Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #4858 in DVD
• Released on: 2004-11-29
• Rating: Suitable for 15 years and over
• Number of discs: 1
• Formats: PAL, Widescreen
• Original language: English, Latin
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 136 minutes

Amazon.co.uk Review
It's got a round table, some knights, and a noble warrior who rises to become King Arthur, but everything else about this revisionist legend is pure Hollywood. That's not such a bad thing if you enjoyed Rob Roy, Braveheart, Gladiator and Troy, and there's some intriguing potential in presenting the "real" Arthur (played by Clive Owen) as a 5th-century soldier of Rome, assigned to defend Roman-imperial England against a hoard of invading Saxons (led by Stellan Skarsgard in hairy villain mode). As revamped history and "archaeological findings" would have us believe, Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is a warrior babe in face-paint and Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is a nonentity who fades into the woodwork. Never mind. Best to enjoy the harsh, gloomy atmosphere of Irish locations, the ruggedness of Owen and his hearty supporting cast, and the entertaining nonsense of a Jerry Bruckheimer production that strips battle-ready Guinevere down to leather-strap S&M gear while all the men sport full-body armor. Hail to the queen, indeed! --Jeff Shannon

DVD Description
More blood, more guts, more glory! See the film how it was meant to be seen before the censors got to it, with an extra 17 minutes of never seen before footage added to the film.

This is the first time a director's cut has been launched the same time as the theatrical version, and it's exclusive to DVD.

From the studio
Alternate Ending

Blood on the Land: Forging King Arthur - The Behind-the-Scenes Making Of

Producer’s photo gallery

DTS

National Treasure Trailer

Customer Reviews

Not as bad as you think
Prior to watching this film, I had not read a single positive review of this film, but I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised. It was not nearly as bad as I was led to believe.

Okay, it wasn't great, but the battle scenes were okay, if a little overedited and the frozen lake set piece was impressive. But some of the acting leaves a lot to be desired. Clive Owen (so good in 'CLOSER') seems uninterested and uneasy in the lead role, Keira Knightley just carries on her role from 'Pirates of the carribean' and Ray Winstone is... just Ray Winstone with a sword. Of the other knights, only the impressive Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot is properly introduced.

The producers of the film apparently wanted to go for a more historically accurate film, doing away with the more magical elements of the story, like the sword in the stone and the lady in the lake. Only, I can't see why they would want to do this. This is Hollywood! Experts in making the impossible seem probable. And as the Arthurian legend is just that; "A LEGEND", I can't help but feel we would have had a better film if they had just gone the whole hog and told the story of Arthur as everyone knows it.

Lacks magic
Let's accept that the Arthurian legends are fiction: the 'traditional' version of sword in the stone, Round Table, hand emerging from the lake to grasp Excalibur, etc., was written in the Middle Ages. This film steps away from the 'traditional' to create a new warlord - inheriting the qualities of Roman civilisation and Roman military skill - leading his men in the fight against alien invaders.

As a piece of history, it is a piece of fiction. Since the success of "Gladiator", the ancient world has again proven its potential for blockbuster success (remember "Ben Hur", etc.), so it makes sound marketing sense to give Arthur a Roman background - American audiences will recognise that. The absence of any historical accuracy is of no consequence. We are looking, here, at a piece of fiction.

So how does it rate as a piece of fiction? Well, not particularly good. There's a fine cast - Ioan Gruffuth, Clive Owen, Ray Winstone, and Keira Knightley. There is potential for a reworking of the Arthur legend - the remnants of Rome and the native Celtic warriors stand up to Saxon invasion ... the irony being that these self-same Saxons will go on to found England and become the heroes of the Robin Hood legend (where Kevin Costner has the Saxon's attacked by mercenary Celtic barbarians).

Hollywood rewrites history and folklore at will. The potential in a reworking of the Arthurian myth is to look at issues of end of Empire and explore how the Celtic nations within Britain are reasserting their cultural and political independence from England. That, of course, might be too sophisticated for Hollywood, and an American audience could hardly be expected to appreciate the nuances of Celtic / British / Anglo-Saxon culture and politics.

Hollywood has a vested interest in presenting war as good versus evil, as seeing the politics of resistance simplistically - try translating this film to present day Iraq? But the Arthurian legends were written and told for an adult audience. John Boorman's "Excalibur" was a very erotic, sophisticated retelling of the tale - and still the best cinema version. "King Arthur" is sterile. The erotic potential, the gore and violence, the language, and the drama are all kept on a low burner - the film was marketed at a young audience (12 year olds) in Britain, so the film was inevitably neutered.

The magic and the mystery are stripped from the story. Owen is wrong for the part - he's boring. Knightley is sexy, but you can't believe her as a warrior queen - there's barely enough meat on her arms to snap a wishbone, never mind draw a bow. Gruffudd and Winstone do their best, but the script is so neutered they're fighting a losing battle.

So, you hope that something called the Director's Cut might revive a film which has potential. You hope the film has been neutered by the marketing people and that the director's version will be something grander, something with substance, some tale which will enchant you and weave a pattern of eroticism and mystery ... and maybe offer a bit more gore and guts.

Well, the Director's Cut restores an extra quarter an hour of violence and battle scenes, enough to get it an 18 certificate. But that's as far as it goes. There's not enough to lift the film into a higher plane.

You get a 'Making of' documentary, an alternative ending, etc. Frankly, all these 'Making of' features are getting quite boring. Most of us want to watch the movie, maybe watch it several times. How many of you actually watch the extras time and again? Effectively, the Director's Cut gives you an extra few minutes of battle scenes. If you enjoy that sort of spectacle, this is the version you'll buy. But, as a piece of drama, I still do not rate this film.

A fine epic despite terrible lead performances
The King Arthur Director's Cut is no better or worse than the theatrical, having the same strengths - some good character writing, action scenes where you can actually tell what is going on, an interesting background - and weaknesses - plot holes you could drive a Mack truck through, laughable historical errors, idiotic battle strategies and some hideously bad performances. The latter are definitely the biggest problem, with Antoine Fuqua proving more often than not truly hopeless at directing actors. Indeed, KA boasts some of, if not THE worst performances ever seen in a major studio picture. Clive Owen may look the part, but he delivers the lines like a dyslexic reading off idiot boards while fighting a hangover while Keira Knightley's Guinevere is just as pitiful: she's supposed to be a Celtic warrior queen but despite the fact that her people seem to speak Sioux for some reason she sounds like she's been to a rather expensive English finishing school where they teach you to mispronounce words like `cuhnntwee' (country) and `Roahm' (Rome). That wouldn't be so bad if she had even the remotest shred of talent, but none is to be found. Not since Helen of Troy have their been two leads so desperately in need of dubbing by more talented artists. Throw in Ken Stott doing an outta-ray-juss Ay-Taly-Eano accent, Ray Winstone overdosing on the bish-bash-bosh routine he does instead of acting these days and a couple of frighteningly inept child actors and it's a miracle that the film manages to be as much fun as it is. When the characters aren't trying to talk (something only Ioan Gufford seems to be able to do with success), the action is well handled (particularly the battle on the ice) and the film surprisingly good - but with better casting, it could have been so much more.

The alternate ending offered as an extra doesn't really work because it's so flatly directed, and the making of featurette is fairly brief. The audio commentary and 'round table' discussion from the R1 NTSC disc have not been included on the R2 disc.