Watch King Arthur For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Sadly Over-hyped

hyped garbage

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Movie Review: "King Arthur" (2004)Running overly-ambitious with a 120-Million-Dollar production alongside a mixed freestyle-pop-culturing-script on English Mythology by Academy-Award-nominated screenwriter David Franzoni, when supreme Hollywood producer Jerry Bruckheimer entrusts director Antoine Fuqua with a capable cast from leading actor Clive Owen in the title role as Arthur, inhabiting a great screen presence, but then again hardly finds decisive beats that will stick with any, presumingly a teenage boys intended target group, who even with a prestigious 4th of July "Independence Day" release in Summer of 2004, did not go for unimpressingly executed cut-down sword fights, yet remain high-standard received production values in art direction and costume design by Penny Rose, leaving me satisfied in an overall visual reception.But I stay nevertheless emotionally restraint with no awes giving but a few moments with actress Keira Knightley in a mesmerizing portrayal as the infamous sensual character of Guinevere, who as history says descended from a noble Roman family dynasty, abducted by an envious completely left-out character of "Maleagant" which just gets dramatically twisted in the best minutes of "King Arthur", when the "Guinevere" must get rescued from mud-striking, mist-atmosphere-indulging stagecoach imprisonment by Arthur strolling with his faithfully-follwoing no-conflicts-given knights, almost aimlessly through an unless beautifully-captured English countryside by cinematographer Slawomir Idziak in tints of green, earthy brown and hints of red wind-swaying fabrics as this movie fails to succeed by focusing on all-too simplified moments of late 5th century English history, when an invading tribe of "Saxons", led by unfortunately misdirected in brute force, no-virtues sharing character of Cerdic, here portrayed by unless always ready-to-amaze actor Stellan Skarsgard, left utterly alone by director Antoine Fuqua in heavy rag ice-age defying costume with somehow misplaced vikings-recalling heavy bread.Production designer Dan Weil and composer Hans Zimmer do their best to elevate this disappointment of an event movie, wasting countless cast members in badly staggato cut editorial of 120 Minutes, including Ian Gruffudd as Lancelot, Mads Mikkelsen as Tristan, Joel Edgerton as Gawain, Ray Stevenson, Ray Winstone and Stephen Millane as behind expectation portrayal of famous wizard Merlin, when only Guy Ritchie's highly-underrated take on King Arthur's myth "The Legend of the Sword" starring Jude Law and 36-year-old Charlie Hunnam as "Arthur", premiering at Waner Bros. Studio owned Hollywood location in again misunderstood marketing efforts by another Hollywood major after Disney Enterprises' affiliate Touchstone Pictures confronting a troublesome recurring cinematic remaining magical character theme of a historic king figure with Hollywood going down into its knees at least for a day on May 8th 2017 to recoup some solace on a haunted "King Arthur" story with no major world audiences given approval to let at least director Guy Ritchie's version of an "King Arthur" movie become a motion picture classic in time.Copyright 2018 Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC

I find this movie incredible good. And the funny part is, I can't even tell exactly why. But it draws me back, again and again. I watched it 4 times now, which is not something I do normally. First, the story is believable, at least, for me it is. Where the common story of King Arthur is a mythic story, this one could be for real. I can actually imagine, being there, in that time and place and see it happening. Second, I like the people, all of them. They are also for real. They are not all good and not all bad. And even the bad ones are not all bad. This is such a good cast for this movie. As said, the story draws me in, in a way that I actually would like to be part of it.

Best paper is made out of trees. Once it's used and discarded, it gets recycled into a lower grade paper. Repeated recyclings result in a product just good enough to wipe your behind with.It's the same thing with the Hollywood screenplays. The best stories come directly from nature. Eventually they get recycled and regurgitated into a pulp that always tastes the same and has no quality other than being the toilet fodder. Once in a while somebody somewhere in Hollywood reads an article or two about something in newspapers and jumps to use it as a new flavor to spice the old swill up a little. That's how films seem to be made these days.That brings us to "King Arthur". One scientific novelty emerged in the 2000s concerning the legendary first king of England: that he may have been of Roman origin, as some new archaeological findings suggested. To some the news that sparks imagination and sheds light on that largely undocumented period of history, to others a valuable political link between the Roman Empire and the British Empire, it's something that definitely deserves to be put on screen. Unfortunately, there's that guy called Jerry Bruckheimer, that sells swill for a living, who woke up one morning and realized he needs a sword-and-sandal film in his portfolio. He hired the usual goons that approached the subject hastily and, instead of doing a proper research around the new take on Arthur, they just patched up all the gaps (and there were a lot) with the usual clichés, especially of sword-and-sandal genre, slapped on the label "historically accurate" and shipped it off to theaters hoping the label alone will sell it.The tagline lied - this is by no means a historically accurate representation, even if Arthur indeed happened to be a Roman named Lucius Artorius Castus. Coming from David Franzoni, who wrote "Gladiator", that's hardly a surprise, though. Again, huge liberties, if we can call them that, have been taken to serve a simplistic story, based on some strange conception that people the legends were made around were already acting and talking like legends during their actual lifetime.The battle scenes are the most obvious sign of that misguided approach. Artorius and his horsemen are too tiny a bunch to convince they'd have a meaningful impact on a battlefield other than in commanding roles. Their special skills and ability to single-handedly defeat multitudes of enemies is not what you'd see in a real battle, but rather something that would emerge in retellings afterwards, yet that's precisely what we see them do: fighting in a more "legendary" manner than their namesakes in "Excalibur". The dialog follows the same lines, but heart is confused with pathos. Artorius is stilted and artificial as if he came straight off the stage and every word he utters bears weight, meaning and poignancy, and is not necessarily in tune with what happens around him. His Sarmatian horsemen are one-note sketches, less a bonafide historical figures and more a bunch of a comic book super heroes. One has a trained hawk, one can shoot a nut off a mosquito with an arrow, one wields two swords at once, one cracks jokes... they're about as historical as Ninja Turtles. Geography grasp of the script is terrible and is a cause of crucial plot holes. The knights guard the Hadrian Wall, at the time the northernmost frontier of the Roman Empire, yet they have to be informed by their superiors from the south that there is an invasion coming from the north. Wouldn't Artorius' men be the first to know? The nobleman they are ordered to collect lives with his entire entourage deep into the wrong side of the Wall, in an undefended territory, what no aristocrat, especially an important one, would ever do. On top of that it's him that shares the latest news from Rome with Artorius instead the other way round. How come the crucial communication is bypassing the keepers of the frontier all the time? Timeline is off, too, and concerns mostly queen Guinevere. The box-office nowadays calls for a strong female character, so it had to be a "warrior queen", not just an ordinary one. Ancient Britain does remember one queen Boudicca, a strong female military commander the new Guinevere was likely modeled after. It's just that she lived four hundred years too early for this and deserves a film of her own. No place for her here. They squeezed Merlin into the story somehow, too, but who cares. There is a dark tone to the film, which is fitting, and there is the anti-church sentiment that is about the only thing I genuinely liked.What the film is missing is a lot. There is no ambition other than the cash grab. There is no heart. There is no connection between the warriors and the commoners who would supposedly be so enamored with Artorius to pass the legend on. There is no Uther, no Morgana and no Mordred, which is a shame because the main villain could have at least come away with a better name than "Cerdic". There isn't a single rape scene, either, and that's both historically inaccurate and a bit ironic: as film that successfully rapes both the history and the legend could use a good rape scene or two.

Due to the average IMDb rating and Metascore, I sit down with low expectations to watch Antoine Fuqua's 2004 movie, King Arthur. If you can do, watch the director's cut, because it is much better than the theatrical cut, such as in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven. There are a lot of advantages and maybe just one, but a huge mistake of this movie. The cast is excellent. Although I personally don't like Clive Owen, but he was really good in this film, such as the supporting actors, like Keira Knightley, Ioan Groffud, Joel Edgerton, Ray Stevenson and the Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen. The music is amazing. Hans Zimmer is definitely the best composer of nowadays. The visual effects are also great. Antoine Fuqua has a quite unique directing style, but it's really matches with the story and visual style of this film. The only huge mistake of King Arthur is it's story. There are huge plot holes, which makes the characters and the battles unentertaining and useless. If the story would be just acceptable, than this film would be nearly as good as great historical movies of the 21st century, such as Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven or Wolfgang Petersen's Troy. The Director's Cut is definitely worth a watch, but sit down with low expectations, and don't except a Christopher Nolan movie-type story.7/10