A Disappointing Continuation

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Well, First, the positive. Overall good acting, and not bad as movie, could have got happily twice the stars. So, why did I not give more ? Some elements are correct, e.g. the "tabula" with wax and the stilus (yep, the stylus was not invented with tablet computers :-)), but form a film that at the start pretends to be a true accurate historical reconstruction... Well, another comment made a list of 7 points historically wrong (though making some reference that could itself be disputable, e.g. Picts are in general considered part of the vast Celtic family), in reality, the list can be much longer, but just two examples... The Sarmatians were known for their cavalry, but it was heavy cavalry more similar to the "knights" (though not with the same type of rigid armor) than to what shown in the movies. Also, the "vallum" (by the way, that is the origin of the word "wall" ), to be historically accurate, should have shown the ditches etc. (effectively, a "vallum" was more than just a wall). And while it is true that in ancient time having hostages and tributes including slaves was not unheard of, the mechanism shown in the movie about enlisting in the Roman army is completely wrong. Is Hollywood famous for its historical accuracy (thus is this film really such a bad exception) ? Definitively NOT, and many times it goes straight into "propaganda" - that why some movies use the non committal (lawyer approved ;-)) "inspired by true events" ("inspired"). Again, the problem is that it that pretense at the start to be "THE" historical reconstruction. To enjoy some time, and see a different reinterpretation on the "Arthurian cycle", it's one thing, but do NOT pretend after seeing this movie that you know the story of "true Arthur", or the story or situation of the Europe, the Roman empire, or England in that period, because you will not.

(Flash Review)The director amazed me….he managed to squander a massively stellar cast with the pathetic execution of a big budget movie. From the first few scenes, there were blatant lighting continuity problems with different lighting tones, contrast level and intensities. During some big battles with camera angled up, to accentuate battle drama, there was a mix of smoke and heavy clouds and then some shots it was just partially cloudy with blue sky. That lack of quality ran into the script as well with cliché moment after cliché moment which muted any impact the music score had on eliciting emotions from the audience. Onto the plot, King Arthur and his loyal knights are deceived and forced into one last mission to officially receive their freedom papers from the Roman Empire. Will they follow through? If so, how many will survive the final mission? Another abrupt moment was when Keira Knightley's character is rescued from a dungeon and later she unexpectedly goes from being shackled to a highly skilled tribal warrior. Avoid at all costs!

There where a few things that I thought strange and done to create conflict that made so sense. First they need to get the kid beyond the wall. Why do the Romans have a castle there. Why is it not south of the wall and why do they have such important persons(like the kid) in it. Why have not the Celts attacked that. They attack south of the wall but not the lightly defended settlement north of it. Then we have the Saxons that want to plunder. They do not land in the richer roman territories, but in the Celtic. Sure you could argue that they do not know, but because they want to go south, they should then return to the ships and land somewhere there so they don't have to storm the wall. Speaking of the wall, the last battle fells so strange. I imagine Arthur before the battle telling the battle plan, which everyone must think is a bit odd. He do not use the wall even though the Saxon just arrived and has no siege material such as ladders. He proposes to open the doors and let the army in. He is certain the whole army will not go and in the smoke he created, he and his 5 other riders will attack and kill them all. Then when the rest comes they will all attack and destroy the army. The last part could work, but the first part just seems stupid.

I find this movie incredible good. And the funny part is, I can't even tell exactly why. But it draws me back, again and again. I watched it 4 times now, which is not something I do normally. First, the story is believable, at least, for me it is. Where the common story of King Arthur is a mythic story, this one could be for real. I can actually imagine, being there, in that time and place and see it happening. Second, I like the people, all of them. They are also for real. They are not all good and not all bad. And even the bad ones are not all bad. This is such a good cast for this movie. As said, the story draws me in, in a way that I actually would like to be part of it.