King Arthur (2004)
7/10
A fine movie.
25 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Every single Message Board on IMDb has someone who posts "Worst Movie Ever". There are a great many terrible movies made every year, but this was not one of them in my humble opinion. It was very entertaining and introduced the audience to a new take on the Arthurian legend. As noted in the IMDb goofs section, there were a number of historical mistakes if this was to have taken place in 5th century Britain, such as the use of crossbows and trebuchets. However, that didn't take away from my enjoyment of the movie.

There were some scenes which were kind of ridiculous, but well filmed. For instance, when they defeat the Saxons on the frozen lake. I thought it was very well filmed, with great special effects, but the whole idea was pretty far-fetched. And later on we see Keira Knightley, all 105 pounds of her wearing a leather bikini, attacking the Saxon hordes. She does quite well in battle, killing at least 6 of them by my count. Obviously, that is just not realistic even if she had been trained by the 5th century equivalent of Jet Li. Just a few short scenes ago, she had been imprisoned and starving in a sadistic jail cell, and is now offing 230-pound muscular Saxons by the handful.

Neverless, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I thought the battle scenes were really well done, and it was not at all what I was expecting. I have no idea why some people are posting "This movie sucks" other than the fact that they just like to post that regardless of what they actually thought.

R.
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed