King Arthur (2004) movie review

King Arthur has been fodder for a hundred movies and will undoubtedly continue to be so. I truly wish that someone would come up with one where the history isn’t appalling. Ridley Scott is famous for acting as if there are no actual historical facts (see my review of Robin Hood), but the absurdity of the history Jerry Bruckheimer puts in this movie made me glad that my workout was only 30 minutes so I didn’t have to watch the whole thing at once.

The Good:

Is there anything good about this movie? Actually, the visuals are spectacular, and they obviously put a lot of money into making it. The acting is good, in fact, and if I didn’t know anything about British history, warfare, Christianity, or the Roman empire, maybe the plot even makes sense. I will grant that the Romans conscripted the people it conquered into the army, requiring it of subsequent generations too, but …

The Bad:

Did I mention that the history was bad? Just a head’s up: Gawain and Tristan are not names from Sarmatia. Even if I grant you the Celtic past of those areas, which Wikipedia doesn’t, to put all of Arthur’s knights (and did Rome have knights? I think not!) as originating in Asia ignores the background of Arthur himself. In the movie, Arthur is supposed to have a Roman hereditary position ‘Artorius’, but just so you know, ‘Arth’ in Welsh means ‘bear’, and ‘Arthur’ was the name of several early post-Roman kings. You don’t have to go Roman to find it.

The movie also places the Battle of Badon Hill way too early in history. In the Welsh/Saxon chronicles, it takes place in 500. This movie sets it before the Romans left Britain, so before 401.

Gah.

The Ugly:
History aside, the plot makes no sense. Arthur and his ‘knights’, instead of being freed of their 15 year obligation to the Roman army, are sent on one last mission to rescue the pope’s favorite godchild and his family north of Hadrian’s Wall.

Everybody knows Rome is leaving, folks! The movie claims that the Saxons are already invading in the north, which they weren’t, FYI (sorry, getting back to bad history again).  So what on earth was a famous and rich Roman family doing north of the wall? EVER! The whole point of the wall was that Romans didn’t settle north of it!

The whole plot is then driven by utter stupidity and a Saxon invasion that didn’t exist.

End.of.Roman.rule.in.Britain.383.410

 

 

 

Follow me!

4 thoughts on “King Arthur (2004) movie review”

  1. Just a minor note: the Romans did have heavy cavalry known as equites, which is usually translated ‘knights’. Later it became a noble rank one up from commoners and one down from senators.

  2. What, no mention of Kiera Knightly’s oh-so-practical leather bikini that she wears into battle? 😉 That is this movie, or am I mixing up my horribly inaccurate Arthurian retellings?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *