BN.com Gift Guide

King Arthur

( 53 )

Overview

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 ...
See more details below
Blu-ray (Director's Cut / Wide Screen / Uncensored / EXTENDED EDITION)
$9.59
BN.com price
(Save 40%)$15.99 List Price

Pick Up In Store

Reserve and pick up in 60 minutes at your local store

Other sellers (Blu-ray)
  • All (8) from $6.99   
  • New (5) from $9.70   
  • Used (3) from $6.99   

Overview

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.
Read More Show Less

Special Features

Backstage - Blood on the Land: Forging King Arthur; King Arthur: A Roundtable discussion; Alternate ending "Badou Hill," with director's commentary; Producer's photo gallery; "Knight Vision" pop-up trivia track; Movie Showcase; Seamless menus
Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Barnes & Noble - Ed Hulse
In King Arthur, director Antoine Fuqua never lets us forget that medieval Britain was not the brightly colored, sunlit, pastoral paradise depicted in the movies of Hollywood's Golden Age. His Britain is a gray, muddy, misty place in which armor-laden warriors trudge wearily and filthy peasants scrounge for sustenance. Consequently, his King Arthur Clive Owen is a rather dour fellow, and his fabled Knights of the Round Table are a relatively motley band of questionable characters. They attain heroic stature only in contrast to their adversaries, barbaric Saxons led by Cerdic Stellan Skarsgård, a fearsome brute determined to lay waste to the countryside -- which, at first glance, hasn't much to offer. Now, we can believe that the real Guinevere Keira Knightley wasn't a doe-eyed maiden dressed in impeccable finery, but Fuqua makes her out to be Merrie Olde England's equivalent ofXena: Warrior Princess, provocatively clad in a midriff-baring, animal-skin ensemble and shooting arrows with a speed and accuracy that would've made Robin Hood blush. The legendary love triangle involving her, Arthur, and Lancelot Ioan Gruffudd is barely a suggestion in this version; indeed, Guinevere doesn't even appear until the movie is almost half over. The battle scenes are staged with scope and vigor, with the fury of battle suggested more than shown, although this may be a consequence of the movie's PG-13 rating, which indicates that the most graphic bloodletting was deleted in the cutting room. In fact, battle scenes in the Extended Unrated Version of the film are at once bloodier and more coherent. All in all, King Arthur reflects a great deal of care, and most viewers will find it a rousing return to Camelot, even if it’s not your father’s Camelot.
All Movie Guide - Karl Williams
Marketed as a more historically accurate version of the Camelot mythos than previous incarnations, King Arthur is a complicated hash of fact and fiction. Screenwriter David Franzoni and director Antoine Fuqua attempt to graft latter-day theories about Arthur's possible real-life identity as a Roman cavalryman named Artorious Castus (Clive Owen) onto the most famous elements of the beloved legend. The filmmakers preserve the existence of Guinevere (Keira Knightley) and Merlin (Stephen Dillane), this time as Woad tribal leaders at war on two fronts against the invading Saxons and retreating Romans. They endeavor to explain the close kinship among Artorious' followers by identifying them as Salmatian cavalrymen, an allegedly elite corps conflicted by opposing allegiances. And they delve into the religious, ethical, racial, political, and philosophical tensions between these various factions. As might be expected, explaining all of these complicated machinations requires an unfortunate amount of exposition, after which an audience may be too baffled to notice some gripping sequences, particularly a tense skirmish ingeniously executed across the cracking ice of a frozen lake. His previous script for Gladiator (2000) used history as an interesting backdrop for a wholly invented story, but here Franzoni's clever concept is hidebound by his effort to modulate his sources, with murky results.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • Release Date: 4/3/2007
  • UPC: 786936726473
  • Original Release: 2004
  • Rating:

  • Source: Touchstone / Disney
  • Region Code: ABC
  • Presentation: Director's Cut / Wide Screen / Uncensored / EXTENDED EDITION
  • Language: English
  • Time: 2:19:00
  • Format: Blu-ray
  • Sales rank: 1,292

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
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 4
( 53 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(26)

4 Star

(13)

3 Star

(6)

2 Star

(1)

1 Star

(7)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 53 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Excellent movie !

    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.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    GREAT FILM

    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.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    King Arthur

    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.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Great Scenes

    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.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Want "Accuracy?"

    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.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    The Stuff of Legends

    '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.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    This is a GREAT movie no matter what anybody else says!!!

    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.)

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 11, 2010

    Awesome!

    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. ^_^

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    I Also Recommend:

    The realistic history of King Arthur and the battles.

    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.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Unique

    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.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    If you like movies set in the past, this is for you!

    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.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    OK... so it's not Camelot.

    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.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    King Arthur Review

    I am a huge fan of keira knightley. I really know nothing of King arthur and the whole history. But I do know that this movie was the worst movie I have ever seen Keira Knightley in. Obviously there would be some violent or "disgusting" scenes, but it was just horrible what I saw. It was the worst movie I have ever seen. So horrible that I have nightmares about it. It was so bad that I would never recommend it and I would never EVER watch it again. It's so bad that I can't even describe it.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Interesting interpretation

    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.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    King Arthur

    Im a huge fan of history, especially Arthurian Legend, This movie was a gigantic let down. It pretty much sucked. Nothing like the real legend, the only that was the same pretty much was the names. There was a Bors, but were was Lionel? and Lancelot didnt serve Arthur, he served Guenevere, and only after they were married. And what the hell was Tristan there for? He has his own legend and never ever ever served Arthur, (a movie about tristan and isolde is coming out January 2006, i hope they dont ruin it as much as they did this) there is so much more, but the thing that ticked me off the most was MERLIN AND GUENEVERE WERE NOT PICTS!!! Picts are northland invaders that was Irelands worst enemy and really werent involved with england at all during this time frame, they painted themselves blue with itricate tatoos before battle, which is how they dipict merlin and Guenevere in this film. and that is not true!!! Yes its Guenevere, not Guinevere. I could get by with a few changes to the legend to dramatize it, but this film was so far off it didnt deserve the title King Arthur. I cant believe so many people worked on this movie and not one of them revolted. Its a disgrace to the legend, all i want to know is why? why did you have to do it? p.s. Guenevere was a true reagal queen that didnt dress in leather

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    King Arthur

    Im a huge fan of history, especially Arthurian Legend, This movie was a gigantic let down. It pretty much ed. Nothing like the real legend, the only that was the same pretty much was the names. There was a Bors, but were was Lionel? and Lancelot didnt serve Arthur, he served Guenevere, and only after they were married. And what the hell was Tristan there for? He has his own legend and never ever ever served Arthur, (a movie about tristan and isolde is coming out January 2006, i hope they dont ruin it as much as they did this) there is so much more, but the thing that ticked me off the most was MERLIN AND GUENEVERE WERE NOT PICTS!!! Picts are northland invaders that was Irelands worst enemy and really werent involved with england at all during this time frame, they painted themselves blue with itricate tatoos before battle, which is how they dipict merlin and Guenevere in this film. and that is not true!!! Yes its Guenevere, not Guinevere. I could get by with a few changes to the legend to dramatize it, but this film was so far off it didnt deserve the title King Arthur. I cant believe so many people worked on this movie and not one of them revolted. Its a disgrace to the legend, all i want to know is why? why did you have to do it? p.s. Guenevere was not a slut, she was a true reagal queen that didnt dress in leather.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Hahahahahahahaha!

    A brief screen at the beginning of the movie states that archaeologists and historians think they have some insight into the history which lies behind the stories about Arther and his knights. The implication is that this movie has some connection with those insights. It does not. It is the product of the fevered imaginations of writer, director, producer, set and costume designers : none of whom give any indication of any knowledge whatsoever of 5th-century Britain. It does, however, offer bits of sophomoric violence, sex, and indulgence in the idiocy that everything would be just wonderful if Christianity had never existed. Let the educated viewer beware : he or she may injure himself or herself by falling out of chair or off couch laughing uproariously at the pompous dialogue and blatant historical ignorance.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Lack of truth and a very anti-christian agenda

    Basicly, I agree with the other one star reviews given earlier. Please read those as they are well written. I was very offended by the movie. The movie was obviously written by people with an anti-christian agenda. They also didn't study up on Christian history and probably don't care. They just wanted to portray Christianity in a negative way. Yes, corruption and false teachings did find their way into the church over the centuries, but it was not prevalent at this time period. Also, the first pope wasn't until 606 AD.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    What a load

    I was very excited to see this movie at first being an accomplished anthropoligist. However I found that this title was full of nonsense. If you are a major history buff DO NOT purchase this DVD. If it was just the information that was incorrect I could tolerate it, but the acting was abhorrant. I wish that was all I could say about it, but the writing was abysmal and entirely, nothing but over used jargon. It seemed like they were trying to make the movie very similar to Gladiator, but failed horribly. If you are a smart person, not just someone who wants to see Kiera Knightly naked (which you don't anyway) Stay away from this film.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    GREAT MOVIE. BUY IT

    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.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 53 Customer Reviews