King Arthur (2004) User Reviews

Fresh Look On An Old Theme

[lillian.lee · 7/10 · 4 August 2004]

And I loved it!

Not just the new take on the King Arthur legend and the able cast, but the colors, the costumes, the landscapes, the horses, and Hans Zimmer's heart-pounding score.

I'm no King Arthur scholar but I have always been enamored with the chivalric ideals. It's great to see the knights in shining armor and Merlin conjuring up the mists and casting spells, and the young Arthur pulling Excalibur out of the stone.

But I went into this movie with an open mind. I was swiftly transported to that earlier time and happy for the journey. I could see where the elements of the now oh-so-familiar Arthurian themes may have had their beginnings. I found the on-screen chemistry between Ioan Gruffod and Clive Owen to be very powerful and it provided poignant counterpoint to Lancelot's most fateful choice.

The love triangle was never my favorite part of the Arthurian legends, so the subtle treatment of it here didn't bother me at all. In fact, I found it more intriguing in this film than in any other King Arthur movie I've seen.

I loved that there was no hocus-pocus-type magic. Instead the magic was in nature itself - the landscapes, the forests, the rain, the fog, the ice and snow - all creating an other-worldly atmosphere along with Moya Brennan's haunting vocals and Hans Zimmer's stirring score.

I loved the knights. I loved the idea that they were just regular guys and, in effect, drafted into military service. Not the privileged elite who volunteered their services to a king. Yet it is apparent that the Sarmatian knights fought more out of their love and respect for Arthur than any duty to Rome. That comraderie feels very organic and the sentiments, pure. I liked that they're not all wearing the same uniform, that they might have picked up pieces here and there as spoils of war.

I was especially captivated by Mads Mikkelson's Tristan. There appeared to be Eastern influences in his tattoos, clothing, sword, and fighting style. I love the idea of Lancelot using two swords. And I learned something about battlefield strategy, too.

Whatever shortcomings this movie may have, I found heart and soul in it. It was not only entertaining, it touched all my senses, and I felt good when I walked out of the theatre.

The realism behind the magic

[marston · 7/10 · 31 December 2004]

In recent movies coming out of Hollywood there seems to be a trend towards attempting to unveil the true character behind some of history's most mysterious individuals. With most of us having been brought up on tales of a medieval King Arthur and the magic of Camelot, it was a risk for those who initiated this movie to attempt to expose the man behind the myth, so to speak. In my opinion, through a combination of realistic battle scenes, stunning cinematography and well rounded characters this movie is successful.

This tale takes us on a journey with King Arthur's knights as they embark on a final quest for Rome. The issue of religious persecution is raised on numerous occasions in the duration of this movie and relates to contemporary circumstances where religious belief can be used as a form of power and means of superiority. Themes such as this raise the film above the average Bruckheimer production. However, the dialogue is still cliché in places, and mid-battle jokes can fall flat on audiences that have grown weary of them in films such as LORD OF THE RINGS and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. Fortunately, the battle scenes are realistic and don't bombard us with Jackie Chan like maneuvers that the knights have suddenly and inexplicably learned.

The movie is beautifully shot with a variety of landscapes ranging from Hadrian's Wall to icy snow-covered hills and peasant villages. This ensures that the audience always has something new to look at, but also paints a realistic picture of the poverty and harsh environment of the time.

My only complaint about this film would have to be that some of the acting and characterisation was a little disappointing. Clive Owen's 'Arthur' was a little internalised and predictable. While other characters, such as Lancelot (Ioan Gruffud), are fabulously flawed, Arthur is always thinking of others and making the right decisions. His humanity never falters. Owen delivers his lines woodenly and without the passion one wishes to see from such a great warrior and humanitarian. Whilst the writers have dared to put a different spin on the characters of Lancelot and Guinevere (Keira Knightly), they seem to have stuck with the Arthur of legend. Knightly's performance was certainly nothing special. Her role in the movie was unclear as she seemed to only be there to run around in skimpy outfits, although I'm sure the intention was to create a strong female character. I thought her survival in battle was unrealistic as she was much smaller and weaker than the thousands of large trained warriors she was fighting, particularly since she had apparently nearly starved to death after being walled up in a tomb for her Pagan beliefs. Although Knightly is beautiful, her performances in movies thus far have yet to convince me of her acting abilities.

Overall, I thought this movie was unique in that it depicted a time not often portrayed in modern cinema. It had strong themes with a good mix of humour, romance and action. Although the film had its flaws, I would definitely recommend it as I believe it would appeal to a wide audience.

A myriad of lost chances and clichés

[raulfonseca · 6/10 · 16 July 2004]

I have just seen King Arthur and what a disappointment! I have seen heaps of movies, and I am able to stomach a lot, having enjoyed mediocre films like, Van Helsing for instance. Van Helsing at least was silly, but had no pretensions of being anything else, King Arthur on the other hand, is a little movie, very predictable, filled with plot clichés that you have seen in countless other motion pictures, but has pretensions of being something extraordinary. Well, surprise, surprise it is not! There is not even enough camp in this movie to grant it a sort of je ne se quois to make it enjoyable. Even the soundtrack is a rip off of Gladiator, without even fitting the movie adequately. Hans Zimmer should know better than to copy/paste from is own work, some of us might notice!

Most of the acting is pretty good. I have especially enjoyed Ioan Gruffud as Lancelot and Clive Owen and Arthur, both of them make a very good effort given the silly lines they have, especially Owen who's lines are extra silly. Most of the actors are competent with the exception of Til Schweiger as Cynric and I felt that such a great actor as Stephen Dillane (Merlin) was completely wasted and given no chance to show is quality.

The direction was pretty bad and uneven. Antoine Fucqua doesn't show the talent he has demonstrated in Training day or even Tears of the Sun, the movie is a mess from start to finish. Visually, I must admit, it looks good. Slawomir Idziak's cinematography is really good and I hope to see some of his work in the future.

I have a lot more problems with this movie which I won't detail much further, with the exception of two that I cannot overlook. First of all, trebuches (the catapult thingies) were invented by the French during the 100 year old war, several centuries later, and not by Merlin. In a movie that brags about historical realism and accuracy, this strikes as odd. Besides, if Merlin had this kind of weapons, why not used it against the Romans in the first place? Another gripe, and this a big one, is the complete absence of gore! Did people in the "Dark Ages" not have blood? The battle scenes are violent but no blood! What's the point? Again if you want to have a realistic take on this period of history, why the absence of realism in the battle scenes? Do the filmmakers think that a PG-13 rating will get them more money at the box-office? Having seen this mess I seriously doubt it!

Summarizing, this movie is a complete mess with the exception of some of the performances, namely the Knights and most of all Gruffud's and Owen's acting. As for the rest, it is dumb, predictable, not very original in terms of plot and a complete disappointment! Long live Excalibur (John Boorman) that with it's 23 years it is still the best Kig Arthur story in movie history.

King Arthur as an E True Hollywood Story

[clydestuff · 6/10 · 27 July 2004]

The first time I had a chance to meet up with King Arthur somewhere back in the ancient legendary time of the sixties, he wasn't a king at all. He was only a squire who liked to go around being called by the nickname Wart. Along came this wacky David Copperfield type of guy named Merlin who thought he could make something out of Wart by turning him into a fish, a squirrel and a bird. All Wart wanted to do was be a squire which kind of ticked Merlin off and he left for a while. Eventually Wart found this special sword called Excalibur stuck in a stone that looked kind of like an anvil, pulled it out, changed his name to Arthur and became King. Of course there's more to the story as told in the unofficial sequels Excalibur and First Night but it has been the Disney version that will forever be ingrained in me. According to Director Antoine Fuqua, Producer Jerry Bruckheimer, and writer David Franzoni however, all those stories are a bunch of hooey. They have taken it upon themselves to bring to the screen, 'the untold true story that inspired the legend.' And apparently, Disney also must have got tired of the big lie being told by The Sword in the Stone because it's their Touchstone division responsible for distributing this film.

In King Arthur, it seems that Arthur's (Clive Owen) real name is Artorius but his Knights call him Arthur because if they had to call the film King Artorius everyone would be dazed and confused about the subject matter. The Knights are all present and accounted for though, including Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), and Gawain (Joel Edgerton), and they follow their exalted leader Arthur around battling here and fighting there because they aren't just knights they are also slaves of Rome. It seems they have to fight for the Romans for fifteen years to gain their freedom and Arthur is their best bet to stay alive for any length of time. That would make anybody a loyal follower wouldn't it? Unfortunately, on the day the Knights are supposed to be given their freedom, this Roman bishop comes along and says not so fast, you have to do one more little all time dangerous mission for us. It seems the Roman's have problems of their own back home so they've decided to leave Britannia for good. At about this time the Saxons led by their fearless leader Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgard) are ravaging the country and killing everyone they come across. There is however this Boy out there somewhere that is supposed to become a bishop in Rome whom Arthur and the gang must rescue before Cerdic gets to him and his family which means Rome would be minus a bishop and King Arthur would be without any plot. To make matters worse, there are the natural inhabitants of Britannia known as the Woads trying to reclaim the land for them selves. The Woads are led by Merlin (Stephen Dillane), who wants to convince his enemy Arthur to join forces with him to rid the land of the Saxons. Lest you ask why Merlin doesn't use his magical powers, the answer is because in this the 'true story' Merlin is no longer a magician. He's just a guy out there in full guerilla warfare makeup doing army type grunt work shooting arrows and setting traps.

Of course any story about King Arthur has to have Guinevere (Keira Knightly) in it somewhere and she pops up here also. She is not the lovely, soft spoken beautiful Guinevere prone to hanky panky with Lancelot. She's a sprightly lass who can shoot an arrow like nobody's business and swing a sword that weighs about ten more pounds than her body weight as effortless as if it were a light saber straight out of Star Wars. So do you want to know how does Guinevere get hooked up with Arthur? Either go see the movie or read some other review because I can't take everyone's world of discovery away can I?

As you can tell, most of this is dreary stuff. Arthur, like most film heroes these days spends a lot of time soul searching and questioning his career choices. Of course he is aided by the constant nagging of Guinevere to get him to do the right thing. The Knights tell off color jokes dealing with penis size, bodily functions and illegitimate kids. Their conversations are supposed to lighten the mood but the audience I saw the film with only gave a light scattered chuckle once or twice. They were probably trying to figure out as I was what this dialogue was doing in a story that takes place somewhere around 400 A.D. There is a round table here, but it makes only a brief cameo appearance. Lancelot and Guinevere do eyeball one another a couple of times but I don't think there was any passion involved in those looks. Perhaps they were wishing they could do a remake of First Knight instead of this.

Believe it or not there are some good things here. Slawomir Idziak's cinematography is breathtaking whether it's the scenes in dark hidden abysses of the forest, a light snow falling in the countryside, or a trek through the snow covered mountains. I will admit to the fact that a couple of times it irritated me how blue the sky was during one fog covered day, and during the early scenes of snow falling to the ground but that's a minor quibble. The battle scenes likewise are well stage and are fought in full close up with little if any dependence on a bunch of CGI created soldiers. One particular battle that takes place on a frozen river bed with cracking ice is in itself almost worth the price of admission. However, the battle scenes also seemed to be somewhat sanitized in order to help garner the precious PG-13 rating. We seldom actually see any sword strikes because magically the victim always seems to have the wrong side posed for the cameras. Most of the blood that pops up is some splattered spots we see on the faces of the Knights afterwards. It gave the film more of a 1950's gladiator feels to it, before blood was allowed to spew across the silver screen by the buckets full. In 1955, that was okay, but in 2004 it only makes the scenes feel that much more artificial.

As for the acting, the cast does a pretty good job with what they have to work with. Owen is good as King Arthur, although the script makes him appear as somewhat of a dim wit for his blinding loyalty to Rome. Stellan Skarsgard as Cerdic the leader of the Saxons brings some true seething evil to the screen. And despite the oddity of watching someone of her stature battle and fight as well as the Knights, Knightly does quite well as Guinevere.

You won't hate yourself if you watch King Arthur. The battle scenes and cinematography are worth a look see at least once. The story is just okay enough to keep you interested, but it's one you'll forget about a few days after watching. What the film really lacks is the fantasy, romance, involving characters and magic that is usually included in any King Arthur story. Instead we just get a film about warriors with a convenient plot line used only to get us from point A to point B. And since the makers of this film feel that fantasy is such a terrible thing and they must destroy the myth, I have no choice but to bestow upon King Arthur my grade of C-. The next thing you know some film maker will try to convince me there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny either. What's the world coming to?

Groundbreaking and spellbound battles with King Arthur and his knights

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 15 December 2005]

The picture is approximately developed during 300 Anno Domini and is a demystified story about the legend of King Arthur (Clive Owen) and his knights of the rounded table ; thus , there appear : Lancelot (Ioan Gruffud) , Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Tristan (Mikkelsen) , Gaiwan ; besides , appearing : Merlin (Stephen Dillane) and Guinevere (Kiera Knightley) . In this epoch the legend hadn't been historically established , in fact the historic events are narrated among the fall of Roman empire and the Middle Age or Dark Ages . The Romans included into military to the Sarmatians for their warrior spirit and arms slickness . A General Roman assigns to Arthur and his knights of the Round Table their last mission before obtaining the freedom after fifteen years serving for the Roman Empire , now almost collapsed ; as they have to fight the Woads (in the film are supposed to be Picts , it comes from the blue plant that the Picts may have used to paint themselves prior to battle) . A Roman family and specially his son who has a peculiar condition must be saved of the invading Xasons (led by Stellan Skarsgard and Til Schweiger) who have passed the Adriano wall and menace to conquer all England .

This pic packs noisy action , thrills , spectacular outdoors and overwhelming battles full of blood and guts . Although all of the crowd scenes and extras used fake swords, for all of the one-on-one encounters in the film (such as between Arthur (Clive Owen) and Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgård) or Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) and Cynric (Til Schweiger), real swords were used. Over 400 extras were used as Saxon warriors. Most of them had never had fight training at all. Most of the major battle scenes were filmed using 18 cameras simultaneously. Apart from the mounted cameras, camera operators also dressed as extras and shot from within the action. Cameras were also mounted on shields, swords and horses.

In spite of there aren't real documents about the feats of legendary character Arthur , allegedly in VI century , he was King of the Bretons ; on XII century were created books written by noted authors as Chretien de Troyes and Thomas Malory that dealt with the Breton series including their valiant Knights and looking for the Holy Grail (happenings aren't explained in this film) . The film is shot with breathtaking battles as the epic confrontation on the ice floe or the impressive final struggle where the blood and violence is abundant . Cinematography is nice but a little dark as well as murky with exception of the battles that are outstandingly photographed . Sensitive and touching music by Hans Zimmer but in certain likeness to his ¨Gladiator¨ score . The motion picture was well directed by Antoine Fuqua . The movie was produced by the great producer Jerry Bruckheimer . The film will appeal to people enamored with chivalric ideals and historical movies fans . Rating : Above average . Well Worth Watching.

A good film

[espenshade55 · 7/10 · 24 September 2004]

I know a lot of people have said they disliked this film for omitting the legend and the fantasy. That is why I enjoyed it, I've always liked hearing the truth behind the legend.

This film boasts great performances across the board, notably Clive Owen as Arthur and Ray Winston as Boris. Also Keira Knightley gave a good performance as Guenivere. Although she does have room for improvement, considering she was 18 when she made this film she has proved to have talent beyond her years. When most people her age are just doing teenybopper movies she's actually doing drama's and pulling them off.

The battle scene's are pretty well done although they got a little cliché with the characters dying in revers order of where they appear in the credits but they were still exciting.

I really enjoyed the gritty feel to the film. It really gave a realistic feel. And the screen writing was superb.

It has it flaws but it is still a good movie. 7/10

I cannot respect King Arthur...

[friedman-8 · 3/10 · 26 December 2004]

I did not hate this film. It was fairly entertaining, with well-staged battle scenes and high production values. The acting, though often either overblown or slightly wooden, was passable, and Ioan Gruffydd was actually quite good.

What bothered me is that the text at the opening of King Arthur promised a portrayal of the "historical" Arthur, and then manifestly failed to deliver. For the record, there is no "historical" Arthur. There are scattered references in the works of Gildas and Bede to an Arthur, or an Aurelius Ambrosianus upon whom the legend of Arthur is based. There is a fairly detailed story of a King Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth's History, though most of this seems drawn from Welsh and Cornish folktales of the type later collected in the Mabinogion. There is, however, very hard evidence that there ever was a King Arthur, or battles of Baddon Hill and Celidon forest.

There was, however, an invasion and colonization of Britain by the Saxons and other Germanic tribes during the fifth and sixth centuries, following the Roman military withdrawal. And it is pretty clear that the native Celtic and Romano-Celtic population put up one hell of a fight, slowing but not stopping the Saxon invasions. My own opinion is that there is enough smoke to suggest that the Arthur of medieval romance probably had some kind of historical prototype (most legends of this type usually do: a "Dux Bellorum" (war leader) as named in Gildas, possibly this shadowy Aurelius Ambrosianus.

So, I had high hopes for the movie King Arthur. After all, the film had the time period right, and the context looked convincing enough. Unfortunately, rather than using the historical material and context, the filmmakers completely ignored them. There was no consistency to this movie, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of the early middle ages (the so-called dark ages) will be more than irritated by the pretended historicity of the movie. Some examples: 1. The film suggests the late-imperial Roman government and policy was directed by the Church, through the Papacy. This is absolutely false. Although the Empire was staunchly Christian at this time, it was the Emperor and his court -- at Constantinople rather than Rome -- that set and executed policy. Bishops did not order armies around. In fact, the See of Rome at the time was a relatively weak power centre at the time, especially compared to the Bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria.

2. While it is true that the Romans enlisted soldiers and units from border tribes like the Sarmatians, they were never posted at the other end of the empire. This would have made no sense, since the whole point of the foederati was to create a buffer between the empire and the northern and eastern barbarians. The Sarmatian soldiers were typically posted in Sarmatia.

3. Arthur would never have known Pelagius who, though a Briton or Irishman by birth, was in Rome from about AD 405. He was condemned by the Church, but never actually excommunicated or convicted of heresy, and probably died in Rome in AD 420, around the time the "historical" Arthur was born.

4. By the fifth century, the Roman occupied part of Britain had been quite thoroughly Romanized. The population was mostly Romanized Britons, and NOT an ethnically British population under the boot of a few foreign, ethnically Roman aristocrats. While there certainly were non-Romanized Celts like the Wodes about, most of the Britain that Arthur would have been fighting to defend would have been populated by Christian Britons who though of themselves as Romans.

5. Bishop Germanicus, or St. Germain, was not a former Roman general. He was a former Gaulish lawyer.

6. Hadrian's wall was built not to keep the Britonnic Celts and Saxons out of Roman Britain. It was built to keep the Picts and Hiberni -- who were explicitly NOT Briton and in the case of the Picts, probably not even Celts -- out of Britain. It runs/ran from Solway Firth to the River Tyne and thus is waaaaaaaaaaaaay too far north to have had much to do with the "historical" Arthur.

7. While the Church in the fifth century was certainly militant (read St. Augustine for that), the portrayal of churchmen as murderous ascetics who tortured and sacrificed pagans is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, by this time, most of the population south of Hadrian's Wall had been converted to Christianity.

What troubles me is that there is no reason why the filmmakers should have played so fast and loose with history to make this movie. I understand creative license, but the way in which they claim historicity on one hand, and then create a nonsense fabrication on the other – to no end other than the fact that they just seemed to want to do it that way -- makes it very difficult for me to respect King Arthur. I can respect Excalibur; at least no one claimed that it was historical.

LOVE THIS FILM

[drlydiamisskaufmann · 10/10 · 25 March 2018]

For those who wanted a film historically correct would be better off watching Discovery Channel, or History Channel.

I loved the Gladiator because it was a fantastic film and not because it was historically correct. Idem with the last 2 Robin Hoods, and Braveheart, Ben Hur I enjoyed the STORIES. Titanic was not historically correct, but people loved it. I'm not a Titanic fan, but that's my point. In Titanic people enjoyed the love story between Jack and Rose.

King Arthur is one of the rare films that I can see over and over without being tired of it. The actors are perfect for their roles, especially the alchemy between the handsome Arthur (Clive Owen)and Ioan Gruffud) (a very good looking Lancelot)and the knights with their differences, their bickering, their humor, each with their own fighting skills and their humanity. Guenivire less than the others. She was the person that I liked the least. But she was the perfect wife for Arthur. I really liked the actress who played Alecto's mom. She seemed to be a submissive but extraordinary woman, looking after the hostages Lucan with much human care, much like the knight Dagonet.

The music is beautiful, as well as the scenery, the battles. There were some very sad moments, but they were necessary for the film. The Catholic church was bashed, but I wasn't surprised, because it became an institution and not a religion.

To reply to one critic, Arthur wasn't shocked when he saw Roman torture, he was shocked when he saw the torture of the Catholic church, and when he found out that the priest he considered as his father was ex-communicated and murdered by the bishop "friend of my father". Don't confound the Romans and the Catholic Church. The Romans were as inhuman as the Saxons, but Arthur had a very naïve vision of the Catholic Church. All in all an excellent film that I really enjoy.

Clive Owen was perfect as Arthur, an excellent fighter, yet a caring person, caring for others, especially for his knights. His attempt to save Dagonet was a perfect example of a man, of a king. His eyes were beautiful and added a dimension to the film.

I loved the alchemy between the handsome Arthur (Clive Owens) and Ioan Gruffud (a very good looking Lancelot), and all the other knights. They were human beings, and they showed it marvelously.

For those bashing the film because it wasn't historically correct, I DON'T CARE. I loved the film. I loved the story line, and I enjoy seeing it again and again.

The legend?

[tjacks · 8/10 · 8 January 2005]

I have been a huge King Arthur fan ever since the night that I sat in an empty theater, in my hometown, awestruck by John Boorman's Excalibur.

Since then, I have seen the legend of King Arthur mutilated in films such as First Knight and The Mists of Avalon.

My high hopes for the movie, King Arthur, were dashed before the film even opened in theaters, by critics who were panning the movie from advanced screenings.

So, I stayed away while it was in theaters and most definitely passed on special discounts on the week it was released to DVD.

After finally getting around to renting a copy, I am left with just one burning question - Why in the hell do I listen to movie critics? The movie King Arthur has it all - a tight, well written story, believable characters, gritty realism, a great musical score by Hans Zimmer, epic battles, and more blood and splatter than you probably really wanted to see.

The bottom line is that King Arthur is a very good film. No, it's not the mythical Camelot, but it does not try to be. Nor, does it trample all over the name of King Arthur by making him a shallow or less than heroic character.

This is not Braveheart or Gladiator , but it is a film worth seeing and appreciating. Now that I think about, it's worth buying a copy to add to the home video library.

King Average

[daniewhite-1 · 4/10 · 11 January 2020]

'King Arthur' attempts a great deal with its screenplay but I'd be reluctant to say that it succeeds with any of it.

An effort to tell a dark ages, speculative "historical" King Arthur tale whilst also servicing a 'sword and sandals' historical action adventure film is beyond this script.

For the majority of film-goers confusion and complexity abound due to the convoluted choices taken in the films premise: something which a straightforwards adventure warfare central plot and thinly written characters can't mitigate.

A central plot hole is why the Roman high ranking family need rescuing....at all....the Roman's are withdrawing, we are told, but a very valuable Catholic/aristocratic family are living well beyond the frontier of the Roman Empire at a time when it's enemies are shown to be penetrating into its own territory on this very frontier.

Why are they there? Why did they go there? Stay there? Why haven't they already been destroyed by "woads" who seem capable of penetrating a guarded fortified Roman frontier and trapping Roman forces that enter their territory?

Answers? This film has none.

But it allows the script to motivate the "woads", Roman's, Arthur's knights and the Saxons all onto a convenient collision course.

Convenient is the word.

Essentially this is another stupid historical action adventure sword and sandals war film complete with desperate plot devices; but with thinly written characters, cartoon baddies, some wooden performances, under equipped production, unconvincing battlefield stunts; and all this attempting to sustain a heavy load of highly speculative and debatable pic and mix story treatments regarding the end of Roman Britain, the "dark age" transition, post and sub-Roman Britannia, Christianization, the Anglo-Saxon migration and of course the possible origins of the legends of "King Arthur" before the high medieval romance tradition.

My rating is a disappointed 4/10 because 'King Arthur' tries to be clever, interesting, unusual and different in its abstract values but then saddles itself with bilge levels of predictability and utterly usual story lines and plot mechanics and characterizations plus unconvincing production values.

Finally the number of horses running free at the end, that represents Arthur's fallen comrades seems crass and unsympathetic to Arthur...why would it just be those friends he lost during the events of this film? But not all his knights through his command. Those knights missing from his round table. Those friends and comrades he had lost which apparently meant a lot to him when he had to posture in front of a Roman Bishop? That sums up for me how unconvincing this film is with its own characters, even the filmmakers don't believe in the realness of their characters!

OK as a movie, but hardly 'historical'

[grobius · 12 July 2004]

This isn't as bad a movie as many critics and viewers who write critiques have made it out to be, but isn't anything like a blockbuster that hasn't been matched or bettered before. Nice summer movie to watch when the heat wave breaks and you have a long rainy day. I have several complaints, but I'll start with the virtues:

It was well filmed, with good settings (although there is nothing like those Alpine mountains in Britain, except maybe in the Scottish Highlands during mid-winter). The battle scenes were fine, except to the extent they were toned down to get the PG rating (wait for the DVD) -- especially a really good one that takes place on the surface of a frozen lake. The depiction of Hadrian's Wall and its ancillary fortresses and villages -- with taverns and hooker joints -- was archaeologically and historically accurate, even if the purported site of the Battle of Badon is imaginary (could be presumed to be modeled on Housesteads combined with Vindolanda). And yes, the Romans did have draftees in the legions from other parts of the Empire in posts like the Great Wall, and they were inducted for 15 to 20 years before being granted civilian status and pensions. That Arthur's traditional knights were Sarmations, we'd call them Ukrainians now, has to be taken with a grain of salt. In these senses, the movie is a good approximation of the latter days of the Roman Empire in Britain, but it certainly doesn't break any new 'archeological or historical ground'. I have no imaginative problems, as some people with that kind of interest do, with the technology of the battle scenes -- the Romans had catapults and naphtha bombs (Greek fire), even if they were unlikely to have been used in the sort of battle shown here against a marauding horde of barbarians, and manned by another horde of barbarians, those so-called Picts who become Arthur's allies.

Doubtful elements: As I said, the Ukrainian Knights -- and in fact I was fooled into thinking the kid drafted from the steppes to join the Roman cavalry was supposed to be Arthur, but turns out to be Lancelot, and well, that just won't do. First of all Lancelot was French, an interpolation from the Middle Ages. Galahad was also a Norman French invention. The more traditional Arthurian characters, going back to the original Welsh legends, as close as we'll ever get to historical 'reality', were Gawain and Bors -- who were certainly not Ukrainians! Tristan or Tristram has his own mythology, involving the Irish princess Iseult, as we know from Wagner's opera and other sources, so why is he killed off before he can accomplish this? (Besides, it is Gawain who supposedly had a connection with hawks, not Tristan, and is also said to have killed giants.) It is likely that the historical Arthur was a Roman officer, perhaps related to the historical Ambrosius Aurelianus, who commanded a 'rapid reaction force', and in any case was definitely British -- that all fits. What the screenplay doesn't explain at all, probably because of very poor editing, is that bit about the sword in the stone and the burning of the young Arthur's house by raiders led by, presumably, the British (Welsh) Merlin, who by the way was not a PICT. Here I was, thinking he was the kid from the steppes, then all of a sudden we get this thrown in, and was that really supposed to have been his father who broke the ice on the lake to drown the Saxons, at the cost of his own life? Say, what? Where did this come from out of the blue? Cerdic and Cynric, the Saxon leaders, were definitely historical characters, but they were the founders of WESSEX in the south of England and had nothing to do with the Saxon invasion north of the wall when the Northumbrian kingdom was established.

Totally wrong and misleading elements: Even the historical sources mention several great battles of the Britons against the Saxons and Scots, which took place over several years, led by a great war leader. Many of them took place in Lowland Scotland and the Border country, but the famous battle of Mount Badon is generally considered to have taken place south west of London. Hadrian's Wall had been abandoned several years before. There was no one great decisive routing of the invaders before Badon. The so-called Pelagian heresy took place before these times and is one of those silly arguments whereby Christians killed other Christians over trivial matters -- the Victorians made Pelagius into a hero because he was British, but as far as I can figure out, his 'heresy' had nothing to do with Freedom and All Men Are Created Equal. Arthur is more likely to have been a Mithraist, like other legionaries, even if nominally Christian.

As for the script, all I can say is that it is muddled beyond easy comprehension. That could have as much to do with the way the film was finally edited as with any original deficiency, even granted that it is not a strong script to begin with. The acting is generally very well done -- again allowing for the fact that the roles and lines were chopped up for whatever reasons. One very laughable bit concerns the lovely Keira (Guinevere), who is rescued from a dungeon where everybody else has starved or been tortured to death, has Arthur treat her maimed hands, then a day or so later is an Olympic class archer. 'I see your fingers are better now,' says Arthur.

unorthodox take on the famous legend

[Buddy-51 · 7/10 · 27 November 2005]

The sadly underrated "King Arthur" provides a rip-roaring and original take on the classic Medieval legend. The film is set in the brutal world of the 5th Century AD, right at the moment when the crumbling Roman Empire is turning inward and withdrawing its forces from far-flung outposts such as Briton, where barbarians from the north, sensing Rome's weakness, are beginning to make incursions into the regions south of Hadrian's Wall. In this version, Arthur's famous Knights of the Round Table are a compendium of conscripted tribesmen who have faithfully and courageously served the cause of Rome for the past 15 years. Now, just at the moment when they are about to be granted their hard-earned freedom and are eager to return home, they are sent on a final dangerous mission deep into Saxon territory to rescue a boy who may be a possible successor to the Pope in Rome.

"King Arthur" focuses more on the geopolitical aspects of the tale than the customary romance and magic - although neither of those has been completely slighted in this telling. The film opts for a darker, more realistic treatment of the story - there's no talk of Camelot here - one in which, Arthur, Lancelot, Guinevere and the rest undergo internal conflicts and moral struggles often overlooked in earlier versions of the story. Arthur, in particular, the product of a Roman father and a Saxon mother, is torn between his loyalty to Rome and to the island he calls home. But, above all, he is faithful to the men who have served under his command and, with whom, he has been able to forge a chivalric code of ethics - one whose very cornerstone is individual rights and freedoms - that seems like an anachronism in a world dedicated to enslavement, brutality and destruction. The violence in the film is grim, graphic and gory but appropriate to the times in which the movie is set.

David Franzoni has written an intelligent, dramatic screenplay, and Antoine Fuqua has directed the movie with flair and style. The action scenes are vivid and intense, and the film features the best ice floe battle sequence since "Alexander Nevsky." The acting - by Clive Owen as Arthur, Keira Knightley as Guinevere and Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot - is no great shakes, but at least it's unobjectionable.

For the most part, the movie's attempts at de-romanticizing the legend work well - although turning Guinevere into a halter top-wearing, bow-wielding combatant on the order of a Boudicca or even Xena-Princess Warrior, does seem a bit much. However, since the film is less a retelling of the Arthurian legends and more a chronicle of the "real" people on whom the characters were allegedly based, such re-imaginings are more forgivable than they might otherwise have been. And like most actions films these days that don't seem to know when to leave well enough alone, "King Arthur" is saddled with a saggy third act whose repetitive battle scenes drain some of the life out of the story.

All in all, though, "King Arthur" emerges as a handsomely produced, thrilling tale of love, hope and freedom that should satisfy the schoolboy adventurer in all of us.

I thought it was decent...

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 19 June 2011]

This King Arthur is flawed, that I agree with, but I don't think it is a bad movie as such. Okay it is historically inaccurate and the traditional elements of the Arthurian legend are missing such as wizardry, love triangle or even Camelot, but they weren't the problems for me of this film.

What didn't impress me much about King Arthur were a few things, especially the pace. The length was fine, but there are some scenes where it feels very pedestrian. The obligatory love scene also fell flat for me, well-shot, well-scored, but it interrupted the flow of the movie, and when it came to the dialogue and acting, this was one instance of the film being at its least effective. The script is rather hackneyed in places, and that is including the rousing speeches, and Keira Knightley despite looking gorgeous isn't really believable as Guinevere.

Flaws aside, the film does look fantastic, the scenery, sets and costumes are wonderful and I loved the camera work, while the battle scenes are well-staged and more than convincing, the film is well-directed by Antoine Fuqua and Hans Zimmer's score has a real majesty about it. Knightley aside, the acting is good without being outstanding. Ioan Gruffudd is just okay as Lancelot, though I liked how his character was written and Gruffudd himself looks dashing. Clive Owen is a suitably subdued King Arthur, Stephen Dillaine is also pretty good and while all the knights look the part it is Ray Winstone who steals the film.

Overall, decent if unspectacular film. 6/10 Bethany Cox

A both positive and negative look at King Arthur

[BruddanChrist · 6/10 · 19 July 2005]

Positive attributes: Story is the backbone of every movie ever made. If it's loose or incomplete, the whole movie usually falls apart. Luckily, this movie's story is good enough to keep it on its feet. After years of mandatory service to Rome, Arthur and his knights are just one mission away from the sweet, sweet freedom they've craved all their lives.

Good acting for the most part. Clive Owen delivers a realistic performance as the legendary King Arthur, portraying him as a loyal and level-headed Roman commander. Ioan Gruffudd also does a great job of Lancelot, Arthur's loyal but very different friend. Merlin has been completely stripped of his magical powers and given a much grittier feel as the leader of the Woads, the warlike rebellion against Rome's occupation of Britain. The award for best acting, though, should definitely go to Stellan Skarsgård, who gives a rough and scary portrayal of Cerdic, the ruthless, bloodthirsty leader of the Saxons. The battle action isn't anything you've never seen before. It's bloody, brutal, realistic, blah blah blah... Hans Zimmer shines (in moments) as the movie's composer, eliciting a powerful score to wrap the rest of the movie in.

Negative attributes: If over and underacting annoys you as much as it does me, then wear a mouth guard, for you'll be grinding your teeth quite a bit. Overacting seems to be popular amongst (mostly) the secondary actors in this film, for whatever reason. Unfortunately, Keira Knightly (who plays Guinevere) only provides more evidence to my suspicion that she can't actually act by her displaying some more of her acting abilities in this film (or lack thereof).

Also, if you're an avid hater of clichés (as I very much am), be prepared to catch a net-full. In fact, there are so many in this movie that they become downright tiresome almost right away.

Another minor complaint I have with this movie is that it didn't draw out the love triangle between Guinevere, Arthur, and Lancelot as much as I would've liked.

Conclusion: Overall, King Arthur is an OK movie, certainly worth seeing. For me, what is most disappointing is that Antoine Fuqua, the acclaimed director of Training Day, took over this after Michael Bay (who I don't especially like) dropped out, and I can't really imagine what Bay might've done differently (with the exception of maybe subtracting some from the story and tossing in a few more special effects). As long as you aren't expect Shakespeare when inserting the disc into your DVD player, you'll at least be entertained.

Hollywood rewrites the history of England yet again.

[richard-1490 · 1/10 · 7 October 2006]

King Arthur is ( according to Hollywood ) a Roman? This film belongs in the same bin as U-571 when it comes to historical accuracy.

The Britons appear as blue painted pixies along the lines of the elves in Lord of the Rings.

It appears that the knights of the round table are all dressed in armour from all corners of the globe. Arthur is fully Roman, Lancelot looks like a Persian warrior and the others are dressed like Ghengis Khan.

The fight scenes resemble Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Kiera Knightly twirling around Thai-style dealing roundhouse kicks to burly Saxons.

Another fine example of the Americans trying to rewrite the rest of the worlds history.

King Arthur is a deep seated British legend and it is insulting that the story should be twisted in this way. If this was done to a minority group there'd be uproar.

I'm looking forward when I can fund the making of the true story of George Washington, the one where he was an Iranian cross-dressing child molester.

bunch of whiners!

[AaronDew · 10/10 · 17 September 2019]

I ve seen 1350 films thus far and this stays in my top 20. I dont get all the hate it gets. Its an epic tale, the music's sublime. Who cares its not historically accurate? The stupid avengers aren't neither...

Give this one a go, it's great.

It's all about atmosphere

[jiujitsu_jesus · 9/10 · 18 December 2004]

Jerry Bruckheimer's KING ARTHUR is a shining example of that new breed of mythology adaption. It is similar to Wolfgang Petersen's TROY, in that it dispenses with the supernatural splendour and phantasmagorical intrigue characteristic of traditional tales, and presents the story as (relatively) realistic historical fiction, attempting to convey the "magic" of the story through drama, rather than gaudy special effects.

This is a brave venture by Bruckheimer - and director Fuqua- and they are to be commended for executing it with such style and creativity as is displayed in this film. It has, however, enjoyed somewhat limited success, due to the fact that it presents such a radical interpretation of a story much closer to our hearts than that of the Illiad.

I believe, though, that if the viewer simply opens one's mind and attempts to enjoy the story purely for the sake of itself (forgetting, for the moment, Rosemary Sutcliff and Barbara Leonie Picard), KING ARTHUR will reveal itself as a truly fine piece of film-making.

More than anything else, Fuqua masterfully portrays the atmosphere of the tale, endowing it with a sense of time and place far more eloquent than the rather run-of-the-mill dialogue. The entire experience oozes the ambiance of the early common era, from windswept downs and hills to rugged coasts and snow-cloaked mountains; from the spartan order of a Roman camp to the hellish confines of a torture chamber. Exemplars of this perfectly-presented atmosphere are Arthur's knights(Ioan Gruffud, Ray Winstone, Joel Edgerton, Mads Mikkelsen, Hugh Dancy and Ray Stevenson).These are not the chivalrous, couth, pious Christian knights your mum told you about, but rather a troop of barbaric, lecherous, pagan Sarmatian mercenaries. Together (with excellent performances all round, particularly by Winstone, Gruffud and Edgerton) they epitomise the pragmatic, godless, exquisitely human atmosphere of the period. As Gawaine tells a cowering Roman friar in an early scene - "Your God doesn't live here".

The lead actors, too, are outstanding, from Stellan Skarsgaard's sociopathic Cerdic, to the delicious Keira Knightley's dark and beautiful Guinevere. Only Clive Owen disappoints as Arthur himself, lacking the emotion this characterisation requires to supplement his steely resolve.

Despite the lukewarm reception to which it was subjected, KING ARTHUR is a finely crafted and memorable item of film-making. Forget all your preconceptions about King Arthur - just float with it, and let the rich atmosphere engulf you. 9/10.

Better than "Troy", or "Kingdom of Heaven"!

[nifelhem · 7/10 · 9 October 2005]

I had absolutely NO expectations at all on this movie. I see myself as a kind of "historical guardian", a person who usually hate movies that has a lot of historical errors or is plain fiction based on a well known history. Most of my friends and family did'nt like it at all. But...Hey..I LIKED IT!!!! You don't really know so much about that time of history in England, so the movie does not feel THAT disconnected from reality, but I saw it not as an historical movie, but as a fantasy movie, and it really worked out nice! But the most important thing is that the movie has SPIRIT, something too many movies lack now days. You can actually feel that the director and the team behind the movie really enjoyed themselves and tried really hard to bring their wild visions and fantasies to life. The acting is also very good indeed- I liked the Saxon leaders; Stellan Skarsgård and especially Til Schweiger, but also Clive Owen as Arthur and some of his knights. Beautiful Kiera Knightley is also good as Guinevere. Damn, she has spirit and looks really fierce! AND she is a lot better and more agile fighter than, for example, Miranda Otto in The return of the King. It is SO good that you don't see many famous familiar actors in the movie, I'm SO tired of actors like Orlando Bloom for instance, and it's good to see some new people get a chance. If you just sit back, switch off your brain and enjoy this movie, you will not get bored!

History...?

[kayma_2 · 1/10 · 7 February 2005]

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.

What can one say?

[Ducati-Eithne · 20 July 2004]

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.

The Director's Cut is Worth Checking Out

[truemythmedia · 7/10 · 23 May 2019]

I... erm... loved this movie when I was a teenager. It came out when I was fourteen, I saw it in theaters, and thought "Yeah, that was okay." BUT THEN- the director's cut came out, and holy freaking cow was I impressed! I remember raving about this movie, watching some of the battle sequences multiple times. I honestly thought I was going to hate this film after my rewatch, but I found myself getting chills during some of the battles, smiling at Bors's jokes, and thoroughly enjoying myself through the two hour and twenty minute runtime. People could pick this movie apart and ruin it, because there are some truly terrible moments (thank you, irksome Ioan), but overall I was thrilled that something I loved so much as a teen still held up (for me) over a decade later. I'm sure if some of you watch this film you'll hate it. That's okay. As I mentioned before my rewatch, this movie is tailor made for me, and for me, it still works. It will always have a soft spot in my heart.

Decent bit of storytelling

[petemcphee2 · 7/10 · 9 January 2020]

I feel embarrassed for folk slating the historical inaccuracies in the movie. Er, guys... Arthur is a legend. Didn't exist. Same folks complained about Robin Hood. When maid Marion starts popping up in an Arthur tale come back and complain. The film itself had a great cast, nice bit of Story and plenty of action. I personally liked the spin of Arthur and his knights being elite Roman Soldiers who decide to stay and fight to make Briton their home.

The 'True Story'? Right . . .

[the_cyberpunk · 1/10 · 8 July 2004]

Long before I went into 'King Arthur', the latest Jerry Bruckheimer film, I predicted that the film would have three things in accordance with the Bruckheimer formula.

1: A repetitive soundtrack provided by Hans Zimmer.

2: Lots of helicopter shots of lush scenery to make up for the lack of interesting dialogue.

3: Explosions.

Well now I've seen it, and even though the last item on the formula seemed unlikely seeing as how this was supposed to be a historically accurate telling set in the DARK AGES, it somehow found a way to throw big fiery explosions into this mix of drab and boring mud covered battle sequences and perhaps an even more dry and uninspired love story than the one in 'Star War: Attack Of The Clones'. The humour in this film is locker room at best (a joke from Austin Powers 3 was actually used), and was crafted to appeal to the under 18 'bathroom' crowd. I say 'bathroom' because there are a lot of intelligent teenagers, the humour in this movie is not for them - the jokes in this movie are for stupid teenagers. In fact during one particularly lame joke, I found it hard tell apart the laughter on screen from that of the four 16 year old guys sitting behind me, who were the only ones in the audience to find the joke about one of the Knights having a penis so large it was like "a baby's arm holding an apple" funny. The dialogue is dry and tedious, as is the pacing of the film. A scene involving a gate SO RUSTY AND HUGE that it takes two huge war horses to pull it open takes so long I thought I was going to pass out from lack of oxygen as the audience collectively yawned, and yet later in the film the door is opened by a single mortally wounded soldier in a matter of seconds – I guess even in the Dark Ages they had some WD-40.

The film's logic is so preposterous that it actually makes the simple mistake of KILLING THE NARRATOR and yet having him summarize the story at the end of the film! Perhaps the writer completely misunderstood the purpose of a narrator in a film - that the narrator has born firsthand witness to the story and lived to tell about it. How could the Narrator tell the story if he's DEAD?! Never mind, don't ask questions like that at this movie. At the start of the film Arthur and his Knights are sent on one final mission from Rome to rescue the beloved pupil of the Pope, who for some reason lives with his family in the middle of hostile territory. Why or how the Pope's star pupil came to live in the middle of Barbarian infested England is another question you're not meant to ask. The villain, a Saxon chieftain is like a really bored cross between Captain Barbosa and Darth Sidious, Guinevere looks like an angry 15 year old girl at an Avril Lavigne concert in her battle getup and is about as convincing as one when she's supposed to be noble and inspiring in her queen getup, and Arthur is a completely implausible moral centre of the film. Arthur in this story is a former Roman Centurion who is completely shocked when he witnesses torture. That's right, a Roman soldier, serving the country that invented such lovely devices as the Catherine Wheel and Crucifixion is shocked by torture! I'll leave you to figure that one out for yourselves.

A film with the audacity to call itself the 'true story of King Arthur' must be held to a higher standard than that of a fun popcorn flick, which is all this film seemed to be trying for. The sad fact is that this movie doesn't pull off even that meagre feat. This movie is not fun, it's drab, it's uninteresting, and it's boring. You'll have more fun eating your popcorn than you will watching this movie.

Very underrated gem

[NateWatchesCoolMovies · 10/10 · 2 July 2015]

King Arthur:

Antoine Fuqua's King Arthur is an underrated gem, and one of my favourite post 90's medieval epics. It opened to lukewarm reviews,our reception and was ultimately written off. Too bad. It's a rousing, detailed, character driven adrenaline rush, and on top of being visually stunning, it has a brain in its head as well, as its characters actually have something to say as they chop each other's heads off. Clive Owen makes an honourable Artorius, leading knights of the round table that are far grittier than any legends we heard as kids. Him and his crew are actually Sarmatian warriors, taken in their early years to give years of service to the rampaging Roman Empire, as tribute for their lands. Theirs is a tough life, fighting one hair raising battle after another for a cause that was never their own. Each actor plays their knight with a sense dignity, humour and humanity, and it amazes me in a film as fast paced as this that they took the care to write like, six or seven different supporting characters so diverse, detailed and different. Ray Winstone is an a optional wrecking ball as the rowdy Bors, Mads Mikkelsen plays quiet, deadly and loyal as Tristram, Hugh Dancy is outraged and passionate as Galahad, Joel Egerton sly and good natured as Gawain, Ray Stevenson a gentle giant as, and Ioan Gruffudd makes a brooding, jaded, yet hopeful Lancelot. The film pits them in a close quarters battle with the Saxons, led by the terrifying Cerdic (Stellen Skarsgard is just 'piss your pants scary' in one of his best roles). Keira Knightely also joins the party as a kick ass, archery loving version of Guinevere, full of sass and wounded patriotism. The film rides the high of Hans Zimmer's utterly invigorating score, which is some of his very best work. From scene to scene it has a wonderfully flowing, beauty laden aesthetic, from an ice siege in a narrow pass, to a misty forest ambush, to the all out thundering roar of the final battle. It uses the picturesque, damp, wild UK locations to achieve some really amazing shots. One note: it's important to see the Director's cut, which is longer and presented in all its bloody, romantic, uncensored glory. Disney, who had shares in the rights at the time, had to be a buzzkill and insist they tone it down for its theatrical run, which is bullshit, to put it mildly. That could be a reason it didn't do too well in theatres initially. Irregardless, it's a blood stirring, gorgeous film of epic proportions and an excellent addition to the genre.

Something new

[davidpapez · 7/10 · 9 June 2019]

The story is quiet refreshing, we are used to classic stories about medieval king Arthur. They show new interpretation. It is well shown how Arthur fights for what he belives, no matter of supperiors. Landscape is also phenomenal, fozen lake is, in my opinion, in the top of frozen lakes in whole movie industrie, fortfress and villa are just stunning. Acting could be better, but overall movie is very well made.