Doctor's Review of King Arthur
When you sit down to watch a Hollywood movie titled simply King Arthur, which of these movies would you expect to have paid your hard-earned cash to see?
A) A movie with English knights, jousting, a quest for the Holy Grail, powerful wizards, and chivalry during the 1450s
B) A movie with Roman soldiers, historical contexts, grubby Saxons, magic-free conflicts, and land annexation during the 450s.
Yep, you and the rest of the disillusioned movie-going public, mate.
While attempting to trace the truthful roots of one of England's greatest legends could make an interesting film, Antoine Fuqua's version assuredly is filled with straw-grasping conjecture which deserves a finger-wagging for pretending otherwise. For starters, the Saxons would've gone down as having the worst battle tactics in the history of warfare! (Get drawn into a major skirmish from across an icy lake? Forward march against those archers of course, and make sure you have heavy shields and stand close together. Why not stomp around while you're at it for appearances?) Also, fiery boulders would tend to burn down your own trebuchets which are made of wood, rope, and leather - but hey, it looks cool!
One more trap you might want to reconsider: see Keira Knightley on the cover? She looks hot, right? What they don't show you is that she only dresses that way for the final battle - which takes an entire Iron Age to begin - and she is painted blue so she ends up looking like one of those creatures from Avatar. And there's no way those bony arms could draw a longbow from that era to do more damage than pop a balloon.
Enough large-scale battle scenes to maybe gain another star if you've never heard of King Arthur nor seen a movie with large-scale battle scenes. Otherwise, this one pretty much Fuqua'd up.