how on earth someone could possibly claim that this is not a parody- the legend is, what English? ok. So, anyone tell me, please, WHY THESE KNIGHTS ARE WEARING A ROMAN ARMOR ????
@keebordcowboy the myth is not pausable due to the magic and the nature of it, and it is not proven with hardley any evidence other than heresay and stories, so this film is the first plausable theory to be dramatised, afterall that is all that Archeology is, everybodies next best guess.
who is this roman douchebag posing as king arthur? is this ( yet another) half assed michael chrichton theory made flesh, again, because the world is ruled by docuhebags who love michael chrichtons stupid books? or is it a another ( idiotic, unessesary) modern re-working of a half forgotten legend,fully made developed from a single offhanded comment made in jest (by Anthony Burgess for instance) because moderns are fat louts, and no one with a brain or a soul has been born in over 43 years?
does this movie come out this summer or when because it looks good:) and i want to pirate it. hopefully i can masterbate to keira knightely who knows idk man ill look on xxnx or porn hub
lol the legend of the holy grail and Arthur is known to be fiction. One of the 1st book of fiction to be written by a guy named Chrétien de Troy at 1st and then other ppl added to it and created the impossibly huge story it is today. Its just sad they made some crappy movie thats not even worth watching and saying its the true story.There is no true story.There is only the legend they created and that every1 kept alive during all these years.Truth?i say crap.
@vnfangy I was speaking of the truth the movie itself claims to own :) Archeological evidence and such. Can't imagine they made it so we think its another reality when they say that kind of stuff. -_- All in all I just disliked that they made a bad movie on a legend is so great and old that every1 knows about it in a way or another.
Knights suck because they only obey because they expect lands to be granted to them by their lords... But Saxons obey out of pure loyalty, without expecting any reward
@warmsteel the directors cut is boring, after like, 3 hours into the movie i started to get bored. the theatrical version is better cuz its only 129 minuets which isnt very long
i see coments about guinerve,like she is a depicted as rough warior?!but thrut is that the celtic women fought alongside with the men!!!second thing,is that sarmatians where slavs,and inhabitet a vast area(like today)! in fact,this movie is based on historical documents!!!...
For some reason, I have a poster of this film, despite not seeing it or anything. And I looked at it today, and was just like, what ever happened to that film?
I swear when this came out, it was just ignored completely
@TimeGod12 celtic women were warriors too! take Boadicea as an example, she was a british Celtic warrior queen who led a revolt against Roman occupation
I didn't watch the movie because of the comical Guinevere in a Zena outfit. Typical woman-playing-with-swords-and-arrows cliché you see in so many modern movies--and they expect us to think this is historical.
@TimeGod12 The Roman historian Plutarch described a battle between Romans and Celts: “the fight had been fierce with the women and with the men ….the women charged with swords and axes"
@gabrielbender1 The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.
Plus you have modern day politically correct bleeding hearts who keep attempting to rewrite history to make it more politically correct and women-friendly.
@weakkitten normal is what they show in theatres, directors cut is usually longer, with added deleted scenes and stuff that wasn't put in theatres for whatever reasons
I think that if people were to judge films by their historical accuracy, well then, nobody can ever be wrong or right, especially if they are based on myths, like King Arthur. Whatever Arthur really was, none of us will really know for sure. Making the movies are just to draw up and portray one of the many ideas or theories there are in questioning what Arthur was really like. So yeah I think it's a little ridiculous to say if the movie is historically incorrect.
hate to break it to you but the Arthur story was and is a Brythonic one about a Briton whose aim it was to unite the old peoples of the British Isles and drive out the Anglo-Saxons. so effectively he is Anti-English and not the hero of england as many believe
What a load of shit this film is, ive never seen anywhere in England, particularly down West Country, that looks anything like the scenery in this crappy film,
Its only a film? Blah blah, whats wrong with filming it in fucking England where the Arthur legend is at home?
I think the answer to your question as to why this film was not made in England can be answered by one single word Money.
Shit? Well the Theatrical release is Piss-poor, The director's cut is better, but I still don't know why they transferred Baden Hill to Hadrian's wall and yet claim to be "Accurate". At least in the Director's cut the battle scenes are more like "Gladiator" instead of "The "A Team". I wish they'd film "The Warlord Chronicles" by Cornwell. That'd be good.
This movie is so full of shit, I mean, I saw it, and it was good, but if you are more into history then you'll see the mistakes:
They mixed Romans, Saxons and crossbows together, while it took place 1600 years ago, ohh and by the way: 1600 years ago they didn't have stone castles or walls.
It feels like they've thrown all ages together... some things are even about 600 years too early to be used 1600 years ago
You're right just about the crossbows. Hadrian's Wall building was started on 122 by Hadrian Emperor (1887 years ago). Study history and then write, Daan013. (P.S. : Stone Age started 2.5 million years ago ^^)
Stone age yes, but in the early Medieval world they didn't built any stone buildings yet, except for the Romans, but they were already destroyed in the Medieval age, and Arthur was in early Medieval, so he couldn't be a Roman either...
Hardly Stone Age! According to the trailer, it's set about 400 C.E. - about 2600 years after the end of the Stone Age. Arthur dates from about 597 C.E., almost 200 years after the movie claims for him, and after the Romans had long departed (410 C.E.). There were no stone castles in Britain until after the Norman conquest. (1066 C.E.)
well they may have not been castle, there were stone strong holds left by roman intellect and to set the record straight no one is quite sure when King Arthur lived, if he lived at all; it could be any where from 350 C.E. to 650 C.E. the time period depends on the historian you ask
if the movie was bad to you just because you compared it to true history dosen't make sence to me this is made for enjoyment if you want historicly correct thing watch history chanel and dont cry with stupid comments :/
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
too bad the movie is too much a fantasy style and has 100% bad-written dialogue and in contrast to that awesome scenerey shots and only great and interesting actors in it. I say, Peter Jackson shall do a remake.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
was a damn good film if you ask me. cant get enough of Stellans performance and I really cant for the life of me get enough of Kiera and her sweet flat chest. Its jack off time!
some people just dont learn, who cares about race. it is good to know the history. Yet, people should not live in it. What we have in common is more important than what we have in different. Cant we accept the fact that we are all human. Gezz, drop this racial debate man. Grow up.
Im sick of all of you people you say you despise the Germans and these people and blah blah blah but in reality Im German and proud of it I also live in America are you going to hate me for that too? All i want is peace...but that will never happen as long as your ignorant racists asses live. It doesnt matter if your Jewish, Black, White, Israeli or anything else we should accept each other for what we believe in.
A cataphract was a form of heavy cavalry used by nomadic eastern Iranian tribes and dynasties and later Ancient Greeks and Romans. Historically the cataphract was a heavily armed and armoured cavalryman who saw action from the earliest days of Antiquity up through the High Middle Ages.
The idea of the universally trained soldier was not unique to the Byzantines, but the Romans WERE the ones to come up with it first. Also, being horsemen, the Celts got around, even as far away as the Persian empire. Horses allowed for fast travel over vast distances so its no wonder the Persians heard of them.
The Sarmatians, Sarmatæ or Sauromatæ (Persian: سَرمَتی ها, Old Iranian Sarumatah 'archer'[1], Greek: Σαρμάται) were a people of Ancient Iranian origin[2][1]. Mentioned by classical authors, they migrated from Central Asia to the Ural Mountains around fifth century B.C. and eventually settled in most of southern European Russia, Ukraine, and the eastern Balkans.
I am a middle eastern Jew; my family never suffered the horrors of the holocaust. Quite the opposite actually; they suffered the horrors of Israeli ashkenazi racism.
Nevertheless I despise the Germans, and I despise any Jews who bred with the bastards. That much the TRUE British people and I have in common.
Personally though, I've never met any full blooded Celtic people. I'd love to visit Wales one day, if only for a drink at a local pub.
More than stood up; had King Arthur left any heirs, British history may have been very different. There may have been no British empire for one, and likely, the colonization of north America would not have seen the genocide of the natives. Americans slaughtered the natives, true to their Germanic heritage "the Saxons only keep what they kill, and they kill everything." Eerily enough, that is precisely what German descended Americans did.
English; the English, are "part Saxon." Welsh and Scots are still Celtic. So are most people of Cornwall.
however.................. given the reaction of most brits on youtube, I don't think anyone in Britain really cares. I mean, to themselves, they are not "Saxon," or "Celtic" or even "Indian," just simply "British."
still though, those saxons, like they're German cousins, are douchebags;
most of the suffering in this world was caused by germanic peoples.
the part saxon brits, the mostly german americans........ those people are dangerous man. Begs the question though; you kill them all, you kill every uncle tom nonwhite on this planet, what would good people do with that new freedom once they have it? Could they live to their fullest potential, still lacking faith in themselves?
Gee Thanks. Didn't know I was that dangerous. Last I checked I have not killed anyone and enjoy several friendships with people all over the world. Maybe you should check and see who is being racist here.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
go to the youtube search bar, and type "James Bond's Testicals," look for the video posted by cureforRoadrage, that video, will show what I think of your comment.
go to the youtube search bar and type "James Bond's Testicals," look for the video posted by cureforRoadrage, that video, demonstrates what I think of your response.
My mom is pretty well preserved, actually, thanks to Yoga she looks like she's in her early 20's, and if she posed for Playboy, the magazine would sell out BUT, no thank you that's immoral.
moreover, if the direct cause of the inferiority complex of nonwhites was exterminated (e.g. germanic peoples) again, would nonwhites of the world be able to shake off the inferiority complex?
I mean, its you Germans, and Germanic peoples who go around saying how "dumb" everyone is.
people masacar people. not just the germans. germans have been hated everywhere but you cant blame them for americans and british killing idians. like, seriously? germans have been at war with every country, but they are no where near evil people, just proud and loyal.
@stardingo747 Bullshit, The Majority of Americans are British. Most Americans came from England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland from the Founding Fathers until now most american presidents have British Ancestry except hoover and Eisenhower.
nothing yes but it just annoys me how everyone ends up blaming the Germans for half the massacres the go on. Germans did a lot yes, but every ancestry has, its the people now who chose to be like them or not. Times change.
The majority of scandinavian descended or Teutonic peoples that I've met, are hot headed, despicable, unfeeling (except for anger), sadistic cowards. And contrary to Aryan supremacy myths, in my experience the fuckers are worthless in a fight, at least in a fist fight, don't know how they are with weapons. Whatever the case most of the ones I've met were bullies; I am not too shocked at all by any of the history in that movie. King Arthur stood up to them; so I admire him.
Of course, this history has nothing to do with Americans; the overpowering majority of Americans are in fact German, and the ones with Irish heritage? Even they have a lot of German in them; that is why Americans are fucking douchebags. Same with the English; nice people those Scandinavians. I sometimes wonder if there is a people they DIDN'T attack.
Britain was home to three Celtic tribes; the largest and most powerful were the Cymry, Cymry was an ancient British Celtic term for "stone" or "strong as stone." The name "Britain" derives from "Cymry," thus, the name "Britain" means "strong stone." The other two were the Picti in the north, who were killed off by the Scotti, who originally came from Ireland, driven out by Irish Celts.
Moreover, the people of Wales and Cornwall NEVER considered Arthur a myth; the ENGLISH, I need to emphasize, the ENGLISH, who are not fully Celtic but part Saxon and Anglo, were the ones who made him into a myth. Further up in Scotland, the few Scots who knew of him either held him in respect or, true to Scottish nature simply didn't give a crap. They were more concerned with English raids.
This movie is about the TRUE STORY OF KING ARTHUR which later legends and fake stories were made up of. King Arthur was a Roman Centurion (Half Roman and half Celtic)....his Knights were Iranian Cataphracts from the Sarmatian Tribe. The Romans first experience with Cataphracts (Armored Horse Knight) were at the Battle of Carrae when they were fighting the Iranians (Persians aka Parthians).
1) The Sarmatians were a Celtic tribe, the Persians never penetrated that deeply into Europe at ANY point in history.
2) The Cataphracts were a Roman invention; as their soldier ranks got thinner and thinner, they increasingly began relying more and more on universally skilled soldiers, the idea was invented by the Romans, perfected by the Byzantines, and then finally mastered by the Germans. The word "Knight" is in fact a Teutonized version of "Cataphract."
Finally saw this movie today and it's definitely entertaining. I couldn't help but think that the final battle scene is influenced by the final battle scene in Seven Samurai. How they trap the enemies within the walls of the fortress and enlist the help of the Merlin's people is similar to how the samurai in Kurosawa's film trap bandits within the fortified village and are helped by the villagers in killing them.
The only accurate thing I can think about this movie is that he was truly the commander of a group of Sarmatian warriors to protect the now isolated island of britain.
Great movie! The scene on the lake was just brilliant. And the myth and legend of Arthur is just awesome. Parts of it are true, parts are not, but still very interesting myth it is.
the legend of king aurther is mistaken by most people. the official legend is the saxons won. saxones were called angels back then and englend means land of the angles
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
no no no, bitch you got it all wrong...you gotta go back further...in the misty vales of avalon, king arthur stepped out from the spell of morrigan-le-fay, and headed for where he might be able to happen upon hedge-hog pussy, because the maidens of his village looked more like the hogs on his father uther pendragon's farm...he fucked the first hedge-hog he happened upon, and lo! the race of britons was born!...:)...XD
The myth was based on a real hero, who breaks a good wedge formation on a cavalry charge and has men who don't know the meaning of discipline, or tactics... something tells me he would have failed - I guess this explains why we were conquered by the Saxons.. eventually.
ok. Let's set the scene. The closest historical figure ever came close to a war leader who fought off and won a major victory against the saxons was Ambrosius Aurelianus. During the fall, Roman empire was on a slope, u shouldn't see soldiers wearing post marian soldier uniform anymore like u do in the film. The roman military equipments in the early 5th century is alot more inferior and barbaric. Basically u cant even tell a roman soldier apart from a barbarian. Artorius btw, is a family name...
so i suppose the dude who wrote the script can argue the "artorius" clive portrayed is a descendant of Artorius Castus, coz for a roman u inheret the name of your father and your great great great great grandfather for that matter, if you descend from that line.
Still, u've gotta give the film, or more specifically, Hans Zimmer for his effort in producing the score. it's great.
and yea, Arthur doesnt have to be Artorius in latin... it can also be Arturius...so here we hav a linguistic problem
In the movie it states that this Artorius was ancestrally named for the 1st Lucius Artorius Castus. I seem to be the only one who ever got that part.
As for the wall, it was real, took several months and 300 people to build it.
Did read an article about the evidence that this was based upon. so they used a little poetic license to spruce it up a bit, still sound more realistic than the past fables.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, apart from bad casting, historical inaccurate costumes, getting Artorius almost 200 years too late, Hans Zimmer recycling his music and a not very good script... I suppose it isn't bad.
i just watch this yesterday and all i can say it was a very inspiring movie... it made me cry!
yajnivram17 1 week ago
how on earth someone could possibly claim that this is not a parody- the legend is, what English? ok. So, anyone tell me, please, WHY THESE KNIGHTS ARE WEARING A ROMAN ARMOR ????
keebordcowboy 2 weeks ago
@keebordcowboy the myth is not pausable due to the magic and the nature of it, and it is not proven with hardley any evidence other than heresay and stories, so this film is the first plausable theory to be dramatised, afterall that is all that Archeology is, everybodies next best guess.
solmalfoy 6 days ago
i have only read the book, is the movie any good?
Holtola 2 months ago
I freakin love this movie
polismf 3 months ago
poor mans King Arthur film
cfwbdude 4 months ago
Lancelot is soooooooo hot
funnygurls97 5 months ago 2
well Ray Stevenson is pretty hot,
morgust 5 months ago
very good movie. And she is beautiful!!!!!!
linkinn18 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you can see this one, just click on my name and follow link, very fast and great quality!test it!
mcnettcl5454 6 months ago
I love Keira's body in this. This was back in the day when she was still toned. Now she's so anorexic looking.
RayneM2011 7 months ago
uhh the saxons a strong german tribe, nice movie
FromDuskTillDawn1992 7 months ago
after watching dis i fell in love with Lancelot!
sandra49511 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SIMPLY'';COPY,:;&;.,PASTE:,:
ＷＷＷ.ＮＥＷＭＯＶＩＥＳＮＯＷ.ＴＫ
SIMPLY;:;COPY:,:&':.PASTE;,'
BobMayoFrank 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Does anyone know what´s the name of the music that begins at 1:01? Thanks :)
veronikakrzelj 8 months ago
who is this roman douchebag posing as king arthur? is this ( yet another) half assed michael chrichton theory made flesh, again, because the world is ruled by docuhebags who love michael chrichtons stupid books? or is it a another ( idiotic, unessesary) modern re-working of a half forgotten legend,fully made developed from a single offhanded comment made in jest (by Anthony Burgess for instance) because moderns are fat louts, and no one with a brain or a soul has been born in over 43 years?
solerso68 8 months ago
Good God the trailer is horrible! But a hell of a good movie!
HorseMaster94 9 months ago 12
Arthur is actually a Roman officer stationed at Britain
aminoacid1648856 9 months ago
WATCH;:,FREE,.,MOVIES';:ONLINE!;,,
ＷＷＷ.ＹＥＳＭＯＶＩＥＳＦＲＥＥ.ＴＫ
ClaytonMurrayRot67 9 months ago
"EXCALIBUR" WAS THE BEST KING ARTHUR MOVIE TO THIS DAY.
WolfofAncients 9 months ago
listen tell me if i need to watch this movie because i read the book and i am skared of being desapointed thanks for your advice
TheMinarus 11 months ago
@TheMinarus stop yelling spoilers
Greatrune11 10 months ago
@Greatrune11 now i saw the movie but he sucks
TheMinarus 10 months ago
OMG THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER I WATCHED I YESTERDAY !!!!! BUT LANCELOT DIED AND THAT'S SOOO SAD HE'S MY FAVOURITE :'(
SuperShadowXMaria 11 months ago
@SuperShadowXMaria
Worst..Lancelot AND Tristan died and they're my favorite!!:'(!!
D3AMONS 10 months ago
@D3AMONS Yeah it's not fair why do THEY have to die >:(
SuperShadowXMaria 10 months ago
does this movie come out this summer or when because it looks good:) and i want to pirate it. hopefully i can masterbate to keira knightely who knows idk man ill look on xxnx or porn hub
poopmasterjedi 11 months ago
i've been watching this movie again and again...i just love it so much
imrealhalen 1 year ago
@imrealhalen OMG you and me both pal!
Loveisall129 11 months ago
I watched this movie yesterday. History does repeat itself, does it not?
asorita1 1 year ago
@asorita1 sure do, i just watched it yesterday
Loveisall129 11 months ago
lol the legend of the holy grail and Arthur is known to be fiction. One of the 1st book of fiction to be written by a guy named Chrétien de Troy at 1st and then other ppl added to it and created the impossibly huge story it is today. Its just sad they made some crappy movie thats not even worth watching and saying its the true story.There is no true story.There is only the legend they created and that every1 kept alive during all these years.Truth?i say crap.
fenxsor 1 year ago
@fenxsor consider it sets in another reality and it's ok. BTW, there is no such thing is "truth" in movie, except for pornography, maybe...
vnfangy 1 year ago
@vnfangy I was speaking of the truth the movie itself claims to own :) Archeological evidence and such. Can't imagine they made it so we think its another reality when they say that kind of stuff. -_- All in all I just disliked that they made a bad movie on a legend is so great and old that every1 knows about it in a way or another.
fenxsor 1 year ago
Immediate Music - Fahrenheit
so long to seek :)
UnWareZzz 1 year ago
me like trailer
2macabeos3 1 year ago
This movie sucks so bad.
Its mostly about Guinerve the female character whose depicted a fighting warrior.
The movie is mostly aimed at young girls and women who need an ego boost
TimeGod12 1 year ago
@TimeGod12
Dude, you only could think that if you spent the whole movie staring at her chest. She's barely even a main character.
ImumMare 1 year ago
this movie seems more close to the period that king arthur is supposed to have lived...
Ms30121991 1 year ago
What's King Arthur and Merlin got to do with the "Chi Rho" symbol of Constantine the Great ???
vslsnks 1 year ago
Does anybody know the name of the song beginning at 1:00?
veronikakrzelj 1 year ago
celts sucks...saxons rule
maunus 1 year ago
@maunus no saxons suck.... Knights rule
jsnypitcher 1 year ago
@jsnypitcher
Knights suck because they only obey because they expect lands to be granted to them by their lords... But Saxons obey out of pure loyalty, without expecting any reward
maunus 1 year ago
@jsnypitcher YUP!
Tyippe99 1 year ago
@maunus Why?
Tyippe99 1 year ago
@Tyippe99
because saxons have in their culture the purest form of loyalty..
maunus 11 months ago
@Tyippe99 Never mind.
twlthteg 6 months ago
great movie. the unrated director's cut is literally 5 hours long lol
Zooroonies 1 year ago
@Zooroonies I want the director's cut, lol xD
warmsteel 1 year ago
@warmsteel the directors cut is boring, after like, 3 hours into the movie i started to get bored. the theatrical version is better cuz its only 129 minuets which isnt very long
Zooroonies 1 year ago
im glad my name is Arthur >=]
sonofa6699str 1 year ago
i see coments about guinerve,like she is a depicted as rough warior?!but thrut is that the celtic women fought alongside with the men!!!second thing,is that sarmatians where slavs,and inhabitet a vast area(like today)! in fact,this movie is based on historical documents!!!...
MrDex369 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i've watched this movie and it was awesome...
Cxg21 1 year ago
thank you for sharing
LadyeAnn 1 year ago
For some reason, I have a poster of this film, despite not seeing it or anything. And I looked at it today, and was just like, what ever happened to that film?
I swear when this came out, it was just ignored completely
DeathChipmunk 1 year ago
This movie sucks so bad.
Its mostly about Guinerve the female character whose depicted a fighting warrior.
The movie is mostly aimed at young girls and women who need an ego boost
TimeGod12 1 year ago
@TimeGod12 celtic women were warriors too! take Boadicea as an example, she was a british Celtic warrior queen who led a revolt against Roman occupation
gabrielbender1 1 year ago
@gabrielbender1 And how did the battle of warrior queen turn out exactly ?
During the battle the so called warrior queen Boadicea died because she fell sick lol.
When was the last time you saw a female queen actually win major wars on their own ?
Never happened and never will.
TimeGod12 1 year ago
@TimeGod12 Athena, female wargod...
AwkwardAppearance 1 year ago
great knight movie! i give it a 10/10
Zooroonies 1 year ago
I didn't watch the movie because of the comical Guinevere in a Zena outfit. Typical woman-playing-with-swords-and-arrows cliché you see in so many modern movies--and they expect us to think this is historical.
YesWeCantaloupe 1 year ago
@YesWeCantaloupe I completely agree.
This movie sucks so bad.
Its mostly about Guinerve the female character whose depicted a fighting warrior.
The movie is mostly aimed at young girls and women who need an ego boost
TimeGod12 1 year ago
@TimeGod12 The Roman historian Plutarch described a battle between Romans and Celts: “the fight had been fierce with the women and with the men ….the women charged with swords and axes"
gabrielbender1 1 year ago
@gabrielbender1 The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.
Plus you have modern day politically correct bleeding hearts who keep attempting to rewrite history to make it more politically correct and women-friendly.
TimeGod12 1 year ago
I think it is not that bad movie.
Aslara 1 year ago
zorro and kiera?
no thanks ^^
ElchinMendes 1 year ago
the movie was ok, some interesting characters, i mean that Tristan guy was the man ... until he got proper fucked by the saxon.
valigeorges 1 year ago
Horrendous film.
mahogonywhisper 1 year ago
Love this movie best in my book :)
liocikas1 1 year ago
I've said on another video, Clive Owen ruined this for me. He just didn't fit.
wookovar 1 year ago
watch out for Tristan: Le Chiffre
E07WORLD 1 year ago
this film has an incredible soundtrack.
CheesyPuffs99 1 year ago
What is the difference between directors cut and the normal ?
weakkitten 1 year ago
@weakkitten normal is what they show in theatres, directors cut is usually longer, with added deleted scenes and stuff that wasn't put in theatres for whatever reasons
shadowman052 1 year ago
Oh and yes, I DO love this movie :)
EverlastingxHope 1 year ago
I think that if people were to judge films by their historical accuracy, well then, nobody can ever be wrong or right, especially if they are based on myths, like King Arthur. Whatever Arthur really was, none of us will really know for sure. Making the movies are just to draw up and portray one of the many ideas or theories there are in questioning what Arthur was really like. So yeah I think it's a little ridiculous to say if the movie is historically incorrect.
EverlastingxHope 1 year ago 20
wait where are the other 2 characters, Mordred, arthurs son and Morgause, arthur's half sister.
Yazk17 1 year ago
this movie is my favorite!!!!!!!
felicia7019 1 year ago
I. Love. This. Movie. so much...
AutmnRomance666 1 year ago
This movie is good..... its not the best in the world.... but not bad
Better then the last legion anyway
MetalDudeBen 1 year ago
... thank god we´re free of the roman terror!
RheingoldxxL 1 year ago
it has Keira Knightley so it can't be that bad... But where are Mordred and Morgan lefay(or howeverit'sspelled)
BriarMoss700 2 years ago
Compared to Bormans Excalibur
This is really a Shit Movie !!!
zigsauer 2 years ago
@AngloSaxon192
hate to break it to you but the Arthur story was and is a Brythonic one about a Briton whose aim it was to unite the old peoples of the British Isles and drive out the Anglo-Saxons. so effectively he is Anti-English and not the hero of england as many believe
theydreamofgiants 2 years ago
No Mordred the person who tries to kill king arthur?
Kylebrigance 2 years ago
dammit wht does merlin look like.....
mmm ... i have to watch this now
dingergirl1 2 years ago
AWSOME!!!!!
TheGeneral221 2 years ago
king arthur is saberrrr, this is falseeee
XDDDD
000Moli000 2 years ago
luv this movie!!!!!
robbieandhidi 2 years ago
geese i didnt know someone who used that much swearing for such a small issue you could have just said you didnt like it.,
maryhawley101 2 years ago 4
What a load of shit this film is, ive never seen anywhere in England, particularly down West Country, that looks anything like the scenery in this crappy film,
Its only a film? Blah blah, whats wrong with filming it in fucking England where the Arthur legend is at home?
AngloSaxon1921 2 years ago
@AngloSaxon1921
I think the answer to your question as to why this film was not made in England can be answered by one single word Money.
Shit? Well the Theatrical release is Piss-poor, The director's cut is better, but I still don't know why they transferred Baden Hill to Hadrian's wall and yet claim to be "Accurate". At least in the Director's cut the battle scenes are more like "Gladiator" instead of "The "A Team". I wish they'd film "The Warlord Chronicles" by Cornwell. That'd be good.
sonofcy 1 year ago
I have watched this movie over 20 times! seriously! Its sad, but very true. This is one the best most of all time! My favorite!
XXST3PHENXX 2 years ago
not too bad a film but excalibur is far superior
starman700 2 years ago
this is my favorite movie....2nd is kingdom of heaven ^_^this movie is the best................
calibuso23 2 years ago
love the movie <3
maryariel89 2 years ago
This movie is so full of shit, I mean, I saw it, and it was good, but if you are more into history then you'll see the mistakes:
They mixed Romans, Saxons and crossbows together, while it took place 1600 years ago, ohh and by the way: 1600 years ago they didn't have stone castles or walls.
It feels like they've thrown all ages together... some things are even about 600 years too early to be used 1600 years ago
These facts ruined this movie for me :(
Daan013 2 years ago
You're right just about the crossbows. Hadrian's Wall building was started on 122 by Hadrian Emperor (1887 years ago). Study history and then write, Daan013. (P.S. : Stone Age started 2.5 million years ago ^^)
TeraFlare93 2 years ago
Stone age yes, but in the early Medieval world they didn't built any stone buildings yet, except for the Romans, but they were already destroyed in the Medieval age, and Arthur was in early Medieval, so he couldn't be a Roman either...
Daan013 2 years ago
It is an old myth that was updated in the Medieval period much like the stories of shakespear have been updated today.
1991Historybuff 2 years ago
Hardly Stone Age! According to the trailer, it's set about 400 C.E. - about 2600 years after the end of the Stone Age. Arthur dates from about 597 C.E., almost 200 years after the movie claims for him, and after the Romans had long departed (410 C.E.). There were no stone castles in Britain until after the Norman conquest. (1066 C.E.)
optic140 2 years ago
well they may have not been castle, there were stone strong holds left by roman intellect and to set the record straight no one is quite sure when King Arthur lived, if he lived at all; it could be any where from 350 C.E. to 650 C.E. the time period depends on the historian you ask
histolov35 1 year ago
@Daan013 you know this comment is a bit stupid
if the movie was bad to you just because you compared it to true history dosen't make sence to me this is made for enjoyment if you want historicly correct thing watch history chanel and dont cry with stupid comments :/
liocikas1 1 year ago
@liocikas1 that is true....but the dumb ass director said this story is based on evidence that was found and this is what actually happened.
talktomebitch905 1 year ago
this movie looks really good
ANDY22ANDREA 2 years ago 26
This has been flagged as spam show
@ANDY22ANDREA this movie is really good!!!!
Loveisall129 11 months ago
I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!!!
Loveisall129 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
too bad the movie is too much a fantasy style and has 100% bad-written dialogue and in contrast to that awesome scenerey shots and only great and interesting actors in it. I say, Peter Jackson shall do a remake.
Schmidt54 2 years ago
good film but like all the others they made the same mistake, galahad was lancelot's son. no movie to date has portrayed him correctly.
vikmega 2 years ago 2
now that is a sad fact
EndlessCandieez 2 years ago
i think they portrayed galahad as lancelot' s son in Merlin...
sarizalite 2 years ago
this movie looks sexy
icecold989 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
was a damn good film if you ask me. cant get enough of Stellans performance and I really cant for the life of me get enough of Kiera and her sweet flat chest. Its jack off time!
082076 2 years ago
My powers be with you where are you going
Able to fly without wings
Rengale10 2 years ago
would make an awesome videogame...
ert69 2 years ago
they made one. it sucked
1lmena 2 years ago
yeah.. i just watched the trailer of the video game and it sucks harder than sucking hard...
ert69 2 years ago
some people just dont learn, who cares about race. it is good to know the history. Yet, people should not live in it. What we have in common is more important than what we have in different. Cant we accept the fact that we are all human. Gezz, drop this racial debate man. Grow up.
By the way, well said pyrosgrl09
bondjoethree 2 years ago 2
What the hell, you guys, is all I'll say.
TwicePea 2 years ago
Im sick of all of you people you say you despise the Germans and these people and blah blah blah but in reality Im German and proud of it I also live in America are you going to hate me for that too? All i want is peace...but that will never happen as long as your ignorant racists asses live. It doesnt matter if your Jewish, Black, White, Israeli or anything else we should accept each other for what we believe in.
pyrosgrl09 2 years ago 2
Good man, can't agree more.
cryingmushroom47 2 years ago
A cataphract was a form of heavy cavalry used by nomadic eastern Iranian tribes and dynasties and later Ancient Greeks and Romans. Historically the cataphract was a heavily armed and armoured cavalryman who saw action from the earliest days of Antiquity up through the High Middle Ages.
SaracenWarrior 2 years ago
The idea of the universally trained soldier was not unique to the Byzantines, but the Romans WERE the ones to come up with it first. Also, being horsemen, the Celts got around, even as far away as the Persian empire. Horses allowed for fast travel over vast distances so its no wonder the Persians heard of them.
stardingo747 2 years ago
The Sarmatians, Sarmatæ or Sauromatæ (Persian: سَرمَتی ها, Old Iranian Sarumatah 'archer'[1], Greek: Σαρμάται) were a people of Ancient Iranian origin[2][1]. Mentioned by classical authors, they migrated from Central Asia to the Ural Mountains around fifth century B.C. and eventually settled in most of southern European Russia, Ukraine, and the eastern Balkans.
SaracenWarrior 2 years ago
lol.
Overall though I hear Britian is a pretty boring place; most Brits, specially the Celts, enjoy the simple life.
I can totally relate to that; comfort is a must, but who the fuck needs luxury!
stardingo747 2 years ago
I am a middle eastern Jew; my family never suffered the horrors of the holocaust. Quite the opposite actually; they suffered the horrors of Israeli ashkenazi racism.
Nevertheless I despise the Germans, and I despise any Jews who bred with the bastards. That much the TRUE British people and I have in common.
Personally though, I've never met any full blooded Celtic people. I'd love to visit Wales one day, if only for a drink at a local pub.
stardingo747 2 years ago
More than stood up; had King Arthur left any heirs, British history may have been very different. There may have been no British empire for one, and likely, the colonization of north America would not have seen the genocide of the natives. Americans slaughtered the natives, true to their Germanic heritage "the Saxons only keep what they kill, and they kill everything." Eerily enough, that is precisely what German descended Americans did.
stardingo747 2 years ago
ummm if you didn't know, the Saxons are the British now. The British came here before the Germans. If you are British, you are part Saxon.
djking2d 2 years ago
English; the English, are "part Saxon." Welsh and Scots are still Celtic. So are most people of Cornwall.
however.................. given the reaction of most brits on youtube, I don't think anyone in Britain really cares. I mean, to themselves, they are not "Saxon," or "Celtic" or even "Indian," just simply "British."
stardingo747 2 years ago
still though, those saxons, like they're German cousins, are douchebags;
most of the suffering in this world was caused by germanic peoples.
the part saxon brits, the mostly german americans........ those people are dangerous man. Begs the question though; you kill them all, you kill every uncle tom nonwhite on this planet, what would good people do with that new freedom once they have it? Could they live to their fullest potential, still lacking faith in themselves?
stardingo747 2 years ago
Gee Thanks. Didn't know I was that dangerous. Last I checked I have not killed anyone and enjoy several friendships with people all over the world. Maybe you should check and see who is being racist here.
dinalphiel 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
go to the youtube search bar, and type "James Bond's Testicals," look for the video posted by cureforRoadrage, that video, will show what I think of your comment.
stardingo747 2 years ago
Man u have issues.
dinalphiel 2 years ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
go to the youtube search bar and type "James Bond's Testicals," look for the video posted by cureforRoadrage, that video, demonstrates what I think of your response.
good day.
stardingo747 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
damn... you really have issues hehehe... fuck your mother.
xxxxxDIABLOxxx 2 years ago
My mom is pretty well preserved, actually, thanks to Yoga she looks like she's in her early 20's, and if she posed for Playboy, the magazine would sell out BUT, no thank you that's immoral.
you're sick dude.
stardingo747 2 years ago
moreover, if the direct cause of the inferiority complex of nonwhites was exterminated (e.g. germanic peoples) again, would nonwhites of the world be able to shake off the inferiority complex?
I mean, its you Germans, and Germanic peoples who go around saying how "dumb" everyone is.
next time I see a German remind me to bow to him.
stardingo747 2 years ago
people masacar people. not just the germans. germans have been hated everywhere but you cant blame them for americans and british killing idians. like, seriously? germans have been at war with every country, but they are no where near evil people, just proud and loyal.
leoI909 2 years ago
dude, 90% of American whites are either german, or have some german ancestry.
take for example Natalie Portman, who is 25% austrian German; that is why she's such a bitch.
stardingo747 2 years ago 2
@stardingo747 Bullshit, The Majority of Americans are British. Most Americans came from England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland from the Founding Fathers until now most american presidents have British Ancestry except hoover and Eisenhower.
TheMCewan12 1 year ago
Proudness and loyalty gives No Man the authority to take an innocent man's life .
set073june172 2 years ago
nothing yes but it just annoys me how everyone ends up blaming the Germans for half the massacres the go on. Germans did a lot yes, but every ancestry has, its the people now who chose to be like them or not. Times change.
leoI909 2 years ago
The majority of scandinavian descended or Teutonic peoples that I've met, are hot headed, despicable, unfeeling (except for anger), sadistic cowards. And contrary to Aryan supremacy myths, in my experience the fuckers are worthless in a fight, at least in a fist fight, don't know how they are with weapons. Whatever the case most of the ones I've met were bullies; I am not too shocked at all by any of the history in that movie. King Arthur stood up to them; so I admire him.
stardingo747 2 years ago
Of course, this history has nothing to do with Americans; the overpowering majority of Americans are in fact German, and the ones with Irish heritage? Even they have a lot of German in them; that is why Americans are fucking douchebags. Same with the English; nice people those Scandinavians. I sometimes wonder if there is a people they DIDN'T attack.
stardingo747 2 years ago
Britain was home to three Celtic tribes; the largest and most powerful were the Cymry, Cymry was an ancient British Celtic term for "stone" or "strong as stone." The name "Britain" derives from "Cymry," thus, the name "Britain" means "strong stone." The other two were the Picti in the north, who were killed off by the Scotti, who originally came from Ireland, driven out by Irish Celts.
stardingo747 2 years ago
Moreover, the people of Wales and Cornwall NEVER considered Arthur a myth; the ENGLISH, I need to emphasize, the ENGLISH, who are not fully Celtic but part Saxon and Anglo, were the ones who made him into a myth. Further up in Scotland, the few Scots who knew of him either held him in respect or, true to Scottish nature simply didn't give a crap. They were more concerned with English raids.
stardingo747 2 years ago
This movie is about the TRUE STORY OF KING ARTHUR which later legends and fake stories were made up of. King Arthur was a Roman Centurion (Half Roman and half Celtic)....his Knights were Iranian Cataphracts from the Sarmatian Tribe. The Romans first experience with Cataphracts (Armored Horse Knight) were at the Battle of Carrae when they were fighting the Iranians (Persians aka Parthians).
SaracenWarrior 2 years ago
1) The Sarmatians were a Celtic tribe, the Persians never penetrated that deeply into Europe at ANY point in history.
2) The Cataphracts were a Roman invention; as their soldier ranks got thinner and thinner, they increasingly began relying more and more on universally skilled soldiers, the idea was invented by the Romans, perfected by the Byzantines, and then finally mastered by the Germans. The word "Knight" is in fact a Teutonized version of "Cataphract."
stardingo747 2 years ago
Comment removed
SaracenWarrior 2 years ago
This movie is nothing like the stories told about Arthur in Britain... Creative licence i guess. Thought the film was very disappointing!
Boccherini64 2 years ago
Finally saw this movie today and it's definitely entertaining. I couldn't help but think that the final battle scene is influenced by the final battle scene in Seven Samurai. How they trap the enemies within the walls of the fortress and enlist the help of the Merlin's people is similar to how the samurai in Kurosawa's film trap bandits within the fortified village and are helped by the villagers in killing them.
mykalroze 2 years ago
Lancelot? D=
dreetos 2 years ago
Yeah where is Lancelot, Guinevere is supposed to mess arround with him, or is that false?
kalimul 2 years ago
Yeah, well atleast they did in the book.
dreetos 2 years ago
The only accurate thing I can think about this movie is that he was truly the commander of a group of Sarmatian warriors to protect the now isolated island of britain.
blackarawak83 2 years ago
great movie
Macedonia20 2 years ago 2
Great movie! The scene on the lake was just brilliant. And the myth and legend of Arthur is just awesome. Parts of it are true, parts are not, but still very interesting myth it is.
Uchih4C1oud 2 years ago
yeah in real life he would have been pushed into wales and cornwall by the saxon forces
DOorDIE44 2 years ago
the legend of king aurther is mistaken by most people. the official legend is the saxons won. saxones were called angels back then and englend means land of the angles
CrowProductoins 3 years ago
saxons and angles were different tribes oO
xXxLittleSheepxXx 2 years ago
Lol, Touché
Noodle1989 2 years ago
saxons and angles are two different tribes; saxons from modern day lower saxony in germany and angles from denmark.
DOorDIE44 2 years ago
eu amo a historia do rei arthur tem muita ação e emoção
dicingro 3 years ago
Very good movie
Brisacuba 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no no no, bitch you got it all wrong...you gotta go back further...in the misty vales of avalon, king arthur stepped out from the spell of morrigan-le-fay, and headed for where he might be able to happen upon hedge-hog pussy, because the maidens of his village looked more like the hogs on his father uther pendragon's farm...he fucked the first hedge-hog he happened upon, and lo! the race of britons was born!...:)...XD
cofferlackey 3 years ago
i love this movie
tathya7 3 years ago
im on cam and bored
wanting new friends Sg
205120 3 years ago
The myth was based on a real hero, who breaks a good wedge formation on a cavalry charge and has men who don't know the meaning of discipline, or tactics... something tells me he would have failed - I guess this explains why we were conquered by the Saxons.. eventually.
LitaniesOfFaith 3 years ago
and plz, wateva u do, just read Geoffrey of Monmouth's works for leisure only... he made stuff up
skampzon 3 years ago
ok. Let's set the scene. The closest historical figure ever came close to a war leader who fought off and won a major victory against the saxons was Ambrosius Aurelianus. During the fall, Roman empire was on a slope, u shouldn't see soldiers wearing post marian soldier uniform anymore like u do in the film. The roman military equipments in the early 5th century is alot more inferior and barbaric. Basically u cant even tell a roman soldier apart from a barbarian. Artorius btw, is a family name...
skampzon 3 years ago
so i suppose the dude who wrote the script can argue the "artorius" clive portrayed is a descendant of Artorius Castus, coz for a roman u inheret the name of your father and your great great great great grandfather for that matter, if you descend from that line.
Still, u've gotta give the film, or more specifically, Hans Zimmer for his effort in producing the score. it's great.
and yea, Arthur doesnt have to be Artorius in latin... it can also be Arturius...so here we hav a linguistic problem
skampzon 3 years ago
In the movie it states that this Artorius was ancestrally named for the 1st Lucius Artorius Castus. I seem to be the only one who ever got that part.
As for the wall, it was real, took several months and 300 people to build it.
Did read an article about the evidence that this was based upon. so they used a little poetic license to spruce it up a bit, still sound more realistic than the past fables.
lonaka1958 3 years ago
oh!! shit!! this is animation? when i first saw the movie, i thought it was real and i even ask my parents what is the real life name of Arthur!
halflife1994 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, apart from bad casting, historical inaccurate costumes, getting Artorius almost 200 years too late, Hans Zimmer recycling his music and a not very good script... I suppose it isn't bad.
makotania 3 years ago
why so serious? :))
AdiQui 3 years ago 4
Because to those of us who study the historical Arthur it matters.
makotania 3 years ago
I love this film.
Anyone know what the name of the music that begins at 1:01 is called? Thanks.
LordAsriel1 3 years ago