Product description

King Arthur (Director's Cut) [2004]

Price: £4.98
RRP: £17.99 This item Delivered FREE in the UK with Super Saver Delivery
You save: £13.01 (72 %)
Availability: Usually dispatched within 24 hours
Average customer rating: 3.0

Binding : DVD
EAN : 5017188815819
Label : Buena Vista Entertainment
Manufacturer : Buena Vista Entertainment
Publisher : Buena Vista Entertainment
Release date : 2004-11-29
Title : King Arthur (Director's Cut) [2004]
Actor : Array
Audience rating : Suitable for 15 years and over
Format : Array
Languages : Array
Number of items : 1
Original release date : 2004-07-30
Region code : 2
Running time : 136
Studio : Buena Vista Entertainment
Theatrical releaseDate : 2004-07-07
Number of discs : 1

Editorial reviews

Amazon.co.uk Review
It's got a round table, some knights, and a noble warrior who rises to become King Arthur, but everything else about this revisionist legend is pure Hollywood. That's not such a bad thing if you enjoyed Rob Roy, Braveheart, Gladiator and Troy, and there's some intriguing potential in presenting the "real" Arthur (played by Clive Owen) as a 5th-century soldier of Rome, assigned to defend Roman-imperial England against a hoard of invading Saxons (led by Stellan Skarsgard in hairy villain mode). As revamped history and "archaeological findings" would have us believe, Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is a warrior babe in face-paint and Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is a nonentity who fades into the woodwork. Never mind. Best to enjoy the harsh, gloomy atmosphere of Irish locations, the ruggedness of Owen and his hearty supporting cast, and the entertaining nonsense of a Jerry Bruckheimer production that strips battle-ready Guinevere down to leather-strap S&M gear while all the men sport full-body armor. Hail to the queen, indeed! --Jeff Shannon

Customer reviews

review by: date: 2008-09-08 rating:

right period, but this is not my kind of arthur
After 4 years i finally watched this DVD right through, out of curiosity more then anything else. I admit the battle scenes were actually authentic, though perhaps a little OTT with the blood sometimes, although that was what warfare was like back then. They wanted to make a gritty and unromantic portrayal of the era and the filmmakers have succeded in doing that.
However i detected a faint whiff of liberalistic revisionism. I thought Arthur was supposed to be a christian hero, not some wishy washy pelagian.

The roles and character of the historical figures of bishops pelagius and germannus seem to have been completely inverted. Pelagius' erroneus ideas caused a lot of trouble and confusion amongst the church in britain and europe at this time, Germannus was sent to Britain to deal with what had become known as Pelgianism, and to put things right.

In this film however, pelaguis is some kind of humamitarian mother teresa, who is anti slavery, and emphasises freedom of choice and will, of whom arthur is clearly a devoted follower. Germannus on the other hand is the embodiment of alleged roman tyranny, a dark and sinister figure full of self rightous pomposity

generally i felt this film was too baised on favour of paganism, whilst being very anti- christain and roman. Could have been better without the prejudice.

review by: brendoclarke date: 2008-08-26 rating:

ACTING
This is an entertaining movie, however the acting leaves a lot to be desired. Clive Owen will never win an oscar and he plays, erm, Clive Owen. Keira Knightley just carries on her role from "Pirates of the Caravans' and Ray Winstone turns in another Ray Winstone geezer performance (with a sword). It really is astonishing that these actors receive millions of $$$ for their feeble acting efforts.

review by: date: 2008-07-01 rating:

Pros and Cons
This movie grew on me over several watchings. The first thing that struck me was the atmosphere it had, for me it really evoked the whole romance of the era and the stories. Although I thought Clive Owen and Keira Knightley were godawful, their supporting cast ( who each have more talent in their little fingers than Knightley and Owen put together ) make up for it with their performances. Sadly, those characters aren't ever developed into anything more than tantalising glimpses of personalities, and you're left wondering what they're even doing in the film, they're clearly not wanted, and totally sidelined by the two annoying and dull leads. It's hinted, for example, that Galahad and Gawain are brothers, but that relatinship is never developed, they don't even fight side by side ! And why bother to give Tristan a hawk and a distinct and unique fighting style if you're only going to give him two lines in the whole movie, and kill him off in the end ?! May as well just make him some spod with no name. What is the purpose of Bors' lass and kids ? He never talks about them. And that bit where they finally accept the last order, despite throwing several tantrums about it - if only other people would keel over so easily when I ask them for money, ha ha ! But I was left wanting to see more of those characters, who were beautifully acted ( when the actors were given the chance that is )and quite a lot less of Owen and Knightley. Yes, I too just wanted to smack her - and kill Arthur and promote one of the other guys lol. Plus, having the Picts ( NOT wodes, idiot American director, and no, "pict" doesn't sound odd to people who have actually heard of them before ) speak in some kind of mangled Anglo-latin with subtitles is beyond me - why not subtitle the Saxons as well then ? Or, in fact, everyone ? It's just some kind of pathetic attempt to make the film look like it's been researched !

The weapons and costumes are a mish-mash of practically everything ever worn/invented over a 500 yr period throughout all the world, but I don't see any reason to get hung up over that, it's a movie, not a history class. The overall "look" was right - although I will say, the one thing that really annoyed me about the costumes was the rather gratuitous use of black leather - WRONG ! Gawain, Tristan and Bors have believable kit, but Lancelot and Arthur's spoil it somewhat.

There are some fun fight scenes to watch, if you can get over their pointlessness/silliness and just sit back and enjoy it. Plus the soundtrack is lovely.

After all that dissin', I still like it though.......

review by: Symphonic Metal Fan date: 2008-06-29 rating:

NO EXCALIBUR, BUT MUCH BETTER THAN IS MADE OUT!!
Forget all the bad reviews, this is a decent film! An entertaining slice of Historical Fantasy with big budget production values, and plenty of bloody battle scenes. Ok, so some of the casting could have been better but it's no big deal! The film looks fantastic in it's locations and stunning photography. The battles are well orchestrated, and, in this directors cut at least, are as gory as Gladiator or Troy. CGI is used sensibly, and to it's credit, the movie looks to offer something different, combat wise, to the Lord Of The Rings. I would say the battles are closer in style to Braveheart, than Peter Jackson's 500,000 strong battlefields.
The battle on the ice lake is a particularly impressive setpiece. The fantasy elements; Excalibur, Merlin etc are very supressed ala 2004's Troy but the film still feels mythical, just not to the same extent as 1981's Excalibur (the DEFINITIVE Arthurian movie). Strong direction from Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) who brings a similiarly gritty feel, depicting this Arthur as a British based, Roman Commander.
Special mention for Stellan Skarsgard who revels in the role of the brutal, Saxon warlord, Cerdic - Arthur's main adversary.
If you like this type of film, then you should enjoy it - it's much better than the dire First Knight!
I believe the recently released Last Legion has a similiar angle to this, and it's waiting on my shelf to be viewed - looks ok from the trailer.

review by: date: 2008-06-27 rating:

Truly awful
Wooden acting, patchy storyline, gross historical inaccuracies and a plot that's full of holes.

This has to be one of the worst I've ever seen(and I've seen Gigli!)

Saxons invading from the north? Stonehenge at the coast? And for anyone who says "just see it as a new take on the story", I say: how about a movie reteliing the story of George Washington traveling to the Mexican border to fight the invading Inuit? Or perhaps Napoleon single-handedly protecting Britain from those pesky invading Greenlanders? Seriously, just because it's a movie doesn't mean it shouldn't be accurate.

As for Keira Knightley and Clive Owen, I've seen turnips with more range (honest to God, turnips!).

Similar products

Alexander - Director's Cut [2004]
Kingdom of Heaven [2005]
Troy (2-Disc Edition) [2004]
Excalibur [1981]
Troy (Director's Cut) [2004]

Similar categories

Accessories

B
K