Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #4035 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

Pros and Cons
This movie grew on me over several watchings. The first thing that struck me was the atmosphere it had, for me it really evoked the whole romance of the era and the stories. Although I thought Clive Owen and Keira Knightley were godawful, their supporting cast ( who each have more talent in their little fingers than Knightley and Owen put together ) make up for it with their performances. Sadly, those characters aren't ever developed into anything more than tantalising glimpses of personalities, and you're left wondering what they're even doing in the film, they're clearly not wanted, and totally sidelined by the two annoying and dull leads. It's hinted, for example, that Galahad and Gawain are brothers, but that relatinship is never developed, they don't even fight side by side ! And why bother to give Tristan a hawk and a distinct and unique fighting style if you're only going to give him two lines in the whole movie, and kill him off in the end ?! May as well just make him some spod with no name. What is the purpose of Bors' lass and kids ? He never talks about them. And that bit where they finally accept the last order, despite throwing several tantrums about it - if only other people would keel over so easily when I ask them for money, ha ha ! But I was left wanting to see more of those characters, who were beautifully acted ( when the actors were given the chance that is )and quite a lot less of Owen and Knightley. Yes, I too just wanted to smack her - and kill Arthur and promote one of the other guys lol. Plus, having the Picts ( NOT wodes, idiot American director, and no, "pict" doesn't sound odd to people who have actually heard of them before ) speak in some kind of mangled Anglo-latin with subtitles is beyond me - why not subtitle the Saxons as well then ? Or, in fact, everyone ? It's just some kind of pathetic attempt to make the film look like it's been researched !

The weapons and costumes are a mish-mash of practically everything ever worn/invented over a 500 yr period throughout all the world, but I don't see any reason to get hung up over that, it's a movie, not a history class. The overall "look" was right - although I will say, the one thing that really annoyed me about the costumes was the rather gratuitous use of black leather - WRONG ! Gawain, Tristan and Bors have believable kit, but Lancelot and Arthur's spoil it somewhat.

There are some fun fight scenes to watch, if you can get over their pointlessness/silliness and just sit back and enjoy it. Plus the soundtrack is lovely.

After all that dissin', I still like it though.......

NO EXCALIBUR, BUT MUCH BETTER THAN IS MADE OUT!!
Forget all the bad reviews, this is a decent film! An entertaining slice of Historical Fantasy with big budget production values, and plenty of bloody battle scenes. Ok, so some of the casting could have been better but it's no big deal! The film looks fantastic in it's locations and stunning photography. The battles are well orchestrated, and, in this directors cut at least, are as gory as Gladiator or Troy. CGI is used sensibly, and to it's credit, the movie looks to offer something different, combat wise, to the Lord Of The Rings. I would say the battles are closer in style to Braveheart, than Peter Jackson's 500,000 strong battlefields.
The battle on the ice lake is a particularly impressive setpiece. The fantasy elements; Excalibur, Merlin etc are very supressed ala 2004's Troy but the film still feels mythical, just not to the same extent as 1981's Excalibur (the DEFINITIVE Arthurian movie). Strong direction from Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) who brings a similiarly gritty feel, depicting this Arthur as a British based, Roman Commander.
Special mention for Stellan Skarsgard who revels in the role of the brutal, Saxon warlord, Cerdic - Arthur's main adversary.
If you like this type of film, then you should enjoy it - it's much better than the dire First Knight!
I believe the recently released Last Legion has a similiar angle to this, and it's waiting on my shelf to be viewed - looks ok from the trailer.

Truly awful
Wooden acting, patchy storyline, gross historical inaccuracies and a plot that's full of holes.

This has to be one of the worst I've ever seen(and I've seen Gigli!)

Saxons invading from the north? Stonehenge at the coast? And for anyone who says "just see it as a new take on the story", I say: how about a movie reteliing the story of George Washington traveling to the Mexican border to fight the invading Inuit? Or perhaps Napoleon single-handedly protecting Britain from those pesky invading Greenlanders? Seriously, just because it's a movie doesn't mean it shouldn't be accurate.

As for Keira Knightley and Clive Owen, I've seen turnips with more range (honest to God, turnips!).