King Arthur

Warning: Contains Spoilers

The chief problem with this movie is that it takes itself very seriously. The opening scroll-down boldly announces that historical research has now established the truth behind the legend of Arthur. With that said, we, the audience, are then supposed to believe that what is presented in the movie is historical fact. It is suggested that the `real' Arthur was in fact one Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman cavalry commander in charge of a group of Sarmatian horsemen stationed at Hadrian's Wall. Well, there is some historical evidence that such a man existed. But that particular Artorius Castus lived in the second century CE.

The movie, however, takes place in 452 CE, about three hundred years later. Our film's Artorius Castus is half Roman-half British, and his knights of the round table, yes, there is a round table in the movie, are Sarmatian cavalrymen. Let's see. The Sarmatians came from the region north of the Black Sea, and they are known to have been closely related to the Persians. So, they almost certainly would not have resembled the movie's Sarmatians, and they certainly would not have had names like Lancelot, Gawain, and Galahad. These are pure Thomas Malory. I guess giving them Sarmatian names would have been too `historical'. We don't need no stinking history to confuse things!

And while we're mentioning history, all the books that I've ever read say that the Roman legions departed Britain around 408 CE, forty-four years before our story takes place. Oh well. And a Roman villa north of Hadrian's Wall? I don't think so. No Roman would have been that insane. And then there's Keira Knightly prancing around on the ice in a Peplos-type gown that has no more consistency than a modern nightgown. Hmm! Wouldn't she have been a bit cold? Didn't appear so though. No doubt she'll be playing Queen Boudica soon.

I did find the Saxon army convincing, even if they didn't use crossbows. But in Dark Age battles, it generally wasn't death to every last man. The battle stopped when one of the war-leaders was slain, and his head and hands hoisted on poles for all to see. And for those who know their `history', those nasty, brutish Saxons of course did succeed in repulsing the British, driving them out of what is today England, and becoming in the process the `English', the name just a variant on one of the other Germanic tribes that was invading Britain at the time, the Angles.

It's been pointed out numerous times that Hollywood epics aren't meant to be historical. OK, then why imply historical accuracy at the beginning? Why don't such movies just be forthright and honest? Either strive reasonably for historical accuracy or else just say that the story's meant to entertain. Unfortunately, this King Arthur lamentably fails in both departments.

4 out of 10 (as I said, I liked the depiction of the Saxons)