Based on a more realistic portrayal of "Arthur" than has ever been presented onscreen. The film will focus on the history and politics of the period during which Arthur ruled -- when the Roman empire collapsed and skirmishes over power broke out in outlying countries -- as opposed to the mystical elements of the tale on which past Arthur films have focused. Written by
In David Franzoni's original script, the love triangle so central to the original myth between Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot was a major part of the plot, as it is in most filmic adaptations of the Arthurian legend (such as John Boorman's Excalibur (1981) for example). However, during his research for the film, director Antoine Fuqua came to believe that there was no truth to the love triangle aspect of the story and had Franzoni rewrite the script without it. See more »
Throughout the movie, the politics of Rome are portrayed as if the Pope ruled the empire: A bishop, rather than a military officer, is sent to deliver the knights' discharges, and the decision to send them on one last mission is made by the Pope alone. In reality, both the Western and Eastern Empires were ruled by Emperors. The Pope, on the other hand, was not even the head of the entire church (let alone an empire) at this time - he was still just the Bishop of Rome. While he was highly regarded by the rest of the bishops in Christendom, it would be another 600 years before the Pope was recognized as the head of the entire church. See more »
By 300 AD, the Roman Empire extended from Arabia to Britain. But they wanted more. More land. More peoples loyal and subservient to Rome. But no people so important as the powerful Sarmatians to the east. Thousands died on that field. And when the smoke cleared on the fourth day, the only Sarmatian soldiers left alive were members of the decimated but legendary cavalry. The Romans, impressed by their bravery and horsemanship, spared their lives. In exchange, these ...
[...] See more »
There are no opening credits, not even the production company and studio bumpers, only the title. See more »
They could also act better and write a decent script. Nothing in this film makes sense:
the "britons" who live in Scotland and dress like their predecessors of 4
Pretty much everything about the armour and weapons (far too much to
mention in under 1000 words).
In fact everything that tries to pass for history in this
The ability of everyone to understand 3 or more languages
Britons fighting Saxons in the Borders under a Roman
Clive Owen thinking he can act
Anyone thinking that script wouldn't make people laugh till it
Roman conscription lasting 15 years and ending with a return to
Low infant mortality rate and model-like mother of 11 healthy
brats(particularly made me laugh)
Leaving a well defended fort to fight superior forces in the
Magical Mystery Fort Doors that close their many-tonned-selves
The phrase "Historians agree"
The world's lightest heavy cavalry and most accurate
100s of arrows from 8 bows
The cruddy ripoff of Aleksandr Nevsky
The many many cruddy ripoffs of Braveheart (a film which despite being
historically laughable is excellent entertainment unlike this one)
And on and on and on and on.....
It's not just that it's poor history it's bad storytelling and makes the film painful to watch even if the script did engender any interest from the audience or the numerous dreadful performances didn't remove any prospect of caring for or about the characters.
1/10 and that's only because of the bit-part guy that put on a funny Somerset accent at one point. He, at least, clearly knew a little bit about the legends and history this farce pretends to represent.
As a final thought - I don't know why Miss Knightley is drawn to bloody awful adaptations of English legends but I wish she'd stop it.
94 of 159 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?