In 400 AD, the Roman Empire extends to Britain and the Romans become impressed with the fight skills of the warrior Sarmatian people, which are spared, but have to send their sons to serve Rome in the cavalry for fifteen years. Only after these services, these knights are free to return home. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table have their last mission before achieving their freedom.Written by
Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Hugh Dancy (Galahad) and Mads Mikkelsen (Tristan) meet again almost a decade later in Hannibal (2013), playing Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter respectively. See more »
Goofs
In the final battle, the Woads are shown using trebuchets. Catapults would have existed in Europe at this time, but not trebuchets. The traction trebuchet did not reach Byzantium from China until sometime in the late 6th century, over 100 years after the time of the film, and the counterweight trebuchet (the one used in the film) did not reach Europe until the 12th century (over 700 years after the time of the film). See more »
Quotes
[first lines]
Lancelot:
[voiceover]
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 »
Crazy Credits
There are no opening credits, not even the production company and studio bumpers, only the title. See more »
Alternate Versions
The film was originally envisioned and shot as an R-rated piece with corresponding graphic violence. However, after the picture had been edited, Disney executives demanded it be changed to a PG-13, hence necessitating a lot of effects work to remove the blood from the battle scenes. Additionally, a number of scenes were removed and rearranged, and some new scenes were added. In total, the Director's Cut runs roughly 15 minutes longer than the theatrical cut. These additions include:
a scene of young Arthur (Shane Murray-Corcoran) with his mother (Stephanie Putson), and then a scene where he discusses freedom with Pelagius (Owen Teale) whilst he watches the young Lancelot arrive on the hilltop.
during the first battle, aside from the additional blood that was digitally removed from the theatrical version, numerous quick shots have been added. These include: Picts dragging Romans off their horses and killing them; a Pict slashing at a horse with his sword, causing it to fall; a Pict decapitating a soldier and holding his head aloft, only to be beheaded himself from behind; a Pict hit with an arrow; a Pict impaled on a spear; a Pict hit in the back with an arrow whilst trying to get to the Bishop; a scene of a Pict being hit in the eye with an arrow; a scene of Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) decapitating a Pict by using his swords like a scissors; a scene of Bors (Ray Winstone) fighting with his 'gloved knives'; a scene of Bors stabbing a Pict in the throat.
after the battle, in the theatrical version, the fake bishop (Bosco Hogan) has an arrow in his chest; in the Director's Cut, it is in his head.
a scene where the knights approach the real Germanius (Ivano Marescotti) with their weapons drawn, before realizing that all is well and sheathing them.
the conversation between Germanius and Arthur (Clive Owen) is longer.
a scene of the knights toasting their fallen comrades at the Round Table.
a scene where Germanius visits the knights as they prepare to leave, and they show him their disapproval of the mission.
the Director's Cut does not contain the scene where the knights sit around a camp fire talking about their prospective lives in Sarmatia.
a scene where some dead soldiers are found on the side of the road.
a conversation between Lancelot and Guinevere (Keira Knightley) about England and the weather.
another conversation between Lancelot and Guinevere, this time at night, where they discuss family and faith. The scene ends with Lancelot telling her he would have left her in the dungeon.
the first conversation between Merlin (Stephen Dillane) and Arthur has been edited differently with different takes used.
a scene of Bors sitting at Dagonet's grave, getting drunk.
the sex scene between Guinevere and Arthur is in a different place in both versions of the film. In the theatrical version, Arthur is seen in full battle armor, examining the broken image of Pelagius, when he is alerted that the Saxons are heading towards Hadrian's Wall. He runs outside, but when he appears, he is hastily putting on his shirt, and his hair is disheveled, thus creating something of a continuity error. The sex scene follows this scene. In the Director's Cut however, after the conversation between Arthur and Guinevere where they discuss his morality, they begin to have sex only to be interrupted with the news of the Saxons. The scene then cuts to Arthur appearing on the wall, putting on his shirt. As such, the scene where he is examining Pelagius's image is absent from the Director's Cut. The scenes have been edited together differently as well, with the sex scene in the Director's Cut being slightly longer than the theatrical version.
a scene where Cynric (Til Schweiger) is demoted for his failure during the ice battle. His frustration is much to Cerdic's (Stellan Skarsgård) amusement.
a scene of the knights leaving Hadrian's Wall amidst hundreds of small fires set by the Saxons.
the scene of the confused Saxons in the fog is longer, with more Saxons being chopped down, including one having his arm severed.
the scene of the sole Saxon survivor (Joe McKinney) running back to the Saxons is longer.
during the final battle, aside from the additional blood that was digitally removed from the theatrical version, numerous quick shots have been added. These include: a scene of a Saxon impaled by an ax in his chest; a scene of Guinevere stabbing a fallen adversary; a scene of a Saxon being stabbed in the throat; a scene of Guinevere stabbing a Saxon in his crotch; a scene of Arthur ramming his sword into a Saxon's throat; a scene of Gawain (Joel Edgerton) being shot in the chest with an arrow and pulling it out; the scene of several female warriors overpowering a Saxon is much longer and more violent as the women begin to literally tear him to pieces; a scene of Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen) slowly approaching Cerdic; a scene of Bors being stabbed in the back but continuing to fight; a scene of Ganis (Charlie Creed-Miles) fighting a Saxon inside the Wall; a scene where a Saxon is stabbed in the face; the battle between Tristan and Cerdic is longer and more graphic; the scene of Lancelot being wounded is in slow motion; the scene of Cerdic's death is longer and includes a new conclusion where he and Lancelot crawl towards one another and Lancelot stabs him through the throat; the fight between Cerdic and Arthur is slightly longer, with Arthur stabbing Cerdic a final time after Cerdic has whispered Arthur's name.
What can I say that most already have not? Well not a lot.
My opinion on the movie is that, like many others have said, it's nothing like the legend. I went into this movie expecting it to at lease follow some of the story line for what I knew.. But nothing really happened. They touch small bases of the story and sure they say 'the true story' but no one knows if it even happened! So no one can really make such a statement. Also if they are trying to make a more 'realistic' one then they could of still used the King Arthur story that he actually dies? There is the love affair between Lancelot and Guinevere? King Arthur's love affair and his son? Really if they had to make 2 or 3 movies to fit it all it, I would be more happy with that than how this one turned out.
I went in knowing the story and didn't enjoy it as much, but my cousin went in not knowing much more than there was a King Arthur and a sword.. He enjoyed it a lot more.
It's just another war movie, and I really think it would be a good one! If it didn't use it as the King Arthur story.
Most King Arthur fans will be disappointed I believe, but none the less.. it's a good movie if you take away the whole 'King Arthur' legend from your mind.
4 of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
What can I say that most already have not? Well not a lot.
My opinion on the movie is that, like many others have said, it's nothing like the legend. I went into this movie expecting it to at lease follow some of the story line for what I knew.. But nothing really happened. They touch small bases of the story and sure they say 'the true story' but no one knows if it even happened! So no one can really make such a statement. Also if they are trying to make a more 'realistic' one then they could of still used the King Arthur story that he actually dies? There is the love affair between Lancelot and Guinevere? King Arthur's love affair and his son? Really if they had to make 2 or 3 movies to fit it all it, I would be more happy with that than how this one turned out.
I went in knowing the story and didn't enjoy it as much, but my cousin went in not knowing much more than there was a King Arthur and a sword.. He enjoyed it a lot more.
It's just another war movie, and I really think it would be a good one! If it didn't use it as the King Arthur story.
Most King Arthur fans will be disappointed I believe, but none the less.. it's a good movie if you take away the whole 'King Arthur' legend from your mind.