Best movie of this year hands down!

Let's be realistic.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

I really wanted to like this show. Really, i tried, but watching it became too painful. The writing is bad, almost every scene is overacted, and the show gets bogged down by its many attempts to seem "edgy". I can't really blame them, though. This show was produced and developed by the same studio responsible for the modern Spartacus, and it was launched alongside Game of Thrones. I'm sure they got the memo on the importance of blood and boobs.i was all ready to get into this show, i'm a fan of the Arthurian mythology, and I've been re- watching its various film incarnations for study. In this series, many elements of the Arthur myth are addressed, but never in the way the myth actually goes. The show goes out of its way to take the details of the original story, and make them more complicated. Much of this is done, quite obviously, to fill screen time. What really bothered me was this show's interpretation of the classic Arthur/Gwenivere/Lancelot love triangle. In this version, Arthur is the other man, while Gwenivere is engaged to sir Leon. It becomes a major plot point: Arthur and Gwenivere have to hide their love, and the nature of jealousy is explored. I have two huge problems with this:1) The king can't be blamed for being the other man in a love triangle. He's the king. He could demand sex from sir Kay, and everyone would just have to go with it. If this fantasy universe is supposed to be so dark and edgy, then they could have at least addressed this. 2) It weakens the Arthur character to make him the initiator of a sordid affair. His story represents chivalry in European society, and the element of betrayal in the legends liken him to Christ. It definitely goes against the original story to make Arthur a predatory womanizer.Also, i couldn't help but notice how much this show ripped off famous fantasy franchises. Within the few episodes I could sit through, I saw this show blatantly copy visual elements from Excalibur (1981) and The Lord of the rings (2001).If you've never heard the story of King Arthur, or don't know what good writing sounds like, you might be able to enjoy Camelot. Everyone else, though, should just watch Game of Thrones.

This is a great mini-series with an excellent cast, including Arthur. I don't understand the number of negative reviews of Jamie Campbell Bower as Arthur. This take on the story of Camelot is not designed to show Arthur at the peak of his life - it's intended to show how Arthur came to the throne and what he was like as a very young man. Bower does that very well, and over the course of all ten episodes capably shows Arthur's growth, acceptance of the throne and all of the implications that come with it. The reviewers disappointed in this series seem to be annoyed that it's not what they thought it should be, or comparing it to other shows, rather that accepting and enjoying a different take on a known tale. I also note that most of the complaints here that Arthur is a whiny, weak, boobie-obsessed boy (like most 17 year old boys, if you think about it), are they themselves whiny and obsessed with noting where in the episodes they can see boobies. Go figure. Bottom line: if you're looking for a great story, beautiful scenery and real characters, this is an excellent show to watch. I really enjoyed it and wish there were more episodes to see where it would have gone next.

While I can appreciate the concept for this version of the story of King Arthur, I didn't enjoy it. It wasn't the acting, or the actors they chose to play certain roles. It was the clunky dialog. Eva Green was fantastic as Morgan LeFey. This take on Merlin was rather awesome. I also didn't like that they made Arthur whiny so quickly, he got all bend out of shape because some random girl he had a dream about was engaged years before he knew she existed, thats rather childish if you ask me. They also never really make a point to say how old he is supposed to be, the actor sounds really young, but I know he's around my age. I also think its a bit weird that he is so frail looking. Being a farm boy you'd think he would have some muscle definition. There are so many takes on this classic tale and this show had such potential, I just felt that it came up short. I don't know if there will be a second season, but if there is maybe the writers can take notes from disappointed fans and fix the things that need fixing.

Michael Hirst, fresh from his success with THE TUDORS, tries the same formula (beautiful sets & costumes, good cast, lots of skin) with the Arthurian legend. It's too bad that he and Chibnall wasted ten episodes on what is essentially a prequel to the story that most people know; Starz has canceled the series and we'll never get to see the completed Round Table, the story of Lancelot, or even the wedding of Arthur and Guinivere.The production values are high, and the CGI-enhanced Irish scenery is almost always breathtaking. Unfortunately, King Arthur is a casting disaster, which leaves a giant hole at the center of the story. Merlin, who is usually pictured as a Gandalf-type figure, is here reduced to little more than a political spin doctor. Joseph Fiennes does a good job, but it gets boring after a while to watch a magician who refuses to do anything magical. There are some good battle scenes, but the Morgan vs. Arthur story gets tiresome as it drags on and on. (It's basically a reworking of the David vs. Absalom story from the Old Testament, with sorcery thrown in.) I wish the producers had devoted more time to the legend as it is usually told, rather than seeing how they can re-work it in their own post-modern manner.