I have just seen King Arthur and what a disappointment! I have seen heaps of movies, and I am able to stomach a lot, having enjoyed mediocre films like, Van Helsing for instance. Van Helsing at least was silly, but had no pretensions of being anything else, King Arthur on the other hand, is a little movie, very predictable, filled with plot clichés that you have seen in countless other motion pictures, but has pretensions of being something extraordinary. Well, surprise, surprise it is not! There is not even enough camp in this movie to grant it a sort of je ne se quois to make it enjoyable. Even the soundtrack is a rip off of Gladiator, without even fitting the movie adequately. Hans Zimmer should know better than to copy/paste from is own work, some of us might notice!

Most of the acting is pretty good. I have especially enjoyed Ioan Gruffud as Lancelot and Clive Owen and Arthur, both of them make a very good effort given the silly lines they have, especially Owen who's lines are extra silly. Most of the actors are competent with the exception of Til Schweiger as Cynric and I felt that such a great actor as Stephen Dillane (Merlin) was completely wasted and given no chance to show is quality.

The direction was pretty bad and uneven. Antoine Fucqua doesn't show the talent he has demonstrated in Training day or even Tears of the Sun, the movie is a mess from start to finish. Visually, I must admit, it looks good. Slawomir Idziak's cinematography is really good and I hope to see some of his work in the future.

I have a lot more problems with this movie which I won't detail much further, with the exception of two that I cannot overlook. First of all, trebuches (the catapult thingies) were invented by the French during the 100 year old war, several centuries later, and not by Merlin. In a movie that brags about historical realism and accuracy, this strikes as odd. Besides, if Merlin had this kind of weapons, why not used it against the Romans in the first place? Another gripe, and this a big one, is the complete absence of gore! Did people in the "Dark Ages" not have blood? The battle scenes are violent but no blood! What's the point? Again if you want to have a realistic take on this period of history, why the absence of realism in the battle scenes? Do the filmmakers think that a PG-13 rating will get them more money at the box-office? Having seen this mess I seriously doubt it!

Summarizing, this movie is a complete mess with the exception of some of the performances, namely the Knights and most of all Gruffud's and Owen's acting. As for the rest, it is dumb, predictable, not very original in terms of plot and a complete disappointment! Long live Excalibur (John Boorman) that with it's 23 years it is still the best Kig Arthur story in movie history.

In recent movies coming out of Hollywood there seems to be a trend towards attempting to unveil the true character behind some of history's most mysterious individuals. With most of us having been brought up on tales of a medieval King Arthur and the magic of Camelot, it was a risk for those who initiated this movie to attempt to expose the man behind the myth, so to speak. In my opinion, through a combination of realistic battle scenes, stunning cinematography and well rounded characters this movie is successful.

This tale takes us on a journey with King Arthur's knights as they embark on a final quest for Rome. The issue of religious persecution is raised on numerous occasions in the duration of this movie and relates to contemporary circumstances where religious belief can be used as a form of power and means of superiority. Themes such as this raise the film above the average Bruckheimer production. However, the dialogue is still cliché in places, and mid-battle jokes can fall flat on audiences that have grown weary of them in films such as LORD OF THE RINGS and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. Fortunately, the battle scenes are realistic and don't bombard us with Jackie Chan like maneuvers that the knights have suddenly and inexplicably learned.

The movie is beautifully shot with a variety of landscapes ranging from Hadrian's Wall to icy snow-covered hills and peasant villages. This ensures that the audience always has something new to look at, but also paints a realistic picture of the poverty and harsh environment of the time.

My only complaint about this film would have to be that some of the acting and characterisation was a little disappointing. Clive Owen's 'Arthur' was a little internalised and predictable. While other characters, such as Lancelot (Ioan Gruffud), are fabulously flawed, Arthur is always thinking of others and making the right decisions. His humanity never falters. Owen delivers his lines woodenly and without the passion one wishes to see from such a great warrior and humanitarian. Whilst the writers have dared to put a different spin on the characters of Lancelot and Guinevere (Keira Knightly), they seem to have stuck with the Arthur of legend. Knightly's performance was certainly nothing special. Her role in the movie was unclear as she seemed to only be there to run around in skimpy outfits, although I'm sure the intention was to create a strong female character. I thought her survival in battle was unrealistic as she was much smaller and weaker than the thousands of large trained warriors she was fighting, particularly since she had apparently nearly starved to death after being walled up in a tomb for her Pagan beliefs. Although Knightly is beautiful, her performances in movies thus far have yet to convince me of her acting abilities.

Overall, I thought this movie was unique in that it depicted a time not often portrayed in modern cinema. It had strong themes with a good mix of humour, romance and action. Although the film had its flaws, I would definitely recommend it as I believe it would appeal to a wide audience.

'King Arthur' attempts a great deal with its screenplay but I'd be reluctant to say that it succeeds with any of it.

An effort to tell a dark ages, speculative "historical" King Arthur tale whilst also servicing a 'sword and sandals' historical action adventure film is beyond this script.

For the majority of film-goers confusion and complexity abound due to the convoluted choices taken in the films premise: something which a straightforwards adventure warfare central plot and thinly written characters can't mitigate.

A central plot hole is why the Roman high ranking family need rescuing....at all....the Roman's are withdrawing, we are told, but a very valuable Catholic/aristocratic family are living well beyond the frontier of the Roman Empire at a time when it's enemies are shown to be penetrating into its own territory on this very frontier.

Why are they there? Why did they go there? Stay there? Why haven't they already been destroyed by "woads" who seem capable of penetrating a guarded fortified Roman frontier and trapping Roman forces that enter their territory?

Answers? This film has none.

But it allows the script to motivate the "woads", Roman's, Arthur's knights and the Saxons all onto a convenient collision course.

Convenient is the word.

Essentially this is another stupid historical action adventure sword and sandals war film complete with desperate plot devices; but with thinly written characters, cartoon baddies, some wooden performances, under equipped production, unconvincing battlefield stunts; and all this attempting to sustain a heavy load of highly speculative and debatable pic and mix story treatments regarding the end of Roman Britain, the "dark age" transition, post and sub-Roman Britannia, Christianization, the Anglo-Saxon migration and of course the possible origins of the legends of "King Arthur" before the high medieval romance tradition.

My rating is a disappointed 4/10 because 'King Arthur' tries to be clever, interesting, unusual and different in its abstract values but then saddles itself with bilge levels of predictability and utterly usual story lines and plot mechanics and characterizations plus unconvincing production values.

Finally the number of horses running free at the end, that represents Arthur's fallen comrades seems crass and unsympathetic to Arthur...why would it just be those friends he lost during the events of this film? But not all his knights through his command. Those knights missing from his round table. Those friends and comrades he had lost which apparently meant a lot to him when he had to posture in front of a Roman Bishop? That sums up for me how unconvincing this film is with its own characters, even the filmmakers don't believe in the realness of their characters!