Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Powerful

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

There where a few things that I thought strange and done to create conflict that made so sense. First they need to get the kid beyond the wall. Why do the Romans have a castle there. Why is it not south of the wall and why do they have such important persons(like the kid) in it. Why have not the Celts attacked that. They attack south of the wall but not the lightly defended settlement north of it. Then we have the Saxons that want to plunder. They do not land in the richer roman territories, but in the Celtic. Sure you could argue that they do not know, but because they want to go south, they should then return to the ships and land somewhere there so they don't have to storm the wall. Speaking of the wall, the last battle fells so strange. I imagine Arthur before the battle telling the battle plan, which everyone must think is a bit odd. He do not use the wall even though the Saxon just arrived and has no siege material such as ladders. He proposes to open the doors and let the army in. He is certain the whole army will not go and in the smoke he created, he and his 5 other riders will attack and kill them all. Then when the rest comes they will all attack and destroy the army. The last part could work, but the first part just seems stupid.

I can't imagine what people fault in this movie. Just get your popcorn and have a good time. Remember when we just watched movies for a good time? Suspend disbelief and nitpicking, relax, and watch a superb cast in some excellent action, excellent cinematography, and, yes, the story we all know and love by now, but with interesting wrinkles. HAVE FUN!

to criticize this film seems be so easy than a good idea represents to looking for its virtues. and the first is the idea to present Arthur different by cartoons representations or literary portraits. the second, the good intentions to imagine the atmosphere. sure, only good intentions because the historical accuracy is lost from the start. not the last, a good point is the effort of actors to do a decent job. the effort only could be admired. because the feeling is clear - wrong cast for a film who desires be so credible than becomes amusing. the entire story becomes fake. the dialogues, the costumes, the porpoises of the characters. Clive Owens is out of his role and Keira Knightley tries to demonstrate her good intentions than her Guinevere seems be a shadow. the real virtue of film - the convincing pledge for return to the legends about Arthur and his followers.

There are many types of filmgoers. There are those choosing the cinema as a safe bet for a date, to film buffs who just enjoy everything about the movie experience. My least favorite people are the avant garde psudo-sophisticates who drain the life out of everything like some vampire of joy. They don't like certain films because it makes them feel superior to say so. These are the same viewers who feel the need to prove just how smart they are by posting flaming reviews. Asshats often feel obliged to set fire to the actors, plot, music, or in the case of King Arthur historical inaccuracies. Then these self-appointed grand marshals of film post their bile on line. If you look at their reviews their hate extends to movies you probably liked. I suppose indie films are more to their liking because only someone who trashes mainstream movies can run with this crowd.It would be difficult to tell the actual story of Arthur because that individual, if such a person existed, is lost in antiquity. This film just has a different take on a legendary character. There are references to actual historical figures, but is it necessary to have the dates just right to move the story along? Probably not, unless you are a Middle Age historian. If Merlin had appeared in a Land Rover there would be room for complaint. I don't recall anyone complaining about Tarantino's history butchering Inglorious Bastards.Merlin turns out to be a leader of people more closely resembling Picts than Britons but the key take away is that he is not the mythical wizard many people expect. This Merlin is more like a mystical druid. At first I was not crazy about this character but I appreciated the fresh take of dispensing with magic altogether.Guinevere and Lancelot have a different chemistry than the myth. The Knights of the Round Table definitely have a band of brothers vibe going on because Arthur is just one of the boys. I thought it was a nice touch that the true Romans had Italian accents and the invading Saxons had German and Swedish accents.Clive Owen's performance was called wooden but he used the same style of acting in Sin City. I liked him in both roles. Owen strikes a noble figure as King Arthur. As a leader, it is obvious why he commands the loyalty of his fellow knights.This is Antoine Fuqua's first venture into a historically driven epic. Fuqua did an amazing job. I am only sorry that more people did not appreciate his treatment of subject matter or the characters. The film overall was worth the admission. The visuals are excellent. The locations are eye catching and the frenzied battles are well choreographed. It is a movie worth watching more than once. If it's the job of film and actors to entertain, then this movie delivers. Those who say it was the worst movie they ever saw better be careful in the rain, they may drown with their noses turned up so far.