arthur and his Knights really looked like "King Arthur" would be what you would get. Overall and excellent movie with Stellan Skarsgard stealing the show.

I thought it wasn't too bad; I mean aside from the frustrating storyline and mediocre acting, I did like the big action sequences......hey I'm a guy and we our action.

It's the sort of movie that when you look back it didn't really give you anything new/enjoyable overall. Don't feel bad if you give this one a miss, probably the worst King Arthur movie, check out Excaliber (1981) if you are looking for something better.

I'd give it 2/5 for the not so bad cinematography and as said before the action sequences.