King Arthur

Hans Zimmer has already elevated many good films to unforgettable and many mediocre ones to decent. And no movie can be as grateful to him as King Arthur, which without his brilliant musical accompaniment would have remained just a story trimmed of magic with a historical subplot. Instead, it has become a decent historical spectacle where Clive Owen clearly dominates the acting, with his Arthur being a dignified and courageous leader even in civilian form. 70% – a bit shaky, but otherwise quite positive. (2007-04-10)

Children playing in a sandbox and I’m glad to join them. Because there is always something smoking spectacularly and Zimmer’s music is more heroic than in The Rock. And because the kids include Keira Knightley and Clive Owen, who are a joy watch even if they are reciting Shakespeare while wearing clown noses. King Arthur is the most endearing bad movie in at least a year. I highly recommend the Director’s Cut, which is significantly bloodier. (2004-08-08)

Placing the Arthurian legend within a "historical" framework is just a mess, and not even Keira with her small breasts can help it. This is an incredibly boring movie that just shows how Hollywood tries to turn anything into modern action. There's even an attempt at some depth here, but it fits about as well as a soccer ball in a golf hole. (2015-03-31)

After watching Ritchie's King Arthur, I had to check out this film from 2004, which faced a fair amount of criticism. Firstly, you can't take the film too seriously. While it may seem more believable compared to this year's fantasy Arthur, you should still take it with a grain of salt (but I get it, there aren't that many legends preserved about him, so creativity and wit are key). I want to praise the casting—no one felt completely out of place, and each actor handled their role exceptionally well. Clive Owen made his way to Hollywood as Arthur, as did Ioan Gruffudd, who probably wasn't well-known before this. The story isn’t particularly innovative; at times, you might feel like you've seen it all before, but it’s still a perfectly executed historical film with all the necessary elements. I'm disappointed I didn’t see the director’s cut, which apparently doesn’t hold back, but even in the regular version, you can enjoy the battles, as there’s no reliance on CGI effects. The film, after a very fast-paced first half, gradually started to lose momentum, which was noticeable, but I’m still thrilled with the result, which doesn’t match the rating here. I give it 76%. (2017-10-01)

An interesting idea to approach the legend of Arthur, trying to imagine how it might have been in reality. Unfortunately, the screenplay is the greatest weakness of the movie, which could have been saved by the director, if he weren’t the second weakest link here. A movie that isn’t fundamentally bad, just dime-a-dozen in all respects. The only significant plus point here is Zimmer’s music, despite being adapted from things he wrote before this, but still it works well in this movie. (2005-02-01)