DannyHarris' Rating of King Arthur

Danny's Review of King Arthur

7 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes
King Arthur

King Arthur(2004)

This movie sadly claims to be historically accurate. Even though there are several differences to Arthurian lore. Personally I think renaming a few characters, including the title character, and saying it's based on the characters in Arthurian lore. BAM! historical inaccuracies fixed and we have a cast of likable characters. But speaking of characters did anybody notice that Galahad was virtually useless in this movie? I don't recall him doing much at all. The guy portraying him wasn't a bad actor, by no means was he a bad actor, he did his job fairly well, but he had no purpose, in fact if you cut his entire character from the story, it would only cause minor confusion in a few scenes. I suppose having a character who has no purpose is better than being confused though. But had it been based upon characters in Arthurian lore we might not have had any useless characters. Gawain was also fairly pointless in this movie, but nowhere near as pointless as Galahad. But in retrospect at least everyone is likable in this movie I personally liked the portrayal of Tristan. A silent and deadly bad ass who could slay you with an arrow even if he barely sees you. If you ignore a lot of the historical inaccuracies this movie is actually kind of thrilling in many ways. It has great choreography, some talented acting, intelligent characters, and a decent script. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense to ignore historical inaccuracies when it claims to be the true story not to mention the fact if you put the name King Arthur on your movie you had better not heavily deviate from the source material because there are people like me who enjoy tales of Arthur Pendragon. But for a dark ages action movie, it's not too bad. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of issues. Which is why I gave it a 40%, it has issues but hey I didn't hate any characters and at least it didn't lose my attention.