King Arthur (Director's Cut)

Great condition

all good

I can't believe how many bad reviews this movie gets. I bought one of the cheapest 'New' copies in here for like 1 pound, thinking that'd be worth it just to see Keira Knightly half nude and in war paint. But this really is a fine, entertaining Dark Age fantasy.This film's greatest blunder is it's beyond-ridiculous claim to historical authenticity. The starting remark that historians are agreed on the identity of the original Arthur is pure lie. And the film blunders colosally in the history department: missing entirely the correct date for the Roman abandonment of Britain (how on earth can that happen? they couldnt even be bothered to look it up?), and supposing the Saxons invade NORTH of Hadrians Wall and then move SOUTH. Also the depiction of Roman, Saxon and Briton/Pict societies are quite laughable, as is the idea, that the "good guys" should be fighting for freedom and equality and doing it with a modern sense of nationalism in what was in reality a very tribal society, where family meant everything (which it doesn't in this movie).All of this is indeed ridiculous. BUT ignore the history remark in the beginning and watch this as a Dark Age fantasy, and this is really quite okay. And it's not like it's MORE ahistorical than Gladiator, Braveheart or Robin Hood Prince of Thieves - the usual Hollywood shortcomings in the history department are just magnified by the ridiculous intro remark.Otherwise I found this entertaining (and I came to it after reading all the bad reviews). The lead actor (Arthur) is a bit unconvincing (just like his quest for freedom and equality, both in the 21st century sense of the words, are anachronistic and unconvincing). But the rest are okay, if not particularly notable. Knightly plays Guinevere like she does Elizabeth Swann - as a strong-headed, independent woman, willing to take on men at their own game. This is again, of course, quite anachronistic (though strong women have appeared throughout history, Knighly plays Guinevere like a 21st century career woman), and works less well than in Pirates of the Caribbean - again because this film (for reasons I cannot fathom) claims to be so much more serious than Pirates, which are, after all, obviously a rollercoaster.King Arthur would have been miles better, had the filmmakers just admitted to the ridiculousness of it all and run with it. As it is, though, it's not a great film, but I had a very entertaining time watching it. You only have to let go of all demand for historical authenticity - as always with Hollywood-style movies.So forget about the claims to history and watch it as a Dark Age fantasy with a surprising and fresh take on the old Arthur mythos (the new identities for Arthur, Guinevere and Merlin are probably it's strongest side - that is, second to Knightly in war paint, of course). And just watch it as a good, not great, movie in the Braveheart/Gladiator-style. And you should be fine.And yup, Keira Knightly in war paint is worth the price of admission ;)

King Arthur was a great movie but most of all it was as accurate as a movie about the 5th century AD can be. We don't know exactly who arthur was but many historians identify him with a certain artorius who lived in the period between the 450's and the 520's when britain had been nearly lost to the roman empire, when direct imperial rule had broken down and when the saxons and the angles were fighting the romanized britons for the island but by this time britain was still "roman" in terms of administration and language.Don't forget the embassy the britons send to the roman general Aetius in the 440's asking for help against the barbarian invaders.Also don't forget the roman briton general riothamus who landed in gaul with 12,000 men at the request of the emperor anthemius (467-472) to fight against the hostile visigoths who under their king Euric (466-484) claimed full sovranty in gaul and spain from the empire.All in all this movie was excellent and it was the first attempt to present Arthur as he really was. A GREAT ROMAN GENERAL.

i bought this for myself great film great cast i would recommend this film

A change from the usual portrayals of Merlin doing what wizards do, Arthur not being anything but a king and Guinevere being nothing but decoration. The characters have depth and meaning. There is such a good range of characters and it is interesting to see how they relate to each other. The film has drama, action, intrigue, betrayal, comedic moments and plenty of action. I like the dialogue and the passion of the leading characters. The film deals well with issues like loyalty, duty and disillusionment. The director has done an amazing job of bringing this well known story to life with a highly talented cast. Excellent!

This is a fantastic film, and do you know why? Because it gives you hope.Apart from the few Hollywood moments, like when it's freezing cold Knightley still has hers arms uncovered, and she fights like a 15 stome man, not a 6 stone skin and bone gollum..But if you can get past that it's a sweeping epic of a film, with great music by Zimmer the master and a gritty performance by young Owen. The nasty barbarians are well on the evil side but a bit stupid, wuth a slogan to remember "Slangtong Fiord" as they charge to be sliced and diced by Ray W and chums.Final word, buy the directors cut, not the theatrical release, as the latter is like watching an old John Wayne western, ie no one ever gets hurt !RonB