Well, First, the positive. Overall good acting, and not bad as movie, could have got happily twice the stars. So, why did I not give more ? Some elements are correct, e.g. the "tabula" with wax and the stilus (yep, the stylus was not invented with tablet computers :-)), but form a film that at the start pretends to be a true accurate historical reconstruction... Well, another comment made a list of 7 points historically wrong (though making some reference that could itself be disputable, e.g. Picts are in general considered part of the vast Celtic family), in reality, the list can be much longer, but just two examples... The Sarmatians were known for their cavalry, but it was heavy cavalry more similar to the "knights" (though not with the same type of rigid armor) than to what shown in the movies. Also, the "vallum" (by the way, that is the origin of the word "wall" ), to be historically accurate, should have shown the ditches etc. (effectively, a "vallum" was more than just a wall). And while it is true that in ancient time having hostages and tributes including slaves was not unheard of, the mechanism shown in the movie about enlisting in the Roman army is completely wrong. Is Hollywood famous for its historical accuracy (thus is this film really such a bad exception) ? Definitively NOT, and many times it goes straight into "propaganda" - that why some movies use the non committal (lawyer approved ;-)) "inspired by true events" ("inspired"). Again, the problem is that it that pretense at the start to be "THE" historical reconstruction. To enjoy some time, and see a different reinterpretation on the "Arthurian cycle", it's one thing, but do NOT pretend after seeing this movie that you know the story of "true Arthur", or the story or situation of the Europe, the Roman empire, or England in that period, because you will not.

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.

Claiming to tell the true story that inspired the legend, Antoine Fuqua put forth a gritty version of King Arthur. Narrated by Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), the story tells of young men recruited by the Roman Empire to fight along the wall splitting Britain. Arthur (Clive Owen) leads a group of men, played by recognizable actors, as they fight barbarians alongside the Roman soldiers. These attackers are led by Merlin (Stephen Dillane). The knights Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), Bors (Ray Winstone) and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson) all prove to be brave and brutal warriors as they fight an advancement encouraged by the impending exit of the Roman Empire from Britain.The knights do sit at a roundtable and look forward to returning home for some peace, but one last mission brings them North to fight the Saxon hordes and rescue a family. Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgård) leads the Saxons with his son Cynric (Til Schweiger). Arthur and his knights find a settlement of Christians punishing pagans. The knights free some of the tortured people and find Guinevere (Keira Knightley) trapped behind a wall being put to death. They free her and leave the priests to the Saxons. Check out more of this review and others at swilliky.com

In short, prefer « Excalibur » than this poor crap : sure the production is well done and the landscapes, winter, mineral colors really pulse the Celtic soul. Sure it's interesting to have historical facts between Romans, Saxons, Britons and Samartians ( ?) and i appreciate the efforts to do realistic and timely furniture ! But i don't have this western mind anymore to indulge into the heroics of the courageous leader and his blind followers all killing for liberty ! I'm just fed up with this soup history we are forced to gulp : spilling blood, raping women, making orphans can't come from a truly human inspiring figure. Sure, once you kill every one to dissent, you have every body agree ! Besides this, the movie shows terrible flaws : to start with the movie with the knights and not Arthur is stupidly forgetting just the core of the movie (remember its title ?), Keira has a warrior is a sad sight and the poor Skarsgard still pollutes my movie with his lack of anything that made him here a really pitiful villain! RUS!