Review of King Arthur

Historians agree that the classical 15th century tale of King Arthur and his Knights rose from a real hero who lived a thousand years earlier in a period often called the Dark Ages. Recently discovered archeological evidence sheds light on his true identity.

It's always refreshing to see a new telling of an already much-used storyline, and King Arthur does exactly that. Gone are the flashy armour and glorious castles; this take of the Arthurian legend links it to that of a British-Roman soldier who leads a group of Sarmatian knights. Arthur, or Artorius (Owen) is tired of fighting and wishes to take his comrades back to their home. All he wants to do is settle down in Rome and forget the bloody years, and his chance comes when a close friend of his father, Bishop Germanius (Marescotti) arrives to give them their desired passes. However, before they can have the passes which can take them past the Roman empire and into their homeland, they have to finish one last task: to shuttle the Pope's favorite godson, Alecto (de Angelis), back to Rome. Left with no choice, Arthur and his loyal knights, Lancelot (Gruffudd), Bors (Winstone), Galahad (Dancy), Tristan (Mikkelsen), Dagonet (Stevenson), and Gawain (Edgerton) race against time to save Alecto and his family from falling prey to the ruthless Saxon army, led by Cerdic (Skarsgard). While there, they meet Guinevere, a beautiful Briton, who has been imprisoned and tortured in a secret chamber by Alecto's father, Marius (Stott). The entire film was a historical enjoyment, and I loved every second of the film. Winstone provides most of the comic relief, but he can even show grief over the death of his closest friend, Dagonet. Knightley held her own among a group of men, and she came across as masculine and feminine at the same time. Love love love this film, and the best part about this would have to be that they were able to relate this to a historical fact.

10/10