Read the user reviews and had to see for myself. I agree with most of them. This was so boring. The acting is really bad. Very light on action. Extremely unconvincing sword play. Arthur charachter is weak and horribly presented. Merlin is not in it for more than 5 min total. Felt like someone had some money to waste and wanted to make a high school production on film. Just skip this one.
67 Reviews
I am not sure why I even gave it 2 stars...
film_fodder2 September 2020
This is one of those annoying films. It has a rating of 7.4 (at time of writing) and yet the very highest user review rating is 3 stars! - I wish I had read the reviews first....
The good: ...*.......*......*.... (that's a tumble-weed moving across the screen)
The bad: Well.... to quote a fellow reviewer "bloody awful".
The good: ...*.......*......*.... (that's a tumble-weed moving across the screen)
The bad: Well.... to quote a fellow reviewer "bloody awful".
- Its constantly dark/dreary (like the film)
- Its soooo boring, I had to reach for the FFD button a lot to get to the end
- The pacing is terrible, and there is so much slow fluff going on that I could not be bothered to concentrait hard enough to really follow any of it... but basically the story is King Arthur comes home and takes control back off his naughty son (who probably has a point btw) - and that's really it.
- The king is the most annoying whiny-arse... why would anyone follow him. To be fair he does tell people this all the time, but they are like: "we will follow you to the end" and crap like that...
- Did I mention it is very boring?
- I did not enjoy the screen time of any actor at all - not one, and that is rare... well, possibly merlin, but then he only had about 3 lines - yet its called Arthur AND merlin??? - it should be called "Arthur whines a lot"
- ehhh... I am too bored to remember the rest...
Pretty terrible
onebigvon17 July 2020
Who rated this a 7.5?
meltony-836908 September 2020
This is NOT a comedy
khanguru13 July 2020
I wonder who got the weird idea to tag this movie as a comedy since it's absolutely not in any way shape or form, not even with a second degree of lecture. And worst, this not even a good movie at all.... Not a good swordfight in it , no interesting plot , no attaching character,..... This movie is boring as hell and the only good news is that it last only for 90 min wich feel already like 180 min. Maybe you're a fan of the Arthurian mythology, well you'd better avoid watching this because like me you won't find nothing a bout it in that piece of crap.
Bloody awful
Dogtagz17 July 2020
Exhibits no reason for being made
cruzarts-7394612 August 2020
I have an affection for low-budget literary adaptations that show a passion for the source material or a fresh point of view.
This film has neither. It doesn't even exhibit any zeal for film making. The actors are utterly failed by this.
This film has neither. It doesn't even exhibit any zeal for film making. The actors are utterly failed by this.
Did friends and family help get the rating up?
rufusdeuchler8 September 2020
Unlikable characters whine through an uninspired plot
feralharmoium22 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This is truly awful for anyone who likes Arthurian legends, or movies, or women. We first see Arthur and Lancelot being Bro-boys and talking about the chicks they banged. We then meet a weeping Guinevere and are given no reason to like her or the men. We are told Arthur marries her and are fast-forwarded to him indulging in self pity in a bar while neglecting his duties as king, husband, and father. Lancelot arranges for a woman to proposition King Bro-Boy, and he happily cheats of the heart of his heat, the woman he loves, his wife (who he abandoned and neglects). His son grew up with a thing for his stepmom. Bro-boy Jr. not only tries to take the throne, but he has some weird rapey sexual aggression for his stepmom that in no way furthers the plot. I think it's supposed to be titillating, but it's creepy and nasty. But then. all the men in this movie are kind of creepy. I don't have anyone to root for. I don't know how any of the characters like each other or themselves. I am sorry I watched it. This movie is not good if you have daughters. Or sons. Or eyeballs.
What a disappointing movie
alh35723 July 2020
This is surely one of the worst movies of 2020. Everything about it is way below average. The acting and fight scenes sucked, and the plot is just utter rubbish. Watching this movie to the end will only leave you regretting.
Largely faithful to a strand of the Arthurian tradition
christopher-berard10 May 2021
I am an Arthurian scholar and I liked this film. It stands, broadly speaking, in the tradition of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain (1137), the Alliterative Morte Arthure (1400), and Thomas Hughes' Misfortunes of Arthur (1588). True to this tradition, Arthur has been building an international empire. He and his Celtic warriors have defeated the preeminent superpower of the pseudo-historical age, the Romans. After Arthur's stunning victory, he learns that the blood relation that he left in charge has usurped his kingdom and his taken his wife. Arthur must find his way home and restore order to his kingdom but before he can do so he must restore order in his mind, body, and soul. The premise is GREAT and TRUE to one core strand of the literary tradition.
The scenery and photography are great. The dialogue is, admittedly, in need of some polishing. The actors are doing the best with what they have and at times elevate the script. This film may not be a masterpiece, but it deserves way more love and appreciation than it's getting on this review board.
The scenery and photography are great. The dialogue is, admittedly, in need of some polishing. The actors are doing the best with what they have and at times elevate the script. This film may not be a masterpiece, but it deserves way more love and appreciation than it's getting on this review board.
Watchable movie but could have been better more epic and more involving
marcgreenman22 May 2021
I happened across a trailer for this film somewhere on the internet and it looked kind of intriguing at the time, when I found out that I could watch it for free on Amazon Prime I decided to give it a look. It must be said that there are a great many variations of the Arthur and Merlin story in film and these are very easy to find, I imagine that the quality varies the idea is certainly not original and it must be hard to think of some variation of it which someone else has not already done. I will probably be watching more of these in the future as I like mythological stories. The upcoming The Green Knight does however appear to be better than this film.
The central threat of this story is the Saxon army. You will soon notice that the Saxons never really appear, neither do we see any signs of an actual army let alone any war scenes. This is a bit of a giveaway that budgetary restrictions may have been involved in the production, as this threat is all about talk, not about revealing. Mordred is supposedly an agent of the Saxons, Joel Phillimore plays it very corrupt and creepy, at the same time Mordred never does anything really evil and it becomes difficult to believe that he is actually a real threat, a conclusion borne out by the eventual climax. The sorceress Vortigone is slightly more interesting, an occasional magic user which makes her a little more unpredictable than Mordred. I spent some time trying to figure out where Morgana was, before coming to the conclusion that she is not actually part of this story. This is one of the factors which makes Knights of Camelot feel more like a sequel than an original story.
Arthur himself is played by Richard Short. The story appears to be missing the true beginning of Arthur, who is having many problems and appears to have lost his kingdom. Regaining the throne is the central thrust of the story. Short shows lots of emotion and I began to find his performance engaging, in spite of not really knowing this actor and not really having seen him before. He appears to be the best actor in the cast and gives more to his role than anyone else. Merlin is played by Richard Brake. Merlin can change into the form of a bird, he can also teleport, apart from this his magic is not really used very much, indeed Merlin appears very little in the film and remains very mysterious, or underdeveloped, throughout. There is some use of magic throughout the film, this does make it stand out slightly as apart from this the film appears to follow a very realistic tone. Like the acting the magic appears to be underplayed.
The film is very dark and shadowy, almost like black and white, the shadows stand out as being really dark. This makes the film look and feel really moody, the technique itself is probably achieved quite simply but can give a film a striking visual intensity with little effort. The landscape shots are sweeping and give the film an occasionally epic feel when they do occur. I think that most of the outdoor shots or certainly a majority of them were filmed under circumstances where there was a lot of tree cover or cloud cover, making the settings deliberately darker.
The film was certainly not a letdown, on the other hand it does not really rise to any great heights either. It was probably under budgeted, as there are signs of shortcuts of one kind or another in various forms. The acting is fair to middling, with Richard Short's Arthur probably the best performance of the cast. There was some nice use of magic, but the film feels more like a drama than an epic. The fight scenes are not bad, but not very large in scope and they could have been a little more exciting.
The central threat of this story is the Saxon army. You will soon notice that the Saxons never really appear, neither do we see any signs of an actual army let alone any war scenes. This is a bit of a giveaway that budgetary restrictions may have been involved in the production, as this threat is all about talk, not about revealing. Mordred is supposedly an agent of the Saxons, Joel Phillimore plays it very corrupt and creepy, at the same time Mordred never does anything really evil and it becomes difficult to believe that he is actually a real threat, a conclusion borne out by the eventual climax. The sorceress Vortigone is slightly more interesting, an occasional magic user which makes her a little more unpredictable than Mordred. I spent some time trying to figure out where Morgana was, before coming to the conclusion that she is not actually part of this story. This is one of the factors which makes Knights of Camelot feel more like a sequel than an original story.
Arthur himself is played by Richard Short. The story appears to be missing the true beginning of Arthur, who is having many problems and appears to have lost his kingdom. Regaining the throne is the central thrust of the story. Short shows lots of emotion and I began to find his performance engaging, in spite of not really knowing this actor and not really having seen him before. He appears to be the best actor in the cast and gives more to his role than anyone else. Merlin is played by Richard Brake. Merlin can change into the form of a bird, he can also teleport, apart from this his magic is not really used very much, indeed Merlin appears very little in the film and remains very mysterious, or underdeveloped, throughout. There is some use of magic throughout the film, this does make it stand out slightly as apart from this the film appears to follow a very realistic tone. Like the acting the magic appears to be underplayed.
The film is very dark and shadowy, almost like black and white, the shadows stand out as being really dark. This makes the film look and feel really moody, the technique itself is probably achieved quite simply but can give a film a striking visual intensity with little effort. The landscape shots are sweeping and give the film an occasionally epic feel when they do occur. I think that most of the outdoor shots or certainly a majority of them were filmed under circumstances where there was a lot of tree cover or cloud cover, making the settings deliberately darker.
The film was certainly not a letdown, on the other hand it does not really rise to any great heights either. It was probably under budgeted, as there are signs of shortcuts of one kind or another in various forms. The acting is fair to middling, with Richard Short's Arthur probably the best performance of the cast. There was some nice use of magic, but the film feels more like a drama than an epic. The fight scenes are not bad, but not very large in scope and they could have been a little more exciting.
Not worth the memory space
royalrowe30 August 2020
TERRIBLE MOVIE - Don't waste your time watching it.
Bob_Harris_UK15 July 2020
This has to be the very worst King Arthur movie ever made.
The story line and script is extensively boring in every way.
The 'actors' must have been gathered from the village amateur dramatics society.
The sword fighting is akin to children playing with wooden swords in the playground.
Long shots of the castle in a coastline hill are terrible CGI, typical of 1990's home computer games.
I can't think of anything positive to say about this film. It's just terrible!
I can't think of anything positive to say about this film. It's just terrible!
Would've been more entertained accidentally locked in the Men's Room
refordgarry21 July 2020
Wasted an hour watching this one, before realizing it wasn't going to get any better. Arthur didn't look a bit his TW White, "Sword in the Stone" hero, nor did Merlin. And that weird woman appearing and vanishing like the vapors. Medieval girl power? They almost deserved one of the stars for managing to work that one in.
Terrible!!!!
tinosawells5 September 2020
IS IT ANY GOOD? NO
jewelch19 December 2020
A budget drama with fantasy elements, this movie is a committed attempt to show the legendary King Arthur in a different light. Compromised by fighting abroad, he must deal with both the criticism and the consequences he faces for fighting foreign wars rather than protecting his home. Unfortunately, Arthur & Merlin: Knights of Camelot is light on both plot and characterization. Arthur's return to Camelot is slow and tedious, leaving the audience to wait a long time for the movie's final, climactic 15 minutes.
It's also frustrating that Modred, Arthur's illegitimate son who has a genuine grievance with him, is reduced to a pantomime villain. Guinevere (Stella Stocker) is likewise undeveloped, as she wards off Modred's advances and does little else. Another criticism is that the script occasionally slips into modern speech -- Modred is described as "making a play" for the kingdom at one point -- and that many scenes repeat the same plot points through their dialogue. Perhaps the biggest disappointment is that Merlin (Richard Brake) is presented as one of the lead characters, but only appears in a handful of scenes. It's another missed opportunity in this medieval tragedy. James Welch Henderson, Arkansas 12/19/2020
It's also frustrating that Modred, Arthur's illegitimate son who has a genuine grievance with him, is reduced to a pantomime villain. Guinevere (Stella Stocker) is likewise undeveloped, as she wards off Modred's advances and does little else. Another criticism is that the script occasionally slips into modern speech -- Modred is described as "making a play" for the kingdom at one point -- and that many scenes repeat the same plot points through their dialogue. Perhaps the biggest disappointment is that Merlin (Richard Brake) is presented as one of the lead characters, but only appears in a handful of scenes. It's another missed opportunity in this medieval tragedy. James Welch Henderson, Arkansas 12/19/2020
Skallagrim brought me here
jan-hranac8 December 2020
I learned about this movie's existence because Skallagrim criticized the fact that they use cheap prop swords. I can live with that, it's a cheap movie. It can't hold candle to Excalibur but what movie does?
If it's airing on public TV and you need a background for your pizza&beer time with your family/friends, this is what you ought to put on TV (with low volume). Nothing more, nothing less.
Doesn't worth your time to watch it
asahlavani17 September 2020
Awful
lostkiwi9925 September 2020
Perplexed by all the hate
o_faculty12 November 2021
This movie is nowhere near as bad as the reviews here.
The acting reminds me of Shakespearean stage acting, which works well with the natural lighting.
The plot is essentially scenes from the legends relevant to the theme of the film.
The take on Arthur's character as conflicted and ultimately redeemed by his passion for his folk and homeland is inspired and uplifting.
The set design is simple, but all the more realistic (with the exception of the CGI castle).
As far as negatives, hair and makeup could have used some work (especially Mordred, very 1990s Blink 182). The historically inaccurate bedmate at the start pulls you out a bit, but I suppose it's there to show just how far Arthur's fallen. There are a few more nitpicks on casting (Arthur looks like a Roman...kind of bizarre), but no real issues of substance.
The acting reminds me of Shakespearean stage acting, which works well with the natural lighting.
The plot is essentially scenes from the legends relevant to the theme of the film.
The take on Arthur's character as conflicted and ultimately redeemed by his passion for his folk and homeland is inspired and uplifting.
The set design is simple, but all the more realistic (with the exception of the CGI castle).
As far as negatives, hair and makeup could have used some work (especially Mordred, very 1990s Blink 182). The historically inaccurate bedmate at the start pulls you out a bit, but I suppose it's there to show just how far Arthur's fallen. There are a few more nitpicks on casting (Arthur looks like a Roman...kind of bizarre), but no real issues of substance.
A lot better than "the reviews" said
jbilbysky1 October 2020
To all you naysayers out there, this adaptation of the classic Arthurian legend was well worth the watch. Yes some of the camera shots were suspect, the acting so so, but it kept to the basis of the legend, and played out well. Some reviewers stated that Merlin was only in it for 5 minutes. Yes in human form he was but as the Falcon he normally portrays in legend, and books, he was in it the whole film long. I enjoyed it!!
Action? Adventure? B-Movie - only kids rating this high
philhunt56731 August 2020
Every movie has "action" I suppose but if you're looking for real "action" and you're mature then this isn't the place to find it.
Every movie has "adventure" - see above
Yes 100% it's history with B-Movie or lower direction/acting but must give thumbs up for some of the props & scenery/location.
It seems kids of today haven't the time to discover movies made over 10 years ago because I'm sure if they did then they're rating for this effort would be severely impacted.
To be honest after 30mins I watched Dreamer: Inspired By a True Story (2005) and loved every minute of it - currently the rating is only 6.8 go figure.
It seems kids of today haven't the time to discover movies made over 10 years ago because I'm sure if they did then they're rating for this effort would be severely impacted.
To be honest after 30mins I watched Dreamer: Inspired By a True Story (2005) and loved every minute of it - currently the rating is only 6.8 go figure.
Unbelievably terrible
farshidn-0267025 September 2020
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
