Keira Knightley Movie:

				Salesrank: 218487
		Our Price: $64.92
		Used Price: $32.03
		MPAA Rating: R (Restricted) Media: DVD

Editorial Review:
It's got a round table, some knights, and a noble warrior who rises to become King Arthur, but everything else about this revisionist legend is pure Hollywood. That's not such a bad thing if you enjoyed Rob Roy, Braveheart, Gladiator, and Troy, and there's some intriguing potential in presenting the "real" Arthur (played by Clive Owen) as a 5th-century soldier of Rome, assigned to defend Roman-imperial England against a hoard of invading Saxons (led by Stellan Skarsgård in hairy villain mode). As revamped history and "archaeological findings" would have us believe, Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is a warrior babe in face-paint and Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is a nonentity who fades into the woodwork. Never mind! Best to enjoy the harsh, gloomy atmosphere of Irish locations, the ruggedness of Owen and his hearty supporting cast, and the entertaining nonsense of a Jerry Bruckheimer production that strips battle-ready Guinevere down to leather-strap S&M gear while all the men sport full-body armor. Hail to the queen, indeed! --Jeff Shannon

King Arthur [Region 2] Reviews:
Someone should be arrested for allowing this to be made.
2008-07-25 - It really is remarkable how Hollywood, which has scaled the heights of technical brilliance in mimicry, costumery, cinematography and overall visual verisimilitude, still has brain-damaged monkeys writing scripts and dreaming up concepts. This movie, which was blessed with an excellent cast, distorted the King Arthur legend to such an astonishing degree- just for the sake of being "original"- that it was positively painful to watch. Arthur- the Pelagian heretic later turned pagan. Guinevere- the Woad-covered, tattooed Pictish warrior princess. Lancelot and the rest of the knights of the Round Table- Sarmatian (i.e. Iranian) conscripts from the steppes of Russia. Merlin- a Pictish warrior shaman. And Roman troops in Britain decades after they actually left and Saxon barbarians invading Scotland. Not to mention the sniveling, treacherous, sadistic Romans and Catholics making life miserable for everyone. I appreciate the liberty of artists to fill the lacunae of history and myth, but this went_way_too far off the deep end. What dreck. Both factual history and a people's most cherished mythological personification of themselves were perverted by this movie. "Excalibur" retains its title as the best Arthurian movie ever made. "King Arthur" will fall deservedly down the memory hole.

Movies have done more damage to history than the scribes or
2008-07-24 - translators that interpert it enough to put it on paper. Every thing "historical" is suspect, from the "history" books our children are taught from to the "History" channel's interpertation of it. "Historical Facts" are highly suspicious and the damage has been so extensive and for so long I, for one, really suspect it's voracity. Movies/entertainment should be taken for what they are "entertainment" not historical fact.

I liked it better than it probably deserved
2008-07-21 - I love this move; not 100% sure why. I liked the Roman spin on the Arthurian Legend. I also like Clive Owen as an actor (and Keira Knightley is, as always, a total fox). Ok, I admit, the movie is a bit contrived at points but I thought it worked pretty well. Arthur's nemesis in the film was a hoot to. (My favorite line: "Finally, a man worth killing.")

KA is probably a 3-star movie, in all honesty, but I'm a sucker for these kinds of films.

Recommended.

GOOD ACTING But a bit Contrived!!
2008-07-20 - The Arthurian legends and Ambrosius Aurelianus are just creative frames used to set the film in post Roman Britain or Britannia. The whole film is simply a rework of "Tear of the Sun" with large elements of Alexander Nevsky interwoven. In fact the scene on the frozen lake was a "homage" to a very similar scene in Eisenstein's film Alexander Nevsky. Which in turn is based on the actual battle of the Lake Peipus which the "Russ" (sound familiar) defeated the Germanic / Teutonic Knights during the Battle of the Ice on April 5, 1242. This may also explain why the Saxon(Germanic) Horde are north of the Hadrins Wall.

As entertainment the film is excellent. Antoine Fuqua and Jerry Bruckheimer always makes the most of a script. The acting is above average. As history its all over the place. But like any fictional account it could make learning history a bit more interesting!



Breaking away from the traditional story
2008-07-06 - If you love the traditional tale of King Arthur, his knights in matching armor, submissive weak Guinevere, and wizards in pointed hats with stars - this may not be your kind of movie. However, if you are interested in a powerful and different take on the legend and are up for something outside of that same old retelling of the same old story, this movie is a must see in my opinion.

In 'King Arthur' you will find action on all fronts and humor and a change in the appearances and styles of the old interpretations. Guinevere is not the weak Christian woman of lore but a powerful warrior fighting along side the knights who each bear their own look as well as fighting style that makes for a far more visually stimulating flick than the previously stamped-out-of-the-same-mould look of other Arthur movies.

I'm not sure what the arguing is about regarding this movie. Movies are for entertainment, not forming a belief system. Historical accuracy has never been an obligation of Hollywood - nor do they claim it. That is common sense when it comes to Mel Brooks (History of the World pt 1)and it should be in regards to this movie as well! If you want an education in history - read a book! Better yet, read many. If you loathe a movie so much that you must rate it based on something it never professed to be, perhaps you should shrug it off as an unfortunate experience for yourself and move on.

This movie is exciting, not fact on film...