King Arthur


Action / Adventure / Drama / History / War

Plot summary

Uploaded by: OTTO

Top cast

Graham McTavish Photo
Graham McTavish as Roman Officer
Keira Knightley Photo
Keira Knightley as Guinevere
Mads Mikkelsen Photo
Mads Mikkelsen as Tristan
Joel Edgerton Photo
Joel Edgerton as Gawain
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
751.19 MB
English 2.0
23.976 fps
2 hr 6 min
P/S 2 / 10
1.80 GB
English 2.0
23.976 fps
2 hr 6 min
P/S 3 / 11

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by TheLittleSongbird6 / 10

I thought it was decent...

This King Arthur is flawed, that I agree with, but I don't think it is a bad movie as such. Okay it is historically inaccurate and the traditional elements of the Arthurian legend are missing such as wizardry, love triangle or even Camelot, but they weren't the problems for me of this film.

What didn't impress me much about King Arthur were a few things, especially the pace. The length was fine, but there are some scenes where it feels very pedestrian. The obligatory love scene also fell flat for me, well-shot, well-scored, but it interrupted the flow of the movie, and when it came to the dialogue and acting, this was one instance of the film being at its least effective. The script is rather hackneyed in places, and that is including the rousing speeches, and Keira Knightley despite looking gorgeous isn't really believable as Guinevere.

Flaws aside, the film does look fantastic, the scenery, sets and costumes are wonderful and I loved the camera work, while the battle scenes are well-staged and more than convincing, the film is well-directed by Antoine Fuqua and Hans Zimmer's score has a real majesty about it. Knightley aside, the acting is good without being outstanding. Ioan Gruffudd is just okay as Lancelot, though I liked how his character was written and Gruffudd himself looks dashing. Clive Owen is a suitably subdued King Arthur, Stephen Dillaine is also pretty good and while all the knights look the part it is Ray Winstone who steals the film.

Overall, decent if unspectacular film. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Reviewed by Leofwine_draca7 / 10

Underrated historical war film - see the director's cut

Although much-reviled on release, KING ARTHR gains a new lease of life when you view the Director's Cut of it. From a kiddie-friendly family film, it has been transformed into a gory, gritty adventure in which the blood sprays across the scene in frequent bursts and people are beheaded left right and centre. Dispensing with the mystical medieval aspects of the story, in this version the film takes place in a wild and untamed England, inhabited by the Woads and the Romans, who have decided to leave. The enemy are the Saxons, led by true Saxon Stellan Skarsgaard.

KING ARTHUR is an old-fashioned story which questions religion, free will and man's calling in life. As a film, it looks very good, with excellent choreography in the battle scenes and fine camera-work all round. The Irish locations are wonderfully picturesque and the wildness of the elements is put across very plainly, as our heroes battles snow, ice and freezing rain. The plot, as many have mentioned, bears a little resemblance to THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, but that's the case with plenty of movies anyway. Production values are high as is the testosterone evident, with a shouty Ray Winstone on good form and Clive Owen as a rugged, working class Arthur. Sadly, Owen's acting is a little stilted, and he is outdone at virtually every turn by the excellent Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot. A cast of British regulars pad out the leads and the attractive Keira Knightley ably supplies the love interest.

Action fans will be here for the battle sequences, which are impressive and carry on in the recent tradition of TROY, THE LAST SAMURAI, THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy and others. The battles are bloody and frenetic, true life-or-death down-and-dirty fighting, with clever tactics. The best moment of the film has to be the battle on an iced-over lake, which progresses pretty much the way you would expect, and is very much the better for it. The climactic battle is worth waiting for and seems undeniably epic. KING ARTHUR doesn't equal the status of rivals like BRAVEHEART, but it does prove to be a generally good film that is definitely worth a watch.

Reviewed by SnoopyStyle6 / 10

bloody muddy reimagining of legend

The Sarmatians from eastern Europe were known for their calvary and conquered by the Romans. In 452 A.D., Lancelot is taken as a boy to be a knight manning Hadrian's Wall for the required 15 years. Fifteen years later, Arthur (Clive Owen) and his remaining knights expect to be released. Rome is retreating from Britain and the ruthless Saxons are invading. The Woads led by Merlin attack the newly arrived Bishop Germanus. Arthur comes to the rescue. Germanus forces them to complete a final suicidal mission. Young Alecto, godson of the Pope, and his family are in danger of being captured by the Saxons. Arthur and his knights find Guinevere (Keira Knightley) and others being imprisoned and mistreated by Christians. Arthur leads the entire group including Alecto back to the Wall.

I like the idea of a bloody, muddy, brutal reimagining of the origins of King Arthur. It's great not to have the glossy glow of Camelot. I have no idea of its historical validity but I'm not sure it matters that much. King Arthur is a legend in the first place. I like almost everything at the beginning. The acting power of the group is outstanding. I love the idea of one final mission for Arthur and his men. Then the story gets muddled up. Alecto is not actually a prisoner of the Saxons. The suicidal mission isn't quite so suicidal although Arthur makes it as hard as possible. The ice lake battle is pretty cool. The rest is a combo-pack of morality, religion, and even more battles. It's messy and doesn't fit well. The story should be a simpler final mission action thriller.

Read more IMDb reviews