By Neil Smith BBC News Online

Gladiator meets Excalibur in the muddy, bloody King Arthur, a bold, American-financed attempt to rewrite Arthurian legend, which has just been released in the US.

Keira Knightley's Guinevere is a fierce warrior

Shot in Ireland with a predominantly British cast, it strikingly sets the story of Arthur and his knights against a backdrop of post-Roman decay and Saxon incursion.

Some historians might have a field day with the film-makers' decision to move the action back to the 5th Century AD.

But the shift does achieve what director Antoine Fuqua intended: to remove the Celtic mysticism and re-imagine one of England's greatest heroes.

In Fuqua's version, Arthur is Lucius Artorius, a half-Roman centurion struggling to keep order in one of the furthest outposts of the Holy Empire.

Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table want nothing more than to return to their ancient homeland in Eastern Europe.

But before they are granted their liberty they must fulfil one last task: to locate a Roman family whose villa is under threat from invaders and escort them to safety.

The rescue mission takes them over Hadrian's Wall and into an icy wilderness ruled by the Woads, a tribe of forest-dwelling savages ruled by mysterious shaman Merlin.

Authentic

Clive Owen plays the title role of the king

In a summer season dominated by cartoon ogres and comic-book superheroes, King Arthur is a tougher sell than most.

Its grittily authentic battle scenes are certainly impressive, but no more so than those seen in Troy or the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And while British actor Clive Owen makes a commanding hero, the near-total lack of humour or emotion in his performance makes him hard to root for.

One suspects American audiences will feel similarly discomfited by Ray Winstone's Bors, a bear-like, swaggering knight who behaves like an early football hooligan.

Only Keira Knightley beguiles as Guinevere, a Woad princess who proves as adept with a bow as her male counterparts.

Elsewhere the playing borders on the camp, with Swedish actor Stellan Skarsgard practically chewing the scenery as a marauding Viking.

"Burn every village! Kill everybody!" he growls from beneath a beard that wouldn't look out of place on a ZZ Top guitarist.

Puny

But the real problem is how pedestrian and puny this story feels when transplanted to a literal setting.

Ioan Gruffudd (left) plays the loyal Lancelot

Why should we care about Arthur? What difference will it make if he lives or croaks? And where exactly does Camelot fit into the equation?

These and other questions remain unanswered, shunted to one side lest they get in the way of the clanging swords, whizzing arrows and fiery catapults.

One spectacular, computer-enhanced sequence finds Arthur and friends using a frozen lake to outwit a vastly superior force.

But it is the movie itself that is on thin ice, struggling to maintain our interest in iconic characters that have been cruelly stripped of their mythology and magic.

King Arthur opened in the US on Wednesday, with its UK release following on 30 July.

Your reviews:. It was a dismal mess, with one great scene - the battle on the ice - that belongs in a better film. All Bruckheimer, Fuqua and Franzoni have done is remove the complex and fascinating mix of romantic, pagan and Christian mythology from Arthur and replaced it with ersatz and second-rate Hollywood formula mythology. It's also ripped off "The Seven Samurai", "Braveheart", "Gladiator", and "The Lord of the Rings". The "knights" are indistinguishable and don't look remotely like they're from the Eastern country of Sarnatia. Ray Winstone's Bors is comic relief for the yahoos in the back row. Keira Knightley plays Guinevere/Boudicea by way of Sloane Square - pretty but dubious. And then it adds the old Hollywood clich� that in a battlefield of thousands the significant characters all manage to find each other to butt heads. As for the much vaunted "grunginess", "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" did it better.
Gary Pollard, Hong Kong

Ranks in terms of historical accuracy alongside Disney's 'Sword in the Stone' - but at least the latter is enjoyable!
Gary, Darwen, Lancs, UK

What an absolutely dire film! Lovely idea, moving away from the Monmouth/Mallory version of the Arthurian legend - but everything goes badly downhill after that! The script was an incoherent mish-mash of ideas (a bit of Howard Reid, a bit of Stephen Lawhead, a lot of borrowing from recent historical epic movies), and was clearly written by someone who had no feel at all for the subject matter. The dialogue was appalling and the acting (especially Clive Owen's) wooden. There was hardly any character development (and what little there was centred on Ray Winstone's Bors character - and the less said about that the better!). Some elements (eg the Roman family way above Hadrian's wall and, worse still, their bizarre torture chamber) were simply ludicrous. I'm still debating whether this or First Knight is the poorer film and would agree with an earlier review which advises buying Excalibur on DVD instead (or even - God love us and save us - checking out the TV series "Roar")! Ann, Lancs, UK

I thought the film was amazing! This was a fascinating, refreshing and entertaining take on a story we all know and love. Why are people going on about the "original"?! The beauty of the story of Arthur is that there is no original, it has evolved over time so that the "original" (if it ever existed) is masked by legend. My friends and I found this a welcome change from a load of pretty boys prancing around in tights! For once, a believable and engaging storyline are combined with a very talented cast of (mostly British) actors. It left me feeling proud of and inspired by my heritage, and I will be seeing it again. No film is perfect, but attacking Arthur for the few errors that it makes is as childish as counting how many actors are wearing watches in Gladiator...
Becky Parker, Ipswich, UK

I went to see the film with my son, and we both enjoyed it. As an adventure movie, it was fun. I thought some of the inaccuracies were funny or silly (Early Saxons with crossbows, Romans living in the Highlands) but hey, what can be expected? Anyone who goes to a Hollywood movie expecting to see history accurately rendered is unbelievably naive---it's a movie! Those who want more reliable information should read Ashe or Morris, or watch the History Channel!
Geoff Rothwell, Oakville, Ontario, Canada

This film is another perfect example of why you shouldn't give too much ear to the 'film critics'. The movie was very entertaining and I was never bored. Perhaps because the critics had trashed it I went not expecting much. I love Spiderman 2 but I must say I was bored during a few moments. King Arthur kept me intrigued full tilt. Yes wished there was time for more development in the relationship between Lancelot Arthur and Guinevere.....but then I am sure the critics would have argued that the movie then would have been too long. I love period pieces and this one I will definitely add to my DVD collection. Finally an action movie that didn't give you the blood and gore. Yeah I'd say give Clive Owen a shot as James Bond after Bronson retires....but he definitely got to loosen up. Peace
Shane Hoilett, Washington DC USA

I suggest we lighten up....a summer movie, sufficiently entertaining, some interesting special effects, half-decent acting, Bors, as the dark-age boot boy, very amusing, and the Saxon king appropriately evil...all in all, worth eight bucks...
Martin, Brookline, Ma

This is sincerely a film to be enjoyed through the lens of Hollywood's famed historical reinterpretation. It is an exciting film on certain levels but then its premise (even if it is the ad man's slogan) of being the "truth behind the legend" is utterly laughable. Sadly, people across the globe too often believe what Hollywood churns out. I am tired of telling people the truth about William Wallace, for example, tired of muttering under my breath when people talk of Pearl Harbour! Enjoy this film with the awareness that it is fiction.
Peter Hughes, Llangefni, Wales

If I hadn't been watching with friends, I think I would have walked out of the cinema. This was truly appalling, with no redeeming features. I felt frustrated and angry at what a dismal interpretation of one of Britain's greatest myths has been put forward to audiences. The script is so poor it makes fine actors like Clive Owen look incredibly wooden. The plot is simply laughable, with so many of the basic premises resting on absolute nonsense. The battle scenes are disappointing, particularly harmed by the absolute stupidity of Stellan Skarsgaard's battle commander. And really, we know that Arthur is good and the Saxon is bad - do we really have to make it even cleared by having the 5th century Roman nobleman (Arthur) a believer in human rights, freedom and equality for all, and the Saxon warlord a racial purist and fascist? I love this myth, this legend. This movie doesn't deserve to be connected to it in any way. Go and rent Excalibur.
Robin, London

I saw the film last night; I will never get those two hours of my life back. I feel cheated. This film is terrible, please don't see it. King Arthur is a lame duck version of Gladiator, it tries to be epic and moving but you never engage with the characters and you really don't care what happens to them. The battles are boring, the CGI is awful and the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen. Avoid at all costs!
Nu, London

It is an unforgivable distortion of the legendary or mythical Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. Like many thousands of American youth of my generation the "real" King Arthur, along with Lancelot, Galahad, Gawain, etc., were our great heroes. And still are!
John Forbes, Sarasota, Florida, USA

This film was terrible. Utter dross. The acting was wooden, storyline shallow and unrealistic. What a lame effort, the original 70's/80's version of Excalibur was much better!
Mark, Newcastle, England

I can't remember the last time I walked out in the middle of a film but I couldn't sit through 'til the end of "King Arthur." Oh the production and settings were handsome enough and the battle scene on the frozen lake was a stunning bit of film making BUT the screen play was dreadful, the actors mere one-dimensional cut-outs (one can hardly blame them though, given the wooden dialogue they were given), and I didn't really care whether they lived or died. And the premise...that's another thing. I found it hard to warm up to the idea that Arthur and his knights were raised in yurts on the steppes of some someplace now Russia. Oh well.
David Sloan, Emmaus, PA, USA

I have to say that it is one of the worst attempts at a movie I have ever encountered. The historical inaccuracies are unbelievable. The Romans had left Britain by 410, 42 years before the story begins! The Saxons were most probably brought to Britain by the Romans as warriors - so, in others words, our band of heroes are the actual Saxons!! The Saxons in the film appear to be Vikings who don't turn up for another few centuries! The fight on the ice seems to take place in the Himalayas. I'm sure there are others I just can't remember... Anyway, allowing for all of that (and that's a lot to allow for), the movie could still have been saved. The reworking of the legend is a different but welcoming change, but my god, the script is pitiful, the concepts anachronistic (although that didn't do Braveheart any harm) but most of all...most of all, the direction is turgid, lethargic and so bereft of any concept of style or imagination that the mind shudders as to how Fuqua will ever find work again. He seems to have simply tried to emulate scene after scene from Braveheart and Gladiator and fallen short. The choreography of the fight scenes is just boring. If Fuqua was going for realism instead of the highly orchestrated combat that we increasingly see then he should ask Gibson for some tips. Embarrassing.
Tim Smith, Newport, South Wales

I thought Clive Owen was wonderful in the movie. He came across as a brooding, conflicted Roman commander who cares about people when no-one else did. In many scenes, he was reacting to the events happening and he was thinking about what course of action to take. I thought he portrayed that inner conflict well. Anything else would have been overacting. I think the people who didn't like him did not like the one of the main concepts of the movie which is that Arthur changes from a Roman commander to the defender of Britain and that he is conflicted while he does it. I loved the movie!
Marti, Alexandria, Virginia

I would have appreciated the movie more if I hadn't been distracted by the fact that Antoine Fuqua simply ripped the plot right out of his other movie, "Tears of the Sun."
Stella, Toronto, Canada

My husband and I enjoyed this movie even with its glaring mistakes and the stilted acting of Clive Owen! I originally come from the Hadrian's Wall area of North East England and so I found it amusing rather than annoying about the idea that a Roman family would have been living north of the wall, and apparently not just a few miles north but in the Highlands of Scotland (as there are no large snowy mountains anywhere near Hadrian's Wall)! Having said that, I was glad that some attempt at being more historically correct as to the time period and that Arthur and his knights would have been rough, rather boorish men, but very loyal to each other rather than the pretty boy look we saw in Troy! I thought Ioan Gruffudd was very good as Lancelot and Kiera Knightly did a fine job as Guinivere. Overall not bad and quite entertaining.
Andrea, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Well, thank the Pagan gods, the knights stole the show. Their easy-going banter with each other made for some very engaging viewing time and it served to make their loyalty very palpable. Sadly, the stilted opening scene told me not to expect too much from the rest of the film. To my mind, Ioan Gruffudd saved the film. He gave us a brilliant Lancelot showing a side to Gruffudd I hadn't expected. I loved him as Horatio Hornblower but this was definitely not Horatio in knight's armour. His Lancelot was a genuinely passionate and intelligent man; easy to believe he could love Guinevere as Arthur could not. So to lose the legend entirely, to not have had some exchange between Guinevere and Lance - not a tryst but something just a little more than him spying her at her bath, would have been very welcome. Nevertheless, that brooding look as he watched her, had all the promise of passion that every scene with Clive Owen unfortunately lacked.
Helen Walter, Markham, Canada

I enjoyed the movie for its entertainment aspect. It was, furthermore, nice to see an 'Arthur' extracted from the mythos that surrounds him in conventional imagination. But the proem lost me in that it referred to the early mediaeval period as the 'Dark Ages.' Dare I mention the rather premature use of stirrups--at least concealed by movie magic in "Troy"--which were developed in the middle ages? The advancements brought about in architecture, art, thought, writing, poetry, weaponry all contribute to this period's total lack of "darkness." I also had a problem with Guinevere's nice, smooth legs. Where, exactly, were the northern British convenience stores that sold razors? These inaccuracies, and others, kept popping into my mind while I viewed this movie that claims, from its outset, to be 'truth.' I also noticed that there was a rather total lack of blood and gore--a divergence from other recent films whose plots are set in this period. I do not necessarily consider this matter a terribly important issue. But many of the battle scenes appeared a wee bit hokey where beheadings may or may not have occurred. Overall, I probably enjoyed the movie. I will probably own the DVD, as I enjoy most films set in historical periods. And I would certainly suggest that people see it--if only to get a glimpse at an ex-mythos alter-Arthur.
Tyson, Atlanta, GA, USA

A very entertaining movie with a totally different slant on the legend. I was particularly impressed with the concept of ancient mercenaries setting down roots in a foreign country and joining forces with traditional enemies in order to defeat a more threatening foe.
Wayne Parfitt, Houston USA

I liked the movie - it was not at all what I was prepared for but it worked. I compared it to Braveheart but not as bloody. Absolutely adore Clive Owen, what a hunk! his brooding Christian Arthur was very effective in that barbarous time. I hope to see him again and again in the movies!
Jeanne, Hutchinson, MN USA

Drive the movie critics into the sea with the Saxons and go see the movie. No magic in this film? Watch a charismatic and talented cast turn an indigestible and incomprehensible screenplay into plausible dialog and great entertainment. How's that for magic! Arthur has an attractive modern edge and devastating green eyes. Anyone brave enough to do battle with the lines they gave him to say, and who still lives to tell the tale deserves to be King. The subterranean Oedipal fireworks between the Saxon leader and his son give these potentially cartoon villains a genuine scary feel. The visual sampling from other movies may have been a little too greedy, but this film also makes its original contributions to the visual archive. The editing gaffs seem in line with some prevailing non sequitur imperative. How could Arthur have been in full armour one second and in leather-tights-and-tunic mufti the next? No matter. He looked great either way. The film has its flaws, but if charismatic actors, fine performances, and beautiful photography are your thing, don't miss it.
Sonja, Port Angeles, Washington

Its such a shame they didn't spend more of the 90 or 100 million dollars they had in their budget for a decent storyline and script. The beginning and end are truly awful. Real ham-fisted stuff. I'm sure it'll go down quite well in the US but i think the UK audiences will hate it.
Mark James, London , UK

I was speechless. Well, that isn't completely true. During the movie, I found myself nearly in tears laughing. This was atrocious. Historically, it was upsetting. What in the hell was the director thinking? There is nothing historical about it. It reeks of Hollywood exploitation; a blatant abuse of the narrow-minded 'good versus evil' tale, adapted to a period of history that was complex, vivid, and fascinating. I would salute Fuqua for giving history a square kick in the behind, but sadly, it's just one blow in a long history of abuse.
Lion, New York, NY, United States

Worth the price of admission to watch elegant, commanding Clive Owen front and centre. Keira Knightley's fierce delivery was an invigorating surprise. A humanizing script that developed their softer sides could have catapulted the movie to the epic heights it was aiming for. A few mile-high signposts would have helped the average American (Hadrian's Wall. That's in China isn't it?). Stunning visuals. Great, campy Cedric. "Finally, a man worth killing." Love it..
Suzanne, Berkeley, CA USA

I thoroughly enjoyed Arthur but did have a preconceived thought process because of First Knight and would have enjoyed it more if the romantic and mystical aspects had been maintain better.
Pamela Crowell,

I loved it! I went to see it twice already. I love the different take on the Arthurian legend. What knight really went around in shining armour? Obviously one that didn't fight! Give me a knight with a few nicks in his breastplate! I enjoyed seeing the friendship between Artorius and Lancelot. Many movies make Lance to be a back stabbing idiot and Guinevere to be some simple minded female. I liked the dark age touch and the bit of background we get in the beginning of the movie. I had never heard about the Sarmatian knights so this twist was refreshing. It seemed like the film-makers concentrated more on portraying human emotions, friendship and stuff that we go through for real instead of trying to recreate epic scenes and compete with films already released. I wouldn't mind reading a book on this take. :o)
Brandy, Richmond, VA USA

The movie mixes historical authenticity with some errors. It was almost correctly set in the right timeline. It was about 30-40 years too early. If there was an Arthur he was a Briton fighting around the turn of the C6th. The arrival of the Saxon army was very well done. However the Roman army itself had left the province about 50 years before this movie was set. The knights' rough attitudes and behaviour is believable. I thoroughly enjoyed it, except for the history gaffs inc. a Roman family living north of Hadrian's Wall. If you like real history see the movie. It's a fascinating look at that period. I thought it was very believably acted by Clive Owen. my husband & I got our money's worth.
Sue Kelly, Metairie USA

I went to see this movie for two reasons - 1. to see Clive Owen, and 2. because I love the Arthurian legend. Yes, this film is quite a departure from films on this topic that have been made in the past, but the way I look at it - this new film is just one piece of the overall puzzle. I like the new take on the legend. I knew going in that this one would be very different, so I was prepared. The men in this film - Clive Owen, in particular are stunningly handsome and very masculine in my opinion. They all put in incredible performances, and I was very pleased to see real emotion from all involved, not some Hollywood version of feelings and reactions to events. I was sucked into the story, and felt a deep connection to all that was being played out before me. As for Keira Knightley's performance, she had me rooting for her and thinking "Woman Power!" as she shot arrows and fought like a warrior. I plan on seeing the film again this summer, just to savour again the feeling of being transported to Roman Britain.
Jannie, Coppell,TX

I thoroughly enjoyed King Arthur. I watched it without trying to fit it into any previous movies or books on the Arthurian legend. I liked the characters, including Arthur, Bors, Lancelot and Guinivere. I enjoyed the villains and the battles. I took my grandchildren to see it and they liked it, too. The young boys liked the fights, the pre-teen girl liked Guinivere and the knights. I liked it more than Gladiator which seemed mean-spirited and harsh. I compare it more to First Knight -- a fun heroes and villains tale.
April, Berkeley, USA

You've got to like an even half-baked realization of a story wherein myth meets history and no true "original" exists. Sure, it failed in some glaring ways to live up to all the potential tellings that are available to us at this rather late date. But Holy Grail and Love Triangle stuff intertwined much later with the legends that were established and re-established. Even if it's just a stab, the movie holds together a least a little bit better than some other efforts I've seen. I was somewhat pleasantly surprised after all the negative response. And there was a little social commentary as well. . .
Andy Ferguson, Santa Cruz, CA

I cannot believe some of the comments that I've been reading! As an English teacher and professor of 14 years, I was thrilled with it. Finally a movie set in the correct century. We are so used to Mallory's ultra romanticized Medieval edition of "knights in shining armour" that we have forgotten that he was a Romanized Briton. I am looking forward to the day when I can show this to my students. Yes, all movies have their blunders and weak spots, but I loved the dialogue and characterization of the knights -- especially Bors and the lone wolf Tristan -- was that Mongol armour he wore? Cool! They probably would have been rough and coarse, not urbane and dancing a volta at a banquet. Most movies of Arthur are almost too sanitized. I mean a knight with a clean face and hands perfectly clean shaven? Yeah, right. Yes, I enjoy the fantasy of the legend as much as anyone, but it was nice to see the courage to be different. Bravo Fuqua and Bruckheimer! Truth is not always "pretty" -- well, as close to the truth as we can get about Arturios. I felt the brotherhood and solidarity of the knights was the film's strength. In today's moral climate of vacillating values, it was nice to see honour and integrity as almost palpable characters.
Jessie, Chesterfield, Virginia (USA)

Was really looking forward to seeing this film. Unfortunately it's probably the worst film I've seen in years. Only good thing about it was the scenery, oh and the trailers!
matt docherty, Houston, Texas

Why do people always feel the need to criticize Hollywood for entertaining us? This was a good film - certainly more historically-accurate then other films on King Arthur and without the lame coloured tights - and one that I, my friends and the audience I saw with enjoyed. Movies are for fun, for relaxing with friends and for taking you out of your stressful life for a while and ENTERTAINING you. "King Arthur" does just that and I'd recommend it to everyone.
Kris, Chicago, IL

I totally disagree with previous comments that the battle sequences are not entertaining and that the acting was stilted. I paid for my seat, like all the real movie fans have to, and left the cinema entertained. The people in the theatre with me seemed to enjoy every minute, as I did. They laughed loudly, boo-ed, and grimaced in all the right places too. The kid next to me hid his eyes in the love sequence, so I was watching him and don't know what I/he missed I was laughing so much! The smoke in certain sequences was part of the battle strategy used to defeat overwhelming numbers of the invaders, so I do not understand the 'negative impact' comment about its use. I liked the story in this movie, wasn't bothered that the dialogue has been brought up to date. I'm more annoyed by certain Romans having Italian accents, and others not, than the use of contemporary verbage. Clive Owen can too act his way out of a paper bag - and he is very attractive to the females in the audience.
Anne , Dallas, TX

I actually liked the film. The part I don't get (after reading all of the other comments) is why does everyone expect the story to follow the original legend word for word? I watched Troy - that wasn't even close to the original story, except for the horse. Some things get cut to suit the 30-second attention span that most people have these days. Personally - I liked Bors (I do think it is possible that his character would have acted that way - he is a guy even in 5th century AD (what do guys like to talk about most in this world?) AND he doesn't want to get married (even with children - surprise!!)). Yes - most of the acting by Owen is a little stilted - he didn't show all of the emotion that he should have had in his scenes, but over all the movie was good. Plus is made me laugh, even if it was unintentional. I would see it again.
Garrie, Fort Walton Beach, FL

My wife and I were both amused and disappointed by the whole spectacle. We certainly expected more from the cast and would agree that the movie did not work as a whole. We are still trying to figure out how the gates of the wall fort opened to admit the Saxons and then closed again without any human intervention when it took a pair of huge horses to open them earlier... I think the idea of setting Arthur in a different part of the country and a different time is an interesting device, but I would rather see a director make a version of Bernard Cornwell's Arthur trilogy - a more realistic version of events I expect. Save your money until this movie goes to the discount cinemas - it is worth $2 to see Kiera Knightley in her Britney Spears warrior costume...
Rick Barnes, Collierville, TN, USA

This film did not work. I am not sure if the problem was in the direction, screenplay or the editing but the whole thing seemed pointless and lacklustre. It looked as if when they got the dailies back on the first day they saw there was a problem but contracts had been signed and there was no going back. In an attempt to redeem Arthur from the bargain bin they threw money at extras and smoke hoping the spectacle might awe audiences. However the camera work and direction was so poor that the film cannot even pass in terms of spectacle. Every clich� in the book was taken out and dusted off in an attempt to force audiences to engage but all ultimately failed. There are only two battle scenes and both lack any emotional intensity, partly due to awful cinematography, partly due to you wondering how fast you can get out of the cinema. There are two romance scenes. In both Keira Knightly attempts open-mouthed emotion and in return receives a peck on the lips. Clive Owen as the principled leader cannot even convince his horse to stand to attention. It brays and neighs and spins in circles as he sucks the life out of another emotionless scene. Keira Knightly tries her best and if her efforts had received any form of reciprocation might have salvaged some scenes but because of her intensity and Owen's lack of intensity her doughy eyes start to look a bit overdone. The next time the King Arthur story is told let's hope it is told by somebody who understands the story. How can we have a Merlin and have no voodoo? How can we have a Guinevere and have no passion? How can we have a King Arthur and have no timeless loyalty? Waste of time and money. Our recommendation.... Buy Excalibur on DVD.
Ken & Ann, New York, New York

The whole reason I wanted to see it was that Ioan Gruffudd plays Lancelot. I hope this will expose him to a wider American audience meaning I'll get to see him in more than made-for-TV miniseries (not that I'm complaining. Horatio Hornblower is second only to Band of Brothers in the race for greatest miniseries of all time)and 102 Dalmatians (ugh). As Lancelot I thought he was great. I also thought Keira Knightly made a decent showing. Clive Owen though, for some reason he came across more... swarthy. Arthur isn't supposed to be swarthy, myth or no myth. Overall though I have to say I enjoyed the movie. A few missteps along the way are quickly swallowed by the action sequences. I have to say though if I wasn't a huge King Arthur fan I would have felt cheated, they didn't really cover the characters much, without the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur love triangle (a welcome subtraction) all that's left are the men who made up the knights and their interaction with each other ! and their liege.
Suzanne, Huntsville, AL

I went to the world premiere of this movie in New York. After getting out of it half of the people who sat through it swore that they would have demanded their money back had it not been for the fact that they were at a world premiere. the acting was horrible (especially that of the emotionless Arthur played by Owen and the out of era incredibly annoying Viking played by Skarsgard) and one could not help but cringe from the bad dialogue and worse acting. To top it off, the final battle scene is bloodless, lacking in tension, and easily eclipsed by battle scenes in Gladiator, Braveheart, and Troy.
Michael , New York, NY

Why do film-makers always feel that they have to rip off a perfectly good legend or part of history and mess it all up just for the sake of entertainment? I enjoy historical fiction just as much as the next person but I personally feel that the original story would have made a just as good, if not better, movie.
Beka, San Diego, CA