King Arthur

Year: 2004 Rating: PG-13 Overall Evaluation: 4.5 Significance Suppositions Story Style 4.0 / 10 3.0 / 10 5.0 / 10 6.0 / 10 Click HERE for evaluation criteria.

Style

Rated PG-13 for intense battle sequences, a scene of sensuality and some language. It was originally rated R and had to be scaled down a bit on the violence side. Language is restricted to minor cussing but there is much crudity nonetheless.

Story

There's no Camelot, no Excalibur, no Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle, no sorcery, no Mordred . . . virtually no story - but there is a round table and intense battle scenes. This, allegedly, is supposed to tell the "real" story of King Arthur. In this version of the tale "Arthur" is a half breed Roman with a cadre of pagan brutes on loan from Rome fighting off rebellion and other evils in Roman-occupied Britain. When Rome decides the island is not worth the trouble it recalls its warriors to fight at home. However, there is an politically important boy in northern Britain that needs rescuing from the Saxons first.

[SPOILER WARNING!]

As the "knights" ride forth they come to realize that the evil pagan hordes above the protecting wall that divides Britain are really good guys and they join together at Badon hill to route the Saxons and thumb their noses at Rome and Christianity.

In all it is a sadly boring tale that barely remains interesting even with all the bloodshed and innuendo.

Suppositions

Allegedly this is "the untold true story that inspired the legend." Despite its vague claim to archeological evidence the fact is that no texts from that period (probably the 5th or 6th century) mention Arthur's name, nor do they mention Camelot or the Round Table. Some scholars believe that the literary figure of King Arthur is based upon a Roman general named Lucius Artorius Castus who was in charge of a large Sarmatian cavalry unit at Hadrian’s Wall. Some believe that the Arthurian legend grew after the (historically confirmed) battle at Badon Hill.

The problem is that King Arthur is a legend - a legend designed to uphold virtues like bravery, loyalty, love, purity of heart, etc. These moviemakers basically present a totally unnecessary, blatantly anti-Christian alternative Arthurian story, in which Arthur a Roman soldier learning the error of loyalty, Merlin is a woad-covered pagan guerrilla leader along with Guinevere who is a warrior running around in a leather bikini, and the "knights" of the round table are a bunch of pagan brutes without a trace of chivalry. Why even call this film "King Arthur"? King Arthur without chivalry and romance, without spells, curses and tragic destiny? Please! It would be different if this "true" story were at least interesting.

Further, there are plenty of historical mistakes despite the claims. The "native Britons" are called “Woads” in the film (because of their painting their skin with blue dye from the Woad plant). They reside north of Hadrian’s Wall, in what is now Scotland. That would make them Picts, who actually joined with the Saxons against Arthur and his Britons. Even though there is evidence in Celtic culture that women fought, we can be sure the women who did fight didn't wear skimpy clothing.

The link between Arthur and his hero the heretic Pelagius, has zero historical support and is just one more assault on true Christianity in the film. But that is the least of the attacks - over and over again we are treated to blatantly anti-Christian attitudes and direct challenges that the pitiably weak Christians are never able to answer. Not a single Christian in the film is portrayed as less than a villain. Had this film attacked homosexuals, pagans, witches, or any other politically protected group the outcry would have been enormous. But as well know, only Christians may be attacked with impunity in our politically correct day.

Significance

The message the movie sends is mixed. Yes, it's about loyalty - sort of. "Arthur" finally realizes that his loyalty to Rome is questionable and that he should fight for Britain (for some reason). His knights who just about rioted when they discovered they could not go home before rescuing the boy suddenly show up to help him (for some reason). It's all very dramatic but makes little sense with their characters or with their previous actions.