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
Althrough Cerdic is the villain of the film, his name is not mentioned once in the entire film. See more »
The winter scenes were clearly filmed in summer; there are leaves on the trees, nobody has visible frosty breath, and the snow is clearly fake. 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 »
Here are the facts about the "Age of Arthur." The Roman legions pulled out in 410 (over 50 years before this film's period). The Saxons were INVITED by King Vortigern in 449 as mercenaries against invading Irish, Scots and Picts (note: they were NOT called "Woads.") Saxons were NOT mono-syllabic troglodytes, but actually warrior-farmers with a sophisticated culture. After a few generations, the Angles and Saxons - led by Cerdic of Wessex - came into conflict with the Romano-Celts, led by Ambrosius Aurelianus. Artorius (Arthur) was apparently one of Ambrosius' generals. He fought ten battles against the Germanic tribes, culminating in the Battle of Badon sometime between 500 and 510 (40-50 years AFTER this film's period).
NONE of this information came out in this film. I am somewhat familiar with the "Sarmatian" legend, but there is little evidence for it (in fact, Roman legionaries in Britain came from all over the Empire).
As "history," this film gets an "F". As entertainment...? The characters were shallow, the acting was amateurish, and the dialogue was plodding and trite. As a "found comedy," it works rather well - I found myself laughing through most of it. As a serious film and an attempt to portray "history," however, it is seriously flawed. Skip this one and read "Crystal Cave" or "Mists of Avalon" instead.
128 of 233 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?