Own the rights?
I was intrigued by the concept of a more realistic look at the Arthur legend, but I should have known better than to trust another cookie-cutter Jerry Bruckheimer movie to do it justice. Normally I can forgive a little historical inaccuracy in movies because they're meant as fiction, but since this film tried to sell itself based on its "realism", I couldn't help but be irritated at the screenwriter's clear lack of research.I was put off right away when the movie began, because they tried to convince us that the Roman legions were just preparing to leave Britain in 467 A.D., even though in reality Rome had abandoned Britain 57 years earlier! A minor mistake, perhaps, but one that could have been corrected by spending a mere five minutes on Google. Furthermore, the Saxons (hailing from modern Denmark and Holland) invaded Britain from the south and the east, NOT from north of Hadrian's Wall as it shows in the movie. North of the wall, Britain was under attack by Picts, Celts, and Scots. Clearly this was overlooked simply so the climactic battle could happen at Hadrian's Wall.I also didn't buy the way Arthur and his knights were fantastic, unbeatable warriors both on and off their horses. Cavalry soldiers were almost useless without their mounts, because fighting on horseback and fighting on foot are two completely different kinds of combat, not to mention that the weight of their armor would make them slow and ungainly on foot. Cavalry troops trained solely for horse-mounted combat, because that was their function. They wouldn't get down off their horses like the knights do in this movie, because that would be stupid and they would needlessly deprive themselves of an advantageous position. And if a cavalry troop was knocked off his horse, he was probably a dead man anyway, so why waste time training for hand-to-hand infantry combat? Though not impossible for someone to be both an effective mounted and unmounted soldier, the better explanation is that screenwriters don't consider the difficulty of different types of combat; they see people do it in movies and so it looks infinitely easy to them.Historical goofs aside, the movie played like just another brainless action-epic that just happens to be set during the Dark Ages. The good guys were perfect and had ridiculously modern concepts of freedom and equality, and the bad guys were shown as mindless, barbaric marauders and murderers. They might as well have just changed them from Saxons into demons hailing from Mordor. And I don't know who told Stellan Skarsgaard, playing the Saxon king, that he should mumble all his lines, but apparently being almost unintelligible is considered solid acting.Also, I don't know how Clive Owen became an overnight star, but the man is in dire need of being humbled. I've seen him in a slew of recent movies, and I'm convinced that he has two facial expressions: bored and mildly excited. He is about the last person I would cast as Arthur, having all the charisma and leadership of a radish. He needs to star in a slew of real box office flops to put this un-emotive upstart in his place.If you're looking for an exciting *and* believable historical-based fiction of King Arthur, I would recommend reading The Warlord Trilogy by Bernard Cornwell. And if you're more interested in the traditional mythic legends, then I would *certainly* suggest you steer clear of this movie and rent John Boorman's "Excalibur".
You may report errors and omissions on this page to the IMDb database managers. They will be examined and if approved will be included in a future update. Clicking the 'Update' button will take you through a step-by-step process.
