I saw this in the cinema on its release and recently watched it again on television(I have not seen the directors cut as yet).
I guess I can understand those who are upset with the historical inaccuracies, but really who expects Hollywood to be historically accurate anyhow. Most writers and producers change history to suit their own ideas.
I live in the UK and did not expect this to be totally accurate and indeed it was probably less accurate than I expected, nevertheless I still managed to put this aside and be entertained.
I felt the atmosphere created felt real, the image of Arthur and his Knights was changed from previous screen adaptations but the sense of legend and images of bravery and camaraderie remained.
I did find Clive Owen to be not the best choice the first time I saw it, however on second viewing I thought his performance a little better. Ioan Gruffudd performed very well as Lancelot and Ray Winstone provided some humour as Boors. Hugh Dancy & Joel Edgerton were also good as Galahad & Gawain. Stellen Skaarsgard was fitting as the evil Saxon leader, Tils Schweiger was decent but had very little to say as Skaarsgard's son. I found Keira Knightley almost bewitching as the strong & beautiful Guinevere.
All in all it was a very entertaining and original screen portrayal of the Arthurian Legend if historically inaccurate.
The only problem I had was the utter stupidity of the Saxons in this film to be slaughtered in the main battle at the end. Their tactics were utterly ridiculous and frankly unbelievable. They seemed to have formulated no real plan, and assumed that their greater numbers would be sufficient.
Still aside form this I would recommend it and give it 6.5 out of 10. I would say it is not as good as Spartacus, Gladiator, Braveheart or Troy etc.. but I would say if you enjoyed The Patriot or Kingdom of Heaven, this film is pretty much in the same class.
Please do not alway's take movie critics views as gospel, it is only their opinion. You need to make up your own mind.
I guess I can understand those who are upset with the historical inaccuracies, but really who expects Hollywood to be historically accurate anyhow. Most writers and producers change history to suit their own ideas.
I live in the UK and did not expect this to be totally accurate and indeed it was probably less accurate than I expected, nevertheless I still managed to put this aside and be entertained.
I felt the atmosphere created felt real, the image of Arthur and his Knights was changed from previous screen adaptations but the sense of legend and images of bravery and camaraderie remained.
I did find Clive Owen to be not the best choice the first time I saw it, however on second viewing I thought his performance a little better. Ioan Gruffudd performed very well as Lancelot and Ray Winstone provided some humour as Boors. Hugh Dancy & Joel Edgerton were also good as Galahad & Gawain. Stellen Skaarsgard was fitting as the evil Saxon leader, Tils Schweiger was decent but had very little to say as Skaarsgard's son. I found Keira Knightley almost bewitching as the strong & beautiful Guinevere.
All in all it was a very entertaining and original screen portrayal of the Arthurian Legend if historically inaccurate.
The only problem I had was the utter stupidity of the Saxons in this film to be slaughtered in the main battle at the end. Their tactics were utterly ridiculous and frankly unbelievable. They seemed to have formulated no real plan, and assumed that their greater numbers would be sufficient.
Still aside form this I would recommend it and give it 6.5 out of 10. I would say it is not as good as Spartacus, Gladiator, Braveheart or Troy etc.. but I would say if you enjoyed The Patriot or Kingdom of Heaven, this film is pretty much in the same class.
Please do not alway's take movie critics views as gospel, it is only their opinion. You need to make up your own mind.