Watch
King Arthur

King Arthur

2004
Drama, Action
2h 6m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 31.25% from 4459 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(4458)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 14 Jan 2010
8
3rd
The poster that inflated Knightley's boobs is responsible for mass deception on a scale only rivalled by the pretext for the invasion of Iraq.
Rated 02 Mar 2007
1
0th
The only thing tha could've saved this film was if some kind of prehistoric monster had burst throuhg from underneath the frozen lake and eaten everyone. FOr a film so pained in it's desire to be taken seriously as being "historical" the shear amount of utter bullshit in it is laughable. SInce when did the ancient Brittons invent greek fire urns? And how do the saxons have crossbows? And how do the brittons have longbows for that matter? And why is one of them a samurai? Just. Not. Good. Eno
Rated 01 Mar 2007
10
1st
King Arthur, Clive Owen, Kiera Knightley. Sounds good, right? FUCKING WRONG HOLY SHIT THIS MOVIE WAS BAD.
Rated 03 Apr 2007
55
15th
During the huge final battle, there is a lot of dirt flying around. Huge amounts of it. Therefore, my friend and I concluded that an awesome monster truck show was happening just off-camera. I want to see that movie instead.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
4
1st
A real turd. Incredibly poor film.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
29
4th
I enjoyed making fun of this movie more than actually watching it. Otherwise I would've given it even a lower score. Drink every time you see a cliche!
Rated 11 Mar 2008
65
5th
Zzzz. Even the attractive-and-talented Owens couldn't make this movie more interesting. How a tale of King Arthur could be made boring is beyond me--yet here is proof.
Rated 24 Feb 2007
22
13th
Jerry Bruckheimer "historical" film. Lame action and Keira Knightley is ridiculously skinny and looks nothing like a warrior. Clive Owen is in this, however, and brings it up from single digit rating. Honestly this isn't worth watching.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
20
2nd
Some good actors and technical crew utterly wasted on a script as moronic as this.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
45
13th
The epic story of King Arthur was toned down to make it seem more realistic for film for no good reason. If you want to make a great movie about King Arthur, show some respect to the legend, and go all out. The concept was cool, but it might as well have been any random group of knights doing their thing. The fact that it's Arthur leaves much to be desired. Crap!
Rated 16 Sep 2007
50
22nd
randomly handsome, and not boring, but not good either.
Rated 09 May 2008
41
2nd
There are historic mistakes every minute. The only highlight is Keira Nightley, dressed with nothing but a leather strap, fighting an army of bastards in the cold, snowy scottish winter on a froozen lake.
Rated 31 Jul 2009
1
1st
This is honestly one of the worst films I have ever seen. It is just a total fucking mess. The casting, the screenplay, the acting, the action, the editing... its all just a complete and utter disaster. The whole film is full of meaningless rubbish, passed off as a plot. The final battle is laughable, it just looks terrible and has absolutely no style or quality in terms of true artistic content or directorial talent. If you watch this and like it, then you deserve a good hard slap. Awful.
Rated 18 Jan 2012
31
4th
so shallow and towards the end annoyingly boring. cool performance by knightley, though. maybe because she played the only fully formed or...actual...charater.
Rated 22 Jan 2012
24
5th
It was a film. I think.
Rated 27 Jan 2017
70
48th
To say they took liberties with the Arthur legend would be an understatement. First off, they completely left out the Knights Who Say "Ni!", Sir Robin (the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot), the Rabbit of Caerbannog, and Tim. But otherwise, it kept me entertained.
Rated 01 Sep 2021
5
8th
Normally a King Arthur movie plays it straight for a bit before collapsing in on the general inability of filmmakers to mediate the mythic parts of the legend with its more plausible components. 2004's King Arthur dispenses with this trajectory altogether by opening with the question, "What if the knights of the round table were Sarmatians?" For once I'm glad to have a character limit here, otherwise I'd pontificate at length about various facets of this poor outing.
Rated 12 Dec 2006
71
29th
A fun enough action movie.
Rated 05 Jan 2007
54
24th
Viral for the greatness of Saxons.
Rated 18 Jan 2007
23
3rd
Limp and should not be. Where are the Bruckheimer explosions?
Rated 24 Jan 2007
60
40th
Pretty silly for a film supposedly based on historical fact, but it has some exciting action scenes, and the story moves along at a good pace.
Rated 01 Mar 2007
25
6th
Poor but passes the time.
Rated 04 Mar 2007
65
44th
Guilty pleasure flick.
Rated 25 Mar 2007
71
52nd
Clive Owen makes for an appealing hero, and the action on display does not disappoint.
Rated 12 May 2007
35
10th
3+ might want to skip this one :: Guinevere and the scene on the ice were the only things worth watching.
Rated 21 May 2007
23
9th
A movie that could have been so good... just a shame that it couldn't deliver. Think there was only one good line/moment in the film!
Rated 27 Jun 2007
58
4th
Never before has a movie sucked the fun out of the movies as this one has.
Rated 25 Jul 2007
35
6th
Bruckheimer meets King Arthur. Somehow, Arthur ends up being absolutely LAME. Surprise? I don't think so. Fuqua, the black Michael Bay of Hollywood, has Clive Owen as the lead and wastes him. Way to go Antoine.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
67th
unusual treatment of this epic. interesting historic hypothesis, great outdoor view, a good moment
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
14th
I really didn't like this movie because when i htink of king arthur i think of magic and dragons
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
11th
Another Hollywood pukefest. It's too bad the concept wasn't very good in the first place.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
50
13th
Nothing special, don't remember much from it (meaning it wasn't important/good enough for me to remember.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
37th
I really wanted to like this movie; It had swords and bows and Romans and barbarians and the dude whos in ROME: The hbo show.......... but it was just kinda lame.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
25th
Really not as good as it should have been. Meeeddddiocre.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
70
39th
cool chick power film.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
67
33rd
Quite good. Not terribly original
Rated 14 Aug 2007
74
54th
Ok maybe it's not as good as I first thought but I still liked it more than most. Keira is hot and the action is good.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
13
10th
very close to garbage with the guy that played Horatio Hornblower as a tough guy...
Rated 14 Aug 2007
52
17th
This is not as bad of a movie as everyone makes it out to be. The point is you need to look at this as a Discovery Channel "Historical account of the myth" as opposed to a serious version of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Is it oscar worth - far from it, but it's at least watchable.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
65
8th
Dreadfully dull and uneven. My guess is because the studio wanted a PG-13.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
70
48th
Even if Keira Knightley doesn't impress you with her captivating dimples, the breath-taking battle scenes hold their fort in sweeping vistas of seeming historical accuracy. Nothing mystical about a Christian-oriented Holy Roman Empire maintaining its receding hegemony with outsourced mercenaries; that's as mundane as military contractors fighting someone else's battle in Iraq.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
82
77th
I am a Clive Owen fan because of this movie
Rated 14 Aug 2007
45
16th
I really want to like this film more. The issue is, of course, that there's a film about very traditional heroes in here, blended with a tale about anthropology. It's dark, foreboding, and not a lot of fun, but not in ways that really touch you as a viewer. Oh, and Keira half-neekid, which is just damn distracting, and doesn't help the film overmuch. There's a good film in their somewhere, I know.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
31
20th
Just bad.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
1
5th
Keira Knightley is the most miscast I've ever seen an actor be in a role, and the movie as a whole is a ridiculously dark, flat, and bland mockery of the Arthur myth. There's not an exciting beat to by found in the entirety.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
19th
They tried to do it well, but came up quite short.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
52
23rd
King Arthur is a boring spectacle, laughably delivered, with only the darkly moody cinematography and a decent performance by Clive Owen to keep it from sinking into abysmal levels.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
30
4th
The worst of its kind.
Rated 03 Sep 2007
68
35th
Decent action. But why are the saxons vikings?? The normans were the decendents of norse and danes.
Rated 11 Sep 2007
58
33rd
Kind of boring. Kind of nonsensical. Kind of everything not very good with movies but Clive Owen's alright, I like Ray Winstone and Ray Stevenson and... that's about it.
Rated 13 Sep 2007
58
24th
I actually kind of liked this movie, as it is much closer to the real tale of King Arthur. I had problems with it in many ways though, and the cast was not as good as i had hoped for, but it was still alright.
Rated 15 Sep 2007
70
14th
The concept is good and the action sequences are nicely done; however, the movie is seriously let down by a really poorly researched story and some poor scripting. It could have been so much more with a little more thought.
Rated 08 Nov 2007
88
56th
Yay! Knightley!!!
Rated 16 Nov 2007
30
30th
pretty, but didn't really care for it.
Rated 17 Nov 2007
30
19th
The cinema is full of movies so, and this is one that does not add anything.
Rated 25 Nov 2007
40
20th
Tolerable, if I'd watched it in the cinema and paid $20 I'd have been extremely annoyed. But the Bangkok pirates only charged me 80 Baht for it, which is an accurate reflection of this film's worth.
Rated 07 Jan 2008
76
53rd
Pretty good battle scenes...
Rated 17 Feb 2008
75
11th
Pretty weak, but Clive Own is looking particularly hot in it--which was enough for at least the first hour.
Rated 23 Feb 2008
85
53rd
Suprisingly good
Rated 06 Mar 2008
40
3rd
Not dreadful. But not great. Not loads of development.
Rated 17 Mar 2008
80
74th
Entertaining. The battle scenes are exciting. Supposed to be based on historical facts and believable. Sometimes maybe, but mostly it is not believable a bit. So many historical and logical mistakes. Therefore it is just entertaining and not for people adoring classical Arthurian legends. I love the music best.
Rated 18 Mar 2008
20
2nd
It was bad. Clive Owen was horrible. And my favourite knight died. I think.
Rated 30 Apr 2008
50
37th
good actors but...
Rated 01 Jun 2008
70
9th
It has been some time since I watched it, but the feeling is good, I recommend for those who loved medieval stuff, with a classical romantic adventure
Rated 12 Jun 2008
0
1st
Wow, that sucks
Rated 24 Jun 2008
58
9th
Suffered from a lack of chemistry between the three main leads and a less than interesting stroy to follow
Rated 10 Aug 2008
73
46th
Total disappointment, especially since it's Kiera Knightly and Clive Owen.
Rated 25 Aug 2008
20
13th
bad movie
Rated 11 Oct 2008
49
7th
Well, it was entertaining to that degree as it was funny to talk about how "historical" that movie really is. Well done Mr.Fuqua and Mr.Bruckheimer. Only Clive Owen saves the day, he just good in every role no matter how bad the movie is around him.
Rated 14 Oct 2008
88
52nd
coolio
Rated 22 Nov 2008
37
9th
That movie was supposed to be great.
Rated 24 Nov 2008
100
95th
Dont really know why but one of my all time favorite of ALL time
Rated 08 Dec 2008
75
54th
A good film just for entertainment.
Rated 15 Dec 2008
50
8th
Any movie about Arthur that ends with him getting married to Gwenivere is a waste of story.
Rated 11 Jan 2009
80
38th
This one wore me out. Or maybe I was just tired when I saw it.
Rated 15 Jan 2009
30
4th
This is bad.. just bad...
Rated 23 Jan 2009
32
8th
I love...LOVE movies where people kill each other with swords. This one was terrible.
Rated 25 Jan 2009
75
74th
Very entertaining although. No idea why.. I guess Owen and Knightley and Merlin and the rest of Owens clan pulled it off.
Rated 06 Feb 2009
20
25th
Holy shit was this dumb. I can't even go into it right now...I wouldn't even know where to start.
Rated 27 Feb 2009
10
10th
10
Rated 08 Mar 2009
35
37th
Enjoyable as a replacement for TV or an airplane movie. Overall pretty dumb.
Rated 13 Mar 2009
80
67th
An underappreciated and overlooked interpretation of the King Arthur saga directed by Antoine Fuqua. Fuqua did such a great job with what he was working with, and fortunately, he has an all star cast for this film, and it shows. It takes some liberties with the legend, but I like them because it makes Arthur more of a human character than he actually was. It also exposes the hypocrisy of the legend and makes it more believable. Plus we get to see Keira Knighly in a loin cloth. Enjoyable film.
Rated 19 Mar 2009
45
59th
this film is so stupid
Rated 27 Apr 2009
85
60th
An amazing realistic portrayal of Arthur.
Rated 28 May 2009
30
14th
I love the score. I could listen to it the whole day long. In fact, on some days I actually do. Unfortunately, the score was the only thing I could really enjoy in this movie. The plot is dull, the characters are flat (do the saxons really need to kill their own people for no reason at all and laugh at it just to make sure everyone realizes they're the bad guys?), the battle scenes are utterly ridiculous, and don't get me started on the alleged realism... (review based on the director's cut)
Rated 04 Jul 2009
55
19th
Tries to be gritty and serious, but it essentially ruins the magic inherent to the story. Clive Owen is fine, and Ray Winstone is good as well, but many of the other characters are just plain boring. Still a moderately enjoyable film, but a relentlessly mediocre one none-the-less.
Rated 16 Jul 2009
47
8th
Take classic literary characters and saturate them with modernist sensibilities, and you'll have a movie that is watchable, but frustrating.
Rated 23 Jul 2009
50
14th
Historically too incorrect to even bother taking it seriously.
Rated 09 Aug 2009
68
22nd
I love Keira Knightley, and this would be one the first films I noticed her in. I also happen to enjoy some Clive Owen films more than I should. This was not one of them
Rated 02 Oct 2009
5
19th
how did this get made
Rated 03 Oct 2009
30
13th
Shit
Rated 20 Nov 2009
50
8th
Fraco
Rated 29 Jan 2010
30
8th
I remember it being extremely bland.
Rated 23 Feb 2010
60
30th
Interesting twist of the King Arthur tale that could have been good but zig zags into conventional Hollywood stuff territory. Has a few good action sequences but the writing and interpretation of the King Arthur characters are very mediocre.
Rated 02 Mar 2010
84
31st
It sinned on the costume department...
Rated 05 Apr 2010
20
3rd
"A spectacular, epic tale" - You've got to be kidding me...
Rated 10 Apr 2010
60
18th
The battle at the end of the movie was so long that I started to nod off. I had to skip to the finale in order to stay awake. Dull plot, bunch of characters you don't care about even with heavy hitters like Clive Owen and Keira Knightley. Complete waste of 2 hours.
Rated 19 Apr 2010
71
45th
Interesting but not very well executed
Rated 26 Jul 2010
33
18th
How many films have tried to be an epic and fail in the last decade? Its an unknown cipher, but you can count on that you will find this film on the list
Rated 16 Aug 2010
20
3rd
Crap.

Collections

(28)
Compact view
Showing 1 - 24 of 28 results

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...