Blu-rays, DVDs & more
eBay affliate link
Art of the Movies
Buy posters on MoviePoster.com
IMDb
King Arthur movie stills
Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes
Terry Lawson, Detroit Free Press: For all this silly spin, King Arthur is a better movie than you might have expected. Read more
Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: Forget all that accuracy business and just enjoy the movie for what it is: a large-scale, passably engrossing tale of valiant knights doing valiant deeds. Read more
Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times: There's serious intent here, but an often thudding execution. Read more
Michael Wilmington, Chicago Tribune: Devotees of chivalry and Camelot should look elsewhere. Read more
Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper: I loved the notion of the Dark Ages as the Wild West with swords. Thumbs up. Read more
Bob Longino, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: King Arthur won't charm you, hardly ever will thrill you, and certainly will have you laughing less with it than at it. Read more
Bill Muller, Arizona Republic: Though King Arthur is set in ancient times, there's not much difference between this movie and Fuqua's recent film Tears of the Sun. Read more
Ty Burr, Boston Globe: It's a solid, somber, rousing piece of studio zirconium: cobbled together from Gladiator, Braveheart, Lord of the Rings, The Magnificent Seven, and five tons of Hollywood hooey. Read more
Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader: If this is history demystified, give me myth. Read more
Eric Harrison, Houston Chronicle: One of the reasons this film works is that we don't feel as if we're watching these people through the scrim of history and legend -- they feel immediate, even contemporary. Read more
Lisa Kennedy, Denver Post: A fine pretender to the historical action crown Ridley Scott's Gladiator reforged. Read more
Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly: This middling King Arthur doesn't waste time developing character -- or coherence -- when a big, joyless, synthetic battle will do. Read more
Rick Groen, Globe and Mail: May the gods protect us from modernists messing with our myths. Read more
Philip Wuntch, Dallas Morning News: There are things to respect about King Arthur. Just not a great deal to like. Read more
Ella Taylor, L.A. Weekly: If King Arthur is as magnificently ridiculous as any Bruckheimer picture, its thuggish charms, which owe as much to Monty Python as to Sam Peckinpah, more than pick up the slack. Read more
Jan Stuart, Newsday: As a primer in the thuggish territorial land grabs of the Dark Ages, it gets the adrenalin flowing and makes us want to learn more. But the sheer density of the historical material is often at odds with the cut-and-dried requirements of the action genre. Read more
Peter Rainer, New York Magazine/Vulture: The film may be set in the Dark Ages, but the cliches are vintage sixties Hollywood. Read more
Stephen Whitty, Newark Star-Ledger: King Arthur may be far closer to the facts than anything in Le Morte D'Arthur -- and far grittier than Hollywood's old Knights of the Round Table or The Sword in the Stone. But there's nothing true in it at all. Read more
Jami Bernard, New York Daily News: This version has action, yes, but the love triangle among Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot is diluted, and there's nothing exuberant about a dutiful slog through the muck. Read more
A.O. Scott, New York Times: Antoine Fuqua's version of the King Arthur legend includes an element of broad, brawny camp that prevents the movie from being a complete drag. Read more
Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel: Such a bastardization of the tale that it works as neither history nor legend. And with the romance gone, only the blood and guts remain. Read more
James Berardinelli, ReelViews: The term 'unintentional comedy' was coined for a movie such as this. Read more
Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: That the movie works is because of the considerable production qualities and the charisma of the actors, who bring more interest to the characters than they deserve. Read more
Stephanie Zacharek, Salon.com: It's hard to care about a valiant groping for accuracy when a story is so badly told you can't tell what the devil is going on. Read more
Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: Combines the plodding sincerity of a Ph.D. dissertation with the brains of a high-concept Jerry Bruckheimer- produced blockbuster (which it is), and no one benefits. Read more
David Edelstein, Slate: Profoundly stupid and inept, but it's an endless source of giggles. Read more
Jeff Strickler, Minneapolis Star Tribune: It's likely to remind viewers of Braveheart -- except without the emotion. Read more
Susan Walker, Toronto Star: Two hours of relentless battle, badly stitched together with a hard-to-follow story fashioned to give maximum opportunity for big, brawny guys to bash each other. Read more
Richard Schickel, TIME Magazine: A title card says this King Arthur, grimly directed by Antoine Fuqua, is based on the latest research into the mythic past. Maybe so. But one can't help thinking the research that really counted was that into the more recent box-office charts. Read more
Mike Clark, USA Today: Never seems to quite know what's on its mind, though individual scenes (a cool battle on the ice) have their moments. Read more
Michael Atkinson, Village Voice: It turns out to be as much of a swoony valentine to a social ideal that never existed as any other Arthurian text. But at least it takes the conversation with history somewhat seriously. Read more
Michael O'Sullivan, Washington Post: By going back to its origins and dusting itself off, the King Arthur story has proved itself to have a very contemporary resonance. Read more
Stephen Hunter, Washington Post: Boasts all the hallmarks of the '50s historic epic save the presence of Tony Curtis. Read more