Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous asked in Entertainment & MusicMovies · 1 decade ago


it's the film with Clive Owen (ARTHUR) and Keira Knightley (GUINEVERE).

4 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Good concept. Poorly executed.

    The whole thought of King Arthur being a leftover from the legions of the Roman Empire is a good thought. When Rome abandons the island, a Roman officer without a job unites the country together again.

    Look in to the book "Firelord" by Parke Godwin. It's a long but good read about how Arthur was brought up in Roman Brittania and became a centurion watching over Hadrian's Wall. Like the movie, but it continues a little more from the ending of "King Arthur"

  • 1 decade ago

    I have done a fair bit of research on the origins of the Arthur legends, and I have to say, this comes probably closer than any to the "truth." I think it still missed the mark historically, as the real Arthur seems to have lived further south (although there are stories of him in the north), and in the time after the Roman withdrawal, not during. His success was apparently due to his use of Calvary, so the horse part they seem to have right.

    What is certain is that there were no knights and castles in the time of the real Arthur. That comes from the medieval romance "l'Morte de Artur" by Mallory. So, the movie got that part right on. The idea of the "woad" woman fighting was also correct. Celtic women did fight alongside their men. Queen Boadicea of the Icene even led a resurrection that almost defeated the Romans.

    So, as a history, it is good, not not great. But, still far better than any other fictional treatment of Arthur with the exception of Jack Whyte's series. As a movie, well, I enjoyed it! Enough to buy the DVD after having seen it at a theatre. Romance, fighting, great cinematography - what's not to like?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The main problem with this film was not just the poor characterisation and the unambitious story line but that it was supposed to be based on new historical evidence. While it is true that the Roman Empire of the early fifth century did enlist soldiers and units from border tribes like the Sarmatians, it is unlikely that they were ever posted as far away from Rome as Britain. It is most likely that Sarmatian soldiers were posted in Sarmatia as a Roman defense against their enemies.

    The makers of this movie had the audacity, when marketing King Arthur, to suggest that it was 'the untold true story that inspired the legend.' However, this sort of claim is undermined by including characters from Arthurian medieval legend like Lancelot, Merlin, Galahad and Bors. The acting also is weak and even the normally excellent Clive Owen comes across as almost wooden in his portrayal of King Arthur. Stephen Dillane looks good as Merlin as do those playing the Saxons, but the characterisation of Lancelot, Bors and others, just undermines the fairly reasonable cinematography and the decent score by Hans Zimmer. My only defence of this movie would be that it is good to see an Arthurian story that takes place in the Dark Ages and not in a medieval setting. It is also likely that a mainstream movie like this will get people interested in British history, but that does not take away the fact that Antoine Fuqua's film is neither good as a history lesson or as an entertaining cinematic experience.

  • 1 decade ago

    I don't like that movie.

    It's the worst movie I've ever seen!!!!!!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.