King Arthur

King Arthur

Director: Antoine Fuqua Cast: Clive Owen, Keira Knightley, Ioan Gruffudd

UMD (Sony PSP)

View All Available Formats & Editions


An ambitious attempt to wed the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table with known historical facts of the era, this action adventure drama begins with the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 A.D. as Roman armies flee the British Isles. Arthur (Clive Owen), a heroic knight and devoted Christian, is torn between his desire to travel to Rome to serve his faith and his loyalty to the land of his birth. As England falls into lawlessness, Arthur throws in his lot with a band of knights who hope to restore order to their fair and pleasant land and hopes to win freedom for his comrades, among them Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Bors (Ray Winstone), and Dagonet (Ray Stevenson). In time, Arthur and his men join forces with Merlin (Stephen Dillane), a shaman whose band of renegade knights were often pitched in battle against Roman forces. Forming a united front as loyal Englishmen against the invading Saxon armies, Arthur, Merlin, and the brave and beautiful Guinevere (Keira Knightley) are determined to unite a sovereign Britain under one army and one king.

Product Details

Release Date: 06/21/2005
UPC: 0786936295450
Original Release: 2004
Rating: NR
Source: Touchstone / Disney
Region Code: 1
Time: 2:19:00
Format: Sony PSP

Special Features

[None specified]

Cast & Crew

Performance Credits
Clive Owen Artorious Castus
Keira Knightley Guinevere
Ioan Gruffudd Lancelot
Stephen Dillane Merlin
Stellan Skarsgård Cerdic
Ray Winstone Bors
Hugh Dancy Galahad
Til Schweiger Cynric
Mads Mikkelsen Tristan
Ray Stevenson Dagonet
Ken Stott Marius Honorius
Charlie Creed-Miles Ganis
Joel Edgerton Gawain
Sean Gilder Jols
Ivano Marescotti Bishop Germanius
Lorenzo De Angelis Alecto
Valeria Cavalli Fulcinia
Pat Kinevane Horton

Technical Credits
Antoine Fuqua Director
Jerry Bruckheimer Producer
Conrad Buff Editor
Neil Corbould Makeup Special Effects
Peter Devlin Sound/Sound Designer
Ned Dowd Executive Producer
James Flynn Associate Producer
David H. Franzoni Executive Producer,Screenwriter
Michelle Guish Casting
John Lee Hancock Screenwriter
Slawomir Idziak Cinematographer
Ronna Kress Casting
Bruce G. Moriarty Asst. Director
Kevin O'Connell Sound Mixer
Morgan O'Sullivan Associate Producer
Chad Oman Executive Producer
Jamie Pearson Editor
Penny Rose Costumes/Costume Designer
Pat Sandston Associate Producer
Mike Stenson Executive Producer
Paul Tucker Associate Producer
Dan Weil Production Designer
Hans Zimmer Score Composer

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

King Arthur 3.9 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 52 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Clive owen rocks and Knightly shines in this awsome thrilling retelling of the classic story of king arthur. The fight scenes were terrific and the actors were so confincible. This has to be one of my favorites and a classic. The best king arthur movie yet. Buy this movie it is one you will be able to watch over and oer and over again. I know I will. PS buy the R rated version it's so muck better and more real than the PG-13.
Guest More than 1 year ago
I agree with the other five star reviews. I've been a fan of the Arthurian legends since I was a child and this is the closest I've seen a film get to what might have really been. Friends of mine love to rip apart historical films, but the thing some people forget is that films are made as entertainment for the masses and so the studios can make money. If we get entertained in the process, that's a bonus. If you want completely detailed, historically accurate to the tiniest degree programming - watch the History channel or Discovery channel. If you want a little movie magic that's entertaining, see this film. The battle scenes are great, the character development is very good, the actors fit their parts, and there wasn't a stupid love triangle that was invented in the twelfth century courts of love to spice things up. They are real people who live and die for what they believe in. No matter what side they're on.
Guest More than 1 year ago
While everyone was talking about 'Troy' with Brad Pitt, this was the movie that needed to be seen ! First time in almost twenty years that I went to see a movie twice. The casting was perfect. Clive Owen made a good, tough, righteous King Arthur and Ioan Gruffudd a fabulous Lancelot. I know some people didn't like this movie, but I thought it was dark and brooding and definitely underrated. When I heard the director of 'Training Day' directed it, I had a feeling it would be good and I wasn't disappointed.
Guest More than 1 year ago
For people who want a story of Arthur based on "history" - well, good luck - history is still working that out...all we have are varying theories, and this story follows one of those theories. I loved the uncut version. The scenes were more intense, and my interest was grabbed early on. I liked this movie enough to purchase the DVD - Signed, A medieval history buff who is also a 43 year old emergency room nurse.
Guest More than 1 year ago
I only feel sorry for the director and the producer. I've read articles and interviews, and to be polite, it seems some great creative energy was cut short with an early release. But I truly believe all the actors gave as high a quality of work as those in 'Troy,' and the crew must have had the patience and stamina of God knows what to be able to maintain the quality with the quickened shooting schedule. The extended DVD is a perfect idea and a lovely way to prove, 'Hey, this is what great a movie can be when politics and business statistics aren't involved.' My sincere support to all involved. (P.S. Joel Edgerton: you were awesome as Gawain. Nice balancing act between rogue and early-century gentleman.)
Guest More than 1 year ago
This movie is so much better than any other portrayal of the Arthurian Legend that I can't believe people want to denigrate it because of it's faults. Is this movie worse than "Excalibur"? Absolutely not. Might one prefer to remember Arthur as Richard Harris in "Camelot" or even Disney's "Sword and the stone"? Perhaps, but this movie shows a grittier and more realistic side. If You want true authenticity - watch the History Channel. If You desire a semi-realistic take on Arthurian legend - this is the best film there is.
Guest More than 1 year ago
'King Arthur' didn't go sit too well with the critics. Nor did it gain much box office success or attention in theaters. However, that does not make it any less grand. It tells the story of Arthur and his soldiers and their deeds in Britain. With the general idea of a new theory that the legend was based on a half-Roman, half-Briton officer in charge of a group of Sarmatian (present-day East Europe) cavalry in Roman Britannia, the filmmakers have weaved together a story that truly shows how these men could have been the inspiration for the future legends. Those who dislike this movie for being innacurate or for 'blasphemous ideas' are missing the point that it tells just that: an entertaining story. The Arthurian appeal of righteous heroes is still intact. In fact, I believe it has been magnified in this movie, for it is an underdog story of a ragtag, underequipped group of men who must question where they belong and the ability of good to triumph in such corruption. Being that Arthur's soldiers are not privileged and wealthy knights, but men drafted from their homes at an early age to fight for a land not their own, their heroics become that much more touching as a result. I can't speak for those who hate this film for whatever reasons, but as for me, I love the ideas and timeless themes that this film portrays. 'King Arthur' shows off some good acting, dialogue, music and cinematography to top it all off. All in all, a rousing epic and fine entertainment.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
This movie is honestly one of my favorites of all time. Was it historically accurate? Partially, but that's not really what matters. What matters is the feel of the film. The film is exciting and occasionally witty. I walked away feeling entertained and the movie actually got me reinterested in Arthurian myth. While, no, it does not bring in the magic and mysticism that many have come to expect of movies pertaining to King Arthur, it does provide a certain view into what might have been. It may not be entirely, or even mostly, accurate, but it does provide fuel for one's imagination. Despite the issues that so many point out, this film is amazing, and the acting is superb. Mads Mikkelsen (Tristan)--regardless of the fact that he did not have a lot of screen time-- was captivating. By the end of the movie, I found that he was the one that I had really paid attention to most of the film. Forget Arthur. I was much more intrigued by the quiet knight. One of the other excellent characters was portrayed by Ray Stevenson (Dagonet). Even though he also does not have much screen time, his character is one that I actually found to be quite incredible. All in all, regardless of what the critics and haters might say, this movie is amazing and it is one that I watch time and time again, each time falling more in love with the characters. Needless to say, I would-and often do- recommend this movie to anyone, especially those interested in Arthurian legend. ^_^
Guest More than 1 year ago
This is one movie you will be able to watch over and over. It's so good. Keira knightley is brilliant and Clive Owen is unforgettable. I loved it. This has to be one of the best movies.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This is one of the absolute best Arthurian films that I have ever seen and it's not even your typical King Arthur movie. There is no Camelot, no magic, no Holy Grail, and finally two certain people express their undying love for one another without the treachery of another. Instead, super-producer: Jerry Bruckheimer and talented director: Antoine Fuqua tell the little known historical true story that may very well have given birth to the legend we all know and love. Here we see Arthur ,not as a baby prince taken from his royal parents by Merlin the wizard and draws Excalibur from a stone as a unknowing squire, but as a battle-hardened warrior and commander in the army of the dying Roman Empire, leading his elite band of knights stationed in Roman-occupied Britain against long-time foe: Merlin, here presented as the guerilla leader of the land's native people: The Woads, who can't wait for the Romans to leave for good. Unfortunately for them, a massive army of Saxon barbarians arrive to take over control of the land as the Romans leave. Desperate, Merlin and his daughter (Yes, Daughter;Not mentioned in the film but discovered in the adapted novel by Frank Thompson ): Guinevere set aside their pride to ask Arthur and his knights:Lancelot, Galahad, Bors, Tristin, Gawain, and Dagonet to lead them against the Saxons during one final mission for Rome which if they succeed means that Arthur's men will at last be freed from their forced serventude to their hated roman masters (Arthur is the only roman the knights trust and as their leader, loyally entrust their lives to). While Lancelot and the others can't wait to leave Britain and the Roman Empire forever to go home to their native land: Sarmatia, a land somewhere in Russia (Yes, Arthur's real knights were from an ancient russian clan intergrated by force into Rome's military) Arthur is torn between his desire to return to the beauty of Rome and help his Christian mentor: Pelagius in spreading the good word & helping the fearful natives save their homeland from the merciless invaders. Before this film, I never knew about the famous Battle of Badon's Hill, Hadrian's Wall, or the Sarmatian knights. The music is great, the story is awesome (penned by David Franzoni: co-writer of Gladiator), the acting is cool (Especially Clive Owen as Arthur, Keira Knightley as Guinevere and Ioan Gruffard as Lancelot), this is the best Arthur movie since Excalibur. A must own!
Guest More than 1 year ago
I don't understand why a lot of people didn't like this movie. I loved it! The actors did a great job and I was crying at the end. It takes a lot to make me cry, but this movie touched me. I love the medieval time period and this movie did an excellent job portraying the real King Arthur.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Do I care about the historical King Arthur? Not the way Antoine Fuqua and David Franzoni present him. This film was touted as the history of Arthur that made the legend. Sorry, the filmmaker and writer cobbled together ideas from here and there into a murky mess of cinema. This is no more historically accurate than the film EXCALIBUR and a lot less satisfying on emotional, psychological, and visual levels than the John Boorman 1981 film. In this film, Arturius Castus is a Romano-Brit commander who commands knights whose origins are the Russian steppes; that is Samatians, Aluns, or Scythians. This idea comes from the book FROM SCYTHIA TO CAMELOT, in which the folklorist authors purpose that the Arthurian legends derive from the myths of the Scythians. It is not a theory much in favor with historians or archaeologists. Arthur¿s knights are Bors, Galahad, Gawain, Tristan, and Lancelot. However, if these men were Samatian, they should bear Samatian names. Tristan is a Franco-English translation of the Pictish name Drustan. They don¿t have Samatian names because the director and writer knew the audience couldn¿t relate to foreign names of a forgotten people. They creators of this film are quite happy to throw out history as long as it suits them. For instance, Guinevere, a warrior woman, dresses in a costume in which she would turn blue without the woad dye if she actually had worn it in the dead of winter. It was done to appeal to the men in the audience. The costume of the knights is not consistent either. As Roman soldiers, whether they were from Rome, Britain, or the Black Sea, they would dress as Roman soldiers and have short hair. Arthur is a pompous do-gooder who speaks too much about freedom. Freedom and liberty are modern concepts of the Enlightenment. The Romans and Saxons are bad, of course. The native Britons are noble savages the ¿heroic¿ knights derogatorily call ¿woads.¿ We learn nothing about Merlin or the Britons. For that matter, we don¿t actually care about them or the main characters, because they are less realistic than the myths of Arthur we all read. There is an obligatory sex scene between Guinevere and Arthur, which lacks any sensuality. There is no chemistry between them. The chemistry is actually between Lancelot and Guinevere, yet inexplicably she chooses to bed Arthur. The language is pompous and for some reason all the warriors speak in this rough low voice as if they were taking lessons from Russell Crowe in GLADIATOR. GLADIATOR was not pure history either, but had a great major character about which we cared. If I want a history lesson, I¿ll watch a documentary or read a nonfiction book. What I want from fictional story is a story with characters that I love. What I want from the Arthur legends is myth and magic, but this KING ARTHUR is an inconsistent mess, neither history nor legend. ¿ Leslie Strang Akers.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Though it is true that this film isn't etirely historic facts-accurate, it is a great film on its own. It delivers the promised action, romance, and drama we would expect from a film of this sort. All in all, it sets a realistic view of the people and conflicts that raged in that time. Often you just see knights on white horses, jewels, and big beautiful castles. But ancient civilization was often brutal and dirty. It might not be the best film you've ever seen, but I guarentee you won't regret seeing it.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This is the best movie since Lord of the Rings. I love it. No more of that nerdy Excalibur being a Majic sword, just a simple sword. No more wizard Merlin, simple woad leader. And no more of that damnsel in distress, Guenivere is hot but she can fight to.
Guest More than 1 year ago
I loved the story and the casting was fabulous. I have never gone and seen a movie as many times as I have King Arthur. The music, scenery, photography, humor, love, betrayal, honor of friendship and country,and gorgeous horse scenes. I loved the ice battle scene and the final battle scene. I appreciated that the battle scenes were tension filled but no heads, body parts or blood spurted. I really liked that this was left to our imagination. I recommend this movie to all ages. Clive Owen (King Arthur) is perfect, and his Knights are truly a legend.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This DVD explodes on the screen and is an action packed and well photographed film. Battle scenes are somewhat violent but not to the extent that they detract from the story. Interesting and unique plot with fairly good acting. Unlike any 'Knights of the Round Table' film ever made. A visual masterpiece.
Guest More than 1 year ago
King Arthur is an amazing swash-buckler, I must admit that the movie is fun and entertaining. But I saw momemts in this film that could of been better, First the theme of the film was not clear, you had to sort of put the pieces together. Second, their is just too many battles, finally, you can not identify with some of the characters or tell them a part (except for Arthur, Lancealot, Guniever) of the film 'King Arthur'. Scenes where Arthur and his knights fight at a huge lake that had turned to ice, was done with smarts not muscles. The acting is first rate and production detail was outstanding. Very good film, but if it were to fix these problems, it would have been great. Thumbs up for me.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Even though the story is not what people would call "historically accurate" I was intruiged by this telling. It does not follow the myth, like movies such as "Excalibur", but it takes a much more logical approach, justifying the tale with more realistic characters and chain of events. I thought it was pretty good overall.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Our generation's King Arthur is spliced with the rumor of the infamous love triangle of King Arthur with the beautiful Keira Knightley as Guinivere. The uncut version has bloodier fights that are more coherent and fantastic than the deleted scenes.
Guest More than 1 year ago
I think this movie was excellent, the casting and the music made it so. I bought the DVD 1 week ago and have watched it 6 times in the last week. I can't quit watching it and the main reason is Clive Owen. He plays it so good that you really believe he is King Arthur and when the movie is over you have to remind yourself that he isn't. Not too many actors can pull that off but he certainly can and did.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
It is a movie to see if you like true history and action scenes. The scenery, the way the story was played out in the movie, along with the characters are very realistic and easy to understand. Prowess was earned, not handed out, which is what the movie shows. The movie shows what people had to put up with back in that time.
Guest More than 1 year ago
From the way the reviews read, real purists apparently did not enjoy this version. But if you take it for what it really is, & not worry about whether or not all the right people are in their right places, it's a good adventure film. I appreciated that it was more true to how the people would really have lived rather than the more sanitized versions we usually get where everybody is dressed in velvet, & nobody ever gets dirty. I liked it enough to add it to my collection.
Guest More than 1 year ago
I love how this movie stripped away the mystic magical legend and made Arthur just another man trying to do good. Excellent movie!! Better than Excalibur, though I still love that one, too.