King Arthur (2004)
4/10
Dire
7 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Sorry, but this film is dire.

Primarily it suffers from a BAD case of Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves Geography... Saxons invading from the North of Hadrians Wall? With nice round shields and pretty hair? Surely Mr Bruckheimer is thinking of the Vikings? Only a few centuries early eh Jerry!

And Stone Henge on Tintagel?

Maybe if you're not familiar with the layout of England and if you don't have even a rudimentary grasp of British history, you could enjoy this film as a mindless bit of action fluff. But if you do posses either of the two above attributes, you will find this film to be another frustrating example of Hollywood not letting silly details like facts or Geography get in the way of a fast buck (a la Braveheart, U571, The Patriot etc.. etc..)

So for any non Brits reading this who like a bit of Arthurian action, allow me to give you a few tips...

Stonehenge not near sea. Tintagel near sea but no stones. Hadrians wall at top of country... Stone Henge, King Arthur, Avalon, Tintagel and Saxons at bottom of country!

See! It's easy when you know how!

Oh! And for any Robin Hood fans, white cliffs not near Sherwood Forest. Sorry.

Anyway. Poo film. Even without the Arthur stuff, it's just plain wrong in so many ways. Giant frozen lakes in England? Where?

Even without the stupidity, it's a bad film.

These actors should have known better.
169 out of 252 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed