|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 172)
|
|
 |
An excellent action packed movie about the legendary Sarmation knight and eventual King of Britain. I have seen movies with better action scenes such as Chronicles of Narnia The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe and Lord of the Rings Return of the King or The Two Towers. But I digress the action is my favorite part of this movie and Clive Owen was a good pick for this role as was Keira Knightley for Guinevere. Good movie worth seeing.
9/10
2.10.2009 -
ducksrule@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
An excellent story and plot with great action scenes and drama, this film is one of my favourites.
7/10
19.7.2008 -
richyazda42@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
DVD: "King Arthur"
Very well done in this movie good fight scences and hot actors.
10/10
5.2.2007 -
shannon-a_k_a-midget@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
DVD: "King Arthur"
Excellent movie, a must see such good action in it.
9/10
5.2.2007 -
duke_nukem6669@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
It's a good movie but it is not the best of the other King Arthur's movie. There are many scene that I will change if I was the producer. But it worth to see for sure.
7/10
15.8.2006 -
sam4him@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
King Arthur starts out as a reworking of the Arthurian legend and grabs your attention from the start. Things get even better as Clive Owen spends more time on screen but as the movie progresses it just turns into an endless series of cliches, here made all the more tedious by the self indulgent director's cut. There are endless battles scenes that temporarily slow down so that you can see the blood squirt from a multitude of fallen foe. And speaking of tedious, what is Hollywood's fixation with the always tedious Keira Knightley, here featured as a "spirited" Guinevere? Finally, fellow film buff, as you roll your eyes heavenward yet one more time and the final bloody battle commenses be careful not to miss our lovely Keira's outfit. That's right, Arthur and his brave knights are outfitted in armour, but our intrepid girl need only wear pants, a couple of thin leather strips binding her breats to her chest, and blue paint to feel equipped to meet the savage Saxons. There is so little character development I couldn't get my knights straight. This movie is a real mess that only the most hardcore sword opera buff will enjoy.
3/10
11.8.2006 -
suzannemsimon@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
I like very much this movie, because I like the history of the past. I am in a team and do medieval fight with bow and sword and I do horse ridding throug the forest.
10/10
20.11.2005 -
caroline,jolliet@ - age: 13-17
We don't watch this movie such as it is. It's more than a good peplum. There is so much thing to find, to discover. I've seen it 15 times and I discover things even and even.
10/10
14.6.2005 -
jeannemarie_dalbavie@ - age: 18-25
What a bad movie, so disappointing. This movie thinks that it is so great but really it is not. Stay away from this movie as much as possible. So bad!
1/10
29.5.2005 -
jjpat93@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
King Arthur was a very good film. I enjoyed the action scenes and was entertained throughout.
9/10
27.5.2005 -
dzduguay@ - age: 26-35
I really enjoyed King Arthur. I thought the acting was pretty good, the plot was interesting and the action was awesome. This is a definite must-rent.
9/10
16.5.2005 -
sarahsaddy@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
It was awesome. A must see. Go and rent it now. 1 of the best movies I've seen. Really Good Movie!!! Go 'n' get it.
10/10
1.5.2005 -
the_waltons_2003@ - age: 13-17
The actors were great. The movie awesome. It is a definet masterpiece. I loved it. Go rent it now.
10/10
22.1.2005 -
geena_walton@ - age: 13-17
The acting was mediocre and so was the cast. It gave a different spin on a topic that has been played and replayed for audiences. I thought there should be more character development.
6/10
13.1.2005 -
jobs444@ - age: 26-35
Worth it if you don't pay. The acting and story is bad. The action is good.
5/10
1.1.2005 -
jsherman50@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I thought this was a great movie. I heard tons of crappy things about it, so I never ended up seeing it till it came out to dvd. I have 1 question, what the heck is wrong with it? The action was great, the acting was very good, and Keira Knightley still looks hot as a barbarian. And kudos to Clive Owen, he is such a great actor, but so underrated. I recommend this movie whole-heartedly.
9/10
30.12.2004 -
multitalented_2@ - age: 13-17
I thought the Movie Sucked! They compared it too Excalibur, they said "King Arthur is the best movie depicting the Arthurian legend", NOT.
3/10
21.12.2004 -
ravevon13@ - age: 36-49
This was a great movie! THere was so much action and the actors were amazing! Good Job. A must see!!
10/10
17.12.2004 -
pepsi_lovinit@ - age: 13-17
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I liked their twist on the King Arthur legend and the characters were well developped. I'm not sure I quite liked the love triangle with Guenivere, I thought that that was unecessary but nontheless it was good to a have a romantic aspect to the story. The costumes and scenery were very well done. Another bone I have to pick with the movie, though, is that it was very much centered around war which is why my voting isn't as high as it would be. Nevertheless it was quite a good movie with excellent acting and a pretty good plot.
7/10
18.9.2004 -
natascia@ - age: 13-17
Forget about Camelot and everything else you know of King Arthur. This is something COMPLETELY different. Very similar to Braveheart, only with less compelling characters and action (there's next to no blood) Still, this is not for kids: it's still quite violent and there are a couple of possibly disturbing scenes. Basically, I enjoyed this for the first 2/3, then it started to drag on. The final confrontation is less than spectacular and the build-up to it is not very exciting either. Clive Owen is a great actor. Kiera Knightley (fitting name) is okay, but I find her irritating. She seems to have a predatory smirk on her face all the time that makes me want [...] say, "Hey, what the heck are you smirking about! " Not as good as Braveheart, or even Troy, but still a pretty good flick.
7/10
18.9.2004 -
newscott13@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
In russia, such a movie is called "cult classic" by the most people, but is this movie good? Well I would say yes, but may be not you would? So 2 thumbs up since this movie is "the summer best movie of the year! " Good Features: history, story tellings, costumes Bad Features: not enough russian speacking!
9/10
16.9.2004 -
red_army@ - age: 50+
GREAT MOVIE! Sure it was a bit off the real story but they made it an nice story. The ice part is the best! When you get there and if you're not paying attention, START PAYING ATTENTION!!!
8/10
8.9.2004 -
bam_morland@ - age: 1-12
| | | | |
I really enjoyed this movie, especially since I KNEW BEFOREHAND that it was NOT a retelling of the Arthurian legend. For one thing, I really didn't miss the character of Morgane for one second. Good story, good costumes, good acting. Clive Owen was strong and charismatic as Arthur, but it's Ioan Gruffund (aka Horatio Hornblower) that stole the movie for me. There is a light in that guy's eyes that was a perfect counterpart to Owen's gloomy Arthur. I was not a fan of the new Guenevere though, mostly because she was a copy of Keira Knightley's character from Pirates of the Carribean. I think the poor girl (not to mention the usually deeper character) deserved better than this copy/paste job. Plus, Owen had more chemistry with Gruffund than he had with her, which kind of warped the whole "love triangle" in a way not at all unpleasant for me. The other knights are also good enough to make us care about characters that don't exactly have much development of their own. A must see for any fan of the old King Arthur story, but only if you don't go whining to your mother that they tried a different approach.
9/10
30.8.2004 -
fleur_de_lys_111@ - age: 18-25
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Good story, some really great shots... sad ending though.
8/10
25.8.2004 -
tsukushi@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
TERRIBLE!!! Worst movie I've seen all year. I remember being dragged to Freddy vs. Jason and coming out sooo angry and how I could have wasted my money and even more so, my time. When I saw freddy vs. Jason I paid for myself and another person and the expenditure on that awful movie doesnt being to compare with King Arthur. I've studied King Arthur in school and this story doesnt even begin to brush up with the facts we've learned. The script writer wrote a terrible movie and simply named some characters after the most basic ones out of a book. The script was truely painful, though it didnt even compare to the acting. The characters dialouge sounded like it was dubbed in from a cheap 80's van-damme box office crash. When the first of 2 battles came around I finally pulled myself out of a coma hoping that I might get the smallest fraction of value for the money I wasted. It certainly met up to the standards of the script writer and producer as they completely lack any mentallity for making a good movie. The second action scene to say the least was even worse. So disappointing. Oscar material? Hahaha yeah right!!! If I was rich I would pay people not to see this. Give me a handi-cam, a broom stick horse and plastic sword and I'll make a better movie. I will never comprehend how anyone could enjoy this movie.
1/10
20.8.2004 -
matt_k87@ - age: 18-25
K, first of all I would like to say that im totally discusted that this movie is sitting at an overall rating of 7.2, like hello, this movie totally sucked it wuz the worst movie I have cn in my life!!! And I have cn alot of movies and no a very crapy one when I c it, and second, the person who said this wuz better then troy, ewww, it soo wuz not even a comparison, just dont c it ever! Save your time and money and dont listen to the other ppl.
1/10
18.8.2004 -
sweet_cherry_pie6t9@ - age: 13-17
It was decent. The fight scenes could have been a bit more graphic. Good acting.
7/10
18.8.2004 -
antimeta@ - age: 18-25
I absolutely loved this movie. I have seen it nine times. All the knights were perfect for the parts they played. I can't wait until it is released so that I can have it in my home.
9/10
16.8.2004 -
goldfire43@ - age: 36-49
Poor movie. Completely different from the book. Extremely violence. Not at all like history. Boring. Makes you feel dizzy. Weird knights. Too much unexplained stuff. Confusing. Don't watch it even if they pay you to, you will feel sick for at least three days and night, unable to stand the dizzness. Movies recommended: Shrek 2, Harry Potter 3 and Pirates of The Carribean.
3/10
16.8.2004 -
ottawasam@ - age: 13-17
I enjoyed watching this movie. It's not superb however it's worth watching. It was produced well. The battle scenes were realistic, I say this even though I've never been in a real one ; ) I also enjoyed the story, true or not, it was nice, seeing values replace immediate personal interests.
8/10
15.8.2004 -
arash@ - age: 26-35
Wow! Amazing movie. Go see it now!!!
10/10
15.8.2004 -
gdakar@ - age: 18-25
It an incradeble movie that u will never ever forget in every thing music, sounds artsists everything.
9/10
12.8.2004 -
johtec@ - age: 26-35
Don't expect the Camelot version of the King Arthur legend. This traces one of several theories of Arthur's beginnings and is a refreshing departure from the norm. Not a great movie but worth seeing for the awesome ancient battle scenes.
7/10
11.8.2004 -
ssocr@ - age: 50+
I enjoyed it didn't think it was anything excellentbut it was a good movie. Still Braveheart is the best of them all. What I mean is any movie that relates to this type of movie such as "Troy" with Brad Pitt. Was not overly impress with that movie.
7/10
11.8.2004 -
grasshopper62@ - age: 36-49
Very good movie!! A mix of "lord of the ring" & "the last samurai". if u loved those two moviez, u should see this one!!
8/10
4.8.2004 -
bb_aaliyah7901@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
I really liked this move, a little romance, lots of action and even some laughs. Don't hesitate, go see it today!
9/10
4.8.2004 -
staciep@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I love period movies, however, I have read many versions of King Arthur and this was not one of them. Many liberties taken with the 'true' story but entertaining nonetheless.
6/10
3.8.2004 -
lsoldan@ - age: 26-35
This actor was born to play the part of arthur. Brilliant film, masterfull acting performances all around. Bravo!!!
10/10
1.8.2004 -
geo_m_75@ - age: 26-35
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
It was da greatis movie ive eva saw... You'll shoud see it to... There should of been way more blood... but I thought it was pretty funny when Kiera Knightley died b/c she was one of the main characters... oh well.
10/10
1.8.2004 -
blackoutstyle_7@ - age: 13-17
Confused narrative - nothing to do with historical King Arthur! Another "baby face" Hollywood crap to distroy our historical heritage. If you anyway insist to see this crap go with *very* pathetic mood :((.
4/10
31.7.2004 -
albert@ - age: 36-49
|
