Search  for anything...
WALT DISNEY

King Arthur

Based on 7,039 reviews
Condition: New
Checking for the best price...
$21.09
Holiday Deal · 16% off was $25.08

Buy Now, Pay Later

As low as $5 / mo
  • – 4-month term
  • – No impact on credit to apply
  • – Instant approval decision
  • – Secure and straightforward checkout

Ready to go? Add this product to your cart and select a plan during checkout.

Payment plans are offered through our trusted finance partners Klarna, Affirm, Afterpay, Zip, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. No-credit-needed leasing options through Acima may also be available at checkout.

Learn more about financing & leasing here.

Selected Option

Free shipping on this product

FREE 30-day refund/replacement

To qualify for a full refund, items must be returned in their original, unused condition. If an item is returned in a used, damaged, or materially different state, you may be granted a partial refund.

To initiate a return, please visit our Returns Center.

View our full returns policy here.

Availability: Only 1 left in stock, order soon!
Fulfilled by Amazon
Arrives Wednesday, Nov 11
Order within 12 hours and 15 minutes

Available payment plans shown during checkout

Protect Your Purchase

Easy claims online, fast replacements, no fees

Checking for protection plans...

Recently Viewed

At a glance

Condition
New
Format
Blu-ray December 16, 2008
Model
BUY0043001
Dimensions
7.09 x 5.12 x 0.31 in; 0.01 oz
Color
Color
Language
English
Director
Antoine Fuqua

Description

Directed by Antoine Fuqua. Starring Stellan Skarsg rd, Keira Knightley, Ioan Gruffudd.

Specs 14

Format Import
Contributor Antoine Fuqua, Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Jerry Bruckheimer, Keira Knightley, Stellan Skarsg rd, Stephen Dillane
Language English
Color Color
Number Of Discs 1
Aspect Ratio 2.351
Product Dimensions 7.09 x 5.12 x 0.31 inches; 0.01 ounces
Item model number BUY0043001

Frequently asked questions

If you place your order now, the estimated arrival date for this product is: Wednesday, Nov 11

Yes, absolutely! You may return this product for a full refund within 30 days of receiving it.

To initiate a return, please visit our Returns Center.

View our full returns policy here.

  • Klarna Financing
  • Affirm Pay in 4
  • Affirm Financing
  • Afterpay Financing
  • Zip Pay in 4
  • Financing through Apple Pay
  • Financing through Google Pay
Leasing options through Acima may also be available during checkout.

Learn more about financing & leasing here.

Similar Products

Top Amazon Reviews

An indispensable addition to the cinematic release
SPOILERS BELOW! I've commented on this movie before: the cinematic PG-13 version. This is what I wrote in Auagust 2004: Saw it twice. Liked it even better the second time around. I know a lot of folks had their problems with it, especially those who wanted either a rehash of exisiting 'Arthur' tales, or alternatively expected a 'historically accurate' account. Get a life, people. It's a MOVIE. A STORY. And it's well-told, with the mystical mumbo-jumbo removed and the French soap opera elements rinsed away, so that just the names are recognizable. Despite that-and that's one of the things I really liked about it-the movie managed to retain the flair of (demythologized) 'legend'. It was an uabashed story about a hero, and there's nothing wrong with that. Another nice tweak: Arthur making the transition from trying to serve a 'higher purpose' to humanization, when he realizes that the 'higher purpose' is probably well and truly corrupted, and that if any purpose in life is to be found it lies in the service of one's people. A good and noble soldier's creed. The stuff indeed, of heroic legend, well told, and with a kick-ass cast. ---- Now, finally, I got the DVD, so here goes... ---- There's been a lot of complaining about the de-mythologizing of the legend. Mostly that means the removal of the French soap-opera component and the pretense that anybody really believes in magical swords, witches and spirits living in lakes. Is that a loss? I suppose it depends on who's talking. A review in the Guardian (complete with the inevitable political anti-American end-commentary) moans that 'Britain's national myth has suffered its own catastrophe' and that KA is 'one of the worst historical, or history-esque, films ever made'. Complaints also abound about its historical inaccuracies, and Keira Knightley's battle dress continues to draw major vitriol. Well, if you look at the latest research by people like John Matthews and Linda Malcor you may find that the inaccuracies may not be and that Keira, like her male comrades, should have been fighting in the buff, their bodies painted head-to-toe. That would have been a sight, would it not? Of course, there's an argument for 'preserving' legends, and I think KA did that well. It just twisted it into a different direction. The DVD also contains an alternate, darker ending, without the PG-13 feel-good wedding. This had been Fuqua's choice, but apparently the money-men walked over him and Bruckheimer and what was intended to be an R-rated movie became a PG-13 nice-kiddy flick in the editing room: sanitized and dumbed down. Fuqua's commentary is very revealing and shows up not only his disenchantment with studio politics, but also reveals his personal philosophy, which I've always liked, ever since listening to him comment on Tears of the Sun. Above all, he makes the interesting observation (one I happen to completely agree with) that, in particular, the adultery soap-opera element in the traditional versions of the legend actually makes no sense. It may be perfectly in line with what we expect from daily TV soap fare and Reality TV, but between comrades-in-arms there is a kind of ethics that folks living within the comfortable and boring confines of refined civilization may well find incomprehensible. To those who wish to advance the virtues of the 'noble' and 'clean' traditional versions: it occurs to me that the very _ignoble_ soap-operatic characters, whose 'courtly' nobility appears to be more one of declaration and general pomposity, can only cower in shame before the much less sophisticated but honest nobility of the Arthur and knights depicted in this movie. Surely, if we look for heros of the Campbellian kind, this is where we find them, not in the classical bedroom dramas centering around the betrayal of Arthur by Guinevere and Lancelo, or people's obsession with that ultimate of social taboos, incest. Watching KA again after listening to Fuqua's commentary gives the movie additional depth and reveals dimensions one might easily have missed before. All in all a worthy and important addition to the cinema release version. So many things I initially missed suddenly became clear, such the obvious parallels to such classics as 'Seven Samurai' and 'Magnificent Seven', and the even closer kinship between this movie and 'Tears of the Sun', another classic Campbellian hero tale. Another nice touch (I keep discovering things about this movie!) was pointed out to me by a lady who truly loves horses. When the knights, together with the Roman garrison and a bunch of refugees, leave Hadrian's Wall and the Saxon drums of war start rolling, the horses bolt, prompting the knights to reflect on their decisions to leave. I thought it was a good scene, but it becomes even better when we remember that, as we're told early on in the movie, slain warriors return as horses. So it wasn't just that the knights had a sudden and not easily understood change of heart: it was their horses, the souls of the dead warriors, that reminded them who they were, and who refused to continue avoiding their destiny-albeit a destiny which, as Arthur reminded his knights later, they chose as free men, rather than indentured soldiers for the Romans. Till Noever Author: KEAEN, SELADIENNA, CONTINUITY SLIP owlglass.com ... show more
Reviewed in the United States on January 10, 2005 by Till Noever
Not standard Arthurian legend but still spectacular!
Forget the Arthurian legends you have grown up with, just take them and put them aside, along with all your clean and proper kingly court ideas, and get ready for an epic medieval battle film that will leave you breathless from its stunningly flamboyant proportions. Following a myth of different origins, this tale of King Arthur tells of a Briton who serves the Roman Empire's army for 15 years, something that they were required to do while under Roman control for God and Country. Arthur, or Artorius Castus, (played expertly by Clive Owen) and his six Knights have carved a name for themselves in the Roman armies, a legend of being an unbeaten force. At the end of their 15 years of service, they are summoned by Bishop Germanius (played by talented Ivano Marescotti) to receive their freedom from service. But the Bishop tells them they are not to be freed until performing one last task for Rome, freeing a loyal Roman family from invasion by the Saxon's to the north, in particular, the son of the family, Alecto. Arthur and his six Knights, Gawain, Lancelot, Tristin, Galahad, Bors, and Dagonet set off for the north, grumbling at Rome's betrayal. They must travel through the lands that the Woads occupy, strange barbaric foes led by a wise man named Merlin. Once past the Woads, Arthur finds the Roman family taking the power of their God and Country and using it to create serfs and slaves, torturing those who they deem heretics. One of the heretics Arthur frees from the prisons is Guinevere, a Woad. With the Roman family unwilling to go submissively with them, and Saxon drums beating on their heels, the seven Knights flee into the mountains in a desperate attempt to fulfill their last obligation to the empire and gain their freedom. Does this movie follow any Arthurian legend? Not remotely. Does this movie have any historical value? None whatsoever. Is this a good movie? Yes, indeed! Put down those history books and King Arthur fantasies and get ready for a stunningly filmed epic, a medieval battle movie far superior to any of the bad "Arthur" movies (except Excalibur). This is a medieval fantasy, and a very grand one at that. The photography is spectacular, the acting is superior to many of the "bigger names". The dialogue is interesting, funny, and intriguing, capturing a closer bond to the feelings of the Knights of their time with the humped up society of today. These are not the shiny Knights of Boorman's `Excalibur', but a rough and dirty bunch, still keeping nobility about them and Honor above all else. Special mention goes to Ray Winstone, who plays Bors, Joel Edgerton who plays Gawain, Ioan Gruffuddand who plays Lancelot, and Keira Knightly who plays Guinevere, along with Clive Owen, who I can see as the next Mel Gibson. Owen fits the part to a Tee, and Knightly plays Guinevere the way she should have been played, both soft and tough. Knightly was good in Pirates Of The Caribbean, but she is great as Guinevere. Still, the real attraction to this movie is the striking photography of the battles. Take particular notice of the fight on the ice, the way the arrows fly through the air, and tip your hat to the costume designer for some spectacular outfits and gear that truly bring this epic to life. This movie is pure eye candy for those who love a good medieval fight, tossed with realistic characters and a touch of romance. My only negative thought would be that it needed a little more blood, but since King Arthur was headed towards the PG-13 crowd like LOTR, some decapitation scenes didn't occur that I thought may have enhanced the battles. All in all, a very lovely piece of tasty filmmaking that should not be ignored simply because it didn't follow someone else's rules. Enjoy!! ... show more
Reviewed in the United States on December 27, 2004 by Schtinky
Great fun! Delivers on everything it promises!
Most of the negative reviews of this movie have been downright unfair and laughable. Talk about nit-picking! Folks, if you want a documantary, watch A&E or the History Channel! I also recognize the other source for a lot of these complaints: So many of us have our own nostalgia and memories about all the King Arthur fairytales, legends, literary references, etc. and anything that deviates from that warm, fuzzy spot we all have in our hearts for that material is going to meeet a certain resistance. I understand and appreciate that! I love all that stuff as much as anyone else! But, this film deserves a fair and open minded approach, and I think you would be doing yourself a disservice to dismiss it out of hand without trying it out at least one time. If you're going to do so, this Director's Cut is the version you should watch. I'm grateful to see things like expanded Director's Cuts come to DVD with greater frequency, as this is yet another movie that greatly benefits from it, as the film's screenwriter outlines below my review here. Anyone that's a fan of movies like Braveheart or Gladiator should be eating this thing up, no questions asked. Easily! I went into this movie with incredibly low expecations, thanks to the negative feedback I've run across. I also went in with aforementioned "nostalgia" factor in the back of my mind. I'm so glad I finally said "the heck with it" and watched it to make up my own mind. I definitely implore everyone to do just that: Disregard any and all external opinions and preconceptions and make up your own mind about this film. It deserves that much. It's a blast! Is it as good as Gladiator or Braveheart? Probably not, but it scratches that itch quite nicely. You'll have a good time with this film and that's really what it's all about. I really can't find anything to complain about with this film unless I really want to try and write a historical doctorate/thesis. The cast did a wonderful job and, like Braveheart, the film benefits from the fact that the producers took a chance in not casting a bunch of mainstream, A-list actors in every role that peopl everyone would recognize from dozens of other films. Braveheart had Mel Gibson and Patrick McGoohan leading a cast of mostly unknowns and the unknowns were a major asset to that film. The same is true here as well. I'm glad they didn't go the "Batman" route and cast people like Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Julia Roberts, etc. in this film. Everyone in this film is someone that I'm going to be looking out for, for now on. Special mention has to go to Stellan Skarsgård, who plays the lead "villian" in this film. He has a wonderful, undersated performance and avoids hamminess. Clive Owen and Kiera Knightley are known from other works and they do excellent work here. Kiera now has two solid hits under her belt with this and Pirates of the Caribbean. Clive Owen may have just gotten his big boost from this film. Everyone did a splendid job in front of, and behind the camera. I promise you this: If you don't go in to this film looking for a History Channel Documentary, and you like Gladiator and Braveheart-like films, you'll like this. I guarantee it. I really wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to this some day. I'm certainly seeing sequels for far worse material being made, so why not this? You certainly could do a lot worse. I'd like to see what happens next in the life of this King Arthur. ... show more
Reviewed in the United States on June 25, 2005 by ERW
a realistic take on the legend
King Arthur is definitely an action film. An action film with a bit of romance, a smattering of comedy, and a whole lot of drama, yes, but an action film nonetheless. I wasn't quite expecting that, but came out liking it: from the moment the movie starts until the credit rolls, there is barely a break in the battle scenes or the intense moments where characters are running or fighting for their lives and their respective countries. Reminiscent of Braveheart in many ways, this film is worth the watch if only to consider the story of King Arthur from a new angle: with a realistic slant rather than as a mystical fairy tale legend. In the early Dark Ages, a band of Sarmatian knights led by half British, half Roman Lucius Artorius Castus or Arthur (Clive Owen) meet with Roman Bishop Germanius to receive their release papers after 15 years of forced service in the Roman army. They are (understandably) upset to discover that they must forego their freedom awhile longer: Rome has decided to pull out of defeating/defending the island, leaving the country and its natives vulnerable to an invasion by the Saxons. Arthur and his knights are sent on one last most dangerous of all suicide mission: to rescue a Roman family from the bloodthirsty Saxons by crossing through the perilous Woads territory (enemy natives led by mystical woodsman Merlin) and bringing them back to safety. Only when they succeed in this trial will Arthur and his knights be given their papers and allowed to return home as free men. The honorable Arthur must do a little convincing to get his knights to agree to this last most perilous mission: after all, this band of real men is weary of fighting and ready to return home. Soon his loyal yet rough-and-tumble knights agree, and Arthur and his band (including Lancelot played by Ioan Gruffud and Galahad played by Hugh Dancy) begin their perilous journey across Britain. Along the way they encounter Merlin and his crew, who for some unknown reason let them live and pass through the haunted forest alive. After rescuing the Roman family (along with some natives in dire need), Arthur and his knights are forced to turn and fight the Saxons (who outnumber them by the handful!).They are helped by a native warrior woman Guinevere (Kiera Knightley), who ends up forcing a confrontation between Merlin and Arthur. Arthur is finally faced with the choice to return to Rome or stay and fight for Britain alongside Merlin and the lovely Guinevere. The overall tone and feel of this film is dark, with lots of smoke and fog used in the battle scenes: although this film centers around battles and fight scenes, there is an underlying storyline that makes it entrancing and interesting.The knights are not larger-than-life heroes, chivalrous and pure legend not reality: they are real men. You cant help but cheer for Arthur and his knights as they fight against the odds to defeat the enemies of Britain and gain their own release: but when the time comes for this band of men to go home, will they go or will they stay? For me, the new setting for the King Arthur story and the realism made for a great story. Clive Owen did a phenomenal job as King Arthur and has gained respect in my eyes: Kiera Knightley was great, as always, as the Britain-warrior-woman Guinevere (although a completely different aspect of this legendary character, it never was so over the top as to annoy me), and Ioan Gruffud as Lancelot and Hugh Dancy as Galahad were wonderful as well: in fact, I think all the actors did a good job. If you like the story of King Arthur, you will like this: from the beginning to the end, you are taken on a real-life adventure with King Arthur and the knights of the round table. ... show more
Reviewed in the United States on March 28, 2012 by Charity Bishop
A surprisingly good movied and DVD!
Just a few thoughts for those of you thinking about buying this DVD. I'm commenting on the Unrated Extended version and did not see the movie in the theaters. First, I found the movie surprisingly good. Part of the reason I did not see this movie in the theater is that (to be honest) the trailers and clips I saw of the film before it was released just looked corny. The scene where Arthur meets the Saxon leader for the first time looked like a bad immitation of a bad Clint Eastwood movie. The scene where Arthur makes his "freedom" speech in front of his knights looked like a bad immitation of Mel Gibson in Braveheart. However, in the context of the story, these scenes are not only more believable, but meaningful as well. This is part of what I liked about this movie. The director does an excellent job building the stories and characters as the story moves to its climax. Rather than just a series of battles with some story thrown in to link them (or a story with some battles thrown in for excitement), the whole movie seems to move and grow. Even if you can guess the outcome from the beginning, you'll want to see how the movie gets there and ends. I won't comment much on the story itself since there are many more here who have already written about it and know much more than I do. I'll just say thanks to the script writer who commented here and for pointing out the key differences between this version and the theatrical version. I'll just add that I thought the story was interesting and believable for someone who isn't a scholar in the subject. There is also an alternate ending that adds some emotional closure to the story (although at the cost of some flow, which is why I suspect it wasn't used). Second, I also found this a surprisingly good DVD in terms of sound and picture quality. The sound was deep and clear on my home theater system. At times the dialogue was a bit low (as it often seems in movies with grand musical scores) but generally clear and understandable. The music itself was well done and added to the emotion and atmosphere. Sound effects (especially use of surround sound) was not extensive but was still effective. I think a bit more use of surround sound (especially in the "ice" scene or with the flight of arrows from different directions) would have been neat, but not necessary. I thought the picture was extremely clear and clean on an HDTV with a progressive scan DVD player. Some of the scenes (even when the sun is shining above) seemed a bit dark or muted (not without detail but less bright than you'd expect a sunny day to be), but I suspect that's the director's decision and not the film or video transfer. Otherwise, I thought the picture quality was excellent. For videophiles there is a nice extra in the Bonus Features section of the DVD. There are some THX tools to adjust and optimize your TV (contrast, brightness, picture position, etc) so that you get the best possible picture quality for this DVD. Not as extensive a set of tools as some of the callibration disks, but still a nice feature. The only negative here is that a couple of the tests require a filter to view colors. They should either include this filter in the DVD pack or omit the test entirely. So, those are my thoughts on the DVD and why I found it surprisingly good for a few reasons. Hope this was helpful and that you enjoy the movie if you decide to get it. ... show more
Reviewed in the United States on January 16, 2005 by dcinDC
Setting the record straight - finally
I had wanted to see this movie in the movie theater last summer, but never quite made it. Having watched the extended directors cut last night I am kicking myself for not making it to the local multiplex to catch this grand scale epic on the big screen. I really cannot understand all the negative press this movie has received. Historical evidence (as presented in a quite excellent History channel documentary recently) proves that King Arthur was most likely a Roman general who did band together with the native Britons in fighting off the invading Saxons. The traditional story that Hollywood has brainwashed the movie-going public into believing is total drivel. Arthur was not a figure of the middle ages, he was not an Anglo-Saxon and there was no magical sword in the stone. For years I have felt disdain for the manner in which the English have claimed King Arthur as their own - here at last is a movie that goes some way to setting the record straight. One really should not forget that the warriors from Brittany who sailed with Norman the Conqueror sang and celebrated King Arthur as their hero, someone who had fought to protect the Britons from the invading Saxon hordes. Another criticism leveled at this movie is the presentation of Guinevere as a warrior woman. However this is also historically accurate as explained by actress Keira Knightley in both the "Making of..." documentary and the roundtable discussion (included as part of this impressive DVD set). Women often were quite capable warriors and it was not until about five centuries later that they faded into historical obscurity. Was it not after all a Briton warrior queen who caused Rome so much concern in the earlier centuries of the first millennium? What we have here is a thoroughly entertaining, informative and dramatic recounting of the inspiration for the Arthur legend. Arthur himself is a half Briton, half Roman who takes command of a group of Samatian (sp?) cavalrymen guarding Hadrians Wall (historical evidence also points to this being an accurate account). With news of an invasion to the north by the Saxons Arthur and his men are sent to retrieve a Roman family and transport them back to safety. What follows is an epic struggle to survive and a growing awareness by Arthur as to his Briton heritage. I really enjoyed this movie and I also think the DVD is exceptionally well done. The highlight of the special features in my opinion is the roundtable discussion which includes the major actors as well as the writer, director and producer. They discuss the historical accuracy of the movie as well as the challenges in bringing it to the screen. There is also a (rather fluffy) making of documentary, an audio commentary and a (rather lame) trivia track. Overall though this movie is an impressive achievement. NOTE TO MR. GEORGE: Most of the evidence quoted comes from the aforementioned History Channel documentary on King Arthur as well as material covered in the DVD for which this is a review. I am also at a loss to understand where your assertion that I have a disdain for the English comes from - since I am part English myself. ... show more
Reviewed in the United States on December 22, 2004 by Darren Harrison
Great movie, but not history
King Arthur is a great movie, and the extended edition is a great edition to the library of an Arthurian legend buff. But this isn't history, neither is Arthurian legend for that matter. This is closer to the true story than most versions. For anyone who cares, here's a cliff notes version of the Roman withdrawal from Britain. In the first century the Roman Empire conquered and subjugated all of southern Britain, but as they pushed north of modern day York they began to encounter unusually heavy resistance from a tribe known as the Picts. Every push north into Pictish territory met with heavy losses, which the Empire had difficulty sustaining so far from Rome. By the beginning of Hadrian's reign, the conquest of northern Britain had stalled into stalemate. The last straw was the destruction of the 9th legion, the most victorious legion in Rome's history. Ironically the 9th was sent north on a punitive/rescue mission after Pict raiders burned a frontier fort and the surrounding village, and took several Roman and Roman British hostages. Following the 9th's "disappearance", Hadrian order all aggressive action in Britain to halt, and ordered the legions in Britain to construct his wall, to keep the Picts out. Now fast forward to the late 4th century, just after the Visigoths sacked Rome, the first time a non-Roman force had done so in about a thousand years. The Western Empire is an extreme state of disrepair, the product of political corruption, poor leadership, and endless raids from barbarian tribes. As a matter of strategic necessity, Rome began to abandon it's outermost holdings. At the close of the 5th, the phased withdrawal from Britain was well underway. As the legions were being recalled, the heavily Romanized Britons were simply abandoned. Without the legions to hold them back, Pict and Irish raiders had a field day, attacking every chance they got. The Britons hadn't had to defend themselves in 400+ years, and decided on a very Roman solution, hiring barbarian mercenaries. Now enters a man whose name should be synonymous with blunder, Vortigern. He was king of Kent, and had the brilliant idea of inviting a formerly Roman employed tribe called the Saxons to fight off the Picts and Irish. At first the Saxons only brought a few hundred warriors, but the results were phenomenal. After only a few engagements, the Irish ceased aggressive action. As a reward, the Saxons demanded and received a considerable amount of gold and silver, and a portion of southern Kent. The next wave of Saxons counted in the thousands, and included women and children. By the time the Britains realized the their mercenaries were trying to settle, it was too late. After that, wave after wave after wave of Saxons landed, and there was no stopping them. Those Britons that could fled west, into what is now known as Wales. Welsh, as it turns out, is Saxon for "stranger." By the Battle of Badon Hill, the Romans were long gone. ... show more
Reviewed in the United States on December 9, 2011 by Hooga Chacka
An outstanding and feasible story
I'll start by saying that I'm a moderate Arthurian enthusiast - I like the Mary Stewart retelling best of all, but the versions that go over the top with sorcery just don't hold my interest. If you love the legend in its more fantastic form, then this movie is probably not for you. But if you have an interest in how such a popular legend may have originated, then I highly recommend it - and most definitely get the Director's Cut over the theatrical release. There are a few extra battle moments that I could take or leave, but the additional character scenes add both substance and understanding. I love this version of the story for its simplicity and feasibility. It is a stripped-down exploration of the circumstances and events that could have led one man to take on the mantle of responsibility that Arthur of legend bore, and it is free of the mysticism and spells that clog the legend. A sadly two-thirds empty Round Table speaks of the reality and loss of years of warfare, and we have here an excellent twist on the Sword in the Stone. The characterizations of the knights and Arthur are well done, and represent the ragtag collection of men from many different backgrounds that the process of Roman conquest must have amassed. These are not shining knights but men who control their resentment of long years of servitude. The personalities of each are distinct and colorful and their relationship and bond with each other is clear. There is an eloquent scene in which the remaining knights have an entire conversation and reach a mutual decision without one word of dialogue. Clive Owen presents an Arthur worthy of anyone's loyalty. Lancelot is a ladies' man, a superb warrior, and an embittered skeptic who, for once, does NOT get the girl and betray the trust of his friend - and for me this was a refreshing and welcome change. Guenivere as a strong and capable woman (and handy in battle) seems a far more fitting and useful partner for a man who's attempting to unite a nation. I have to say that the first time I saw the film, I raised an eyebrow at the physics of the frozen lake scene, but have since made my peace with it. The final confrontation between Arthur's outnumbered forces and the Saxons include tactics reminiscent of William Wallace. As for the score, Hans Zimmer has composed a theme worthy of the legend, and the score has the haunting thread of Moya Brennan's vocals woven through it. The atmosphere set by the cinematography and direction is of a barely tamed and beautiful land, and the cast is very well chosen. ... show more
Reviewed in the United States on March 7, 2005 by C. Greene
How it works
Checking for best price...