Good Example Of The True Story That Inspired The Legend Movie Review

Shot in 2004, “King Arthur” is an action adventure film by Antoine Fuqua. The movie represents a new vision on the personality of Arthur and his environment based on the new archeological findings. Though it has some historic faults, “King Arthur” was promoted as a historically accurate version of the Arthurian legends. While the historic existence of the figure of Arthur is disputed, the movie states this British leader was real and he lived in the late 5th and early 6th centuries.
The story takes place in 467 A.D. in Britain where the Roman officer Arthur and his Sarmatian cavalry execute the orders to become free after fifteen years of commitment. Throughout the movie, they fight with the Picts and the Saxons and in spite of quantitative inequality, they always manage to win. The Sarmatians are motivated to fight mostly because they dream to come back to their motherland while Arthur is governed by the ideas of honor and freedom. Though being half Roman, at some point, Arthur begins to doubt the Roman word of honor as well as the Christian religion. After saving the Pict named Guinevere who he falls in love with, Arthur is convinced to fight the Saxons not in the name of the Roman Empire but in the name of freedom of the Britons.
The end of the 5th century is marked in the history of Great Britain as sub-Roman Britain, the early Middle Ages. This period is the end of the rule of Roman Empire and the formation of the West of England and Wales. In this era, the Roman troops were withdrawn while the Saxon invaders caused a lot of trouble to the Britons, the Picts and Irish. King Arthur is said to have been the main fighter against the Saxons though there is no definite proof of his existence.
The film impresses the audience with its grandeur of shooting as well as the talented cast – Clive Owen, Keira Knightley, Ioan Gruffudd and many others. In spite of the presence of the historic consultant for the movie, “King Arthur” still lacks the most basic elements of Arthurian legend, such as the Holy Grail, Tristan’s love Iseult, Sir Kay and Sir Bedivere. The film does not really demonstrate the love triangle between Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere but only hints at possible “chemistry” of the latter ones. And finally, the Knights of the Round Table are Britons according to the legend.
“King Arthur” obviously holds itself out as a film based on facts, not the legend. But it lacks clarity even according to the historic facts. The scientists have not proved yet the hypothesis that the Sarmatians could have possibly been comrades in arms with Arthur which means that this element is more of a creative fiction. Though the film is set in AD 467, it is well known that the Roman legions withdrew from Britain in 410. Also, Cerdic and Cynric could not have died in the final battle of the movie because in 534, Cynric would become the king of Wessex founded by his father.
“King Arthur” is a brilliant action movie with a beautiful picture and professional camerawork. As for the script, it would be fair to say that the film represents another interpretation of the famous legend which has a right for existence. It may be closer to the truth than the traditional belief or it may be a good creative fiction – we will find it out when the historians find all the necessary parts of the big puzzle called “history”.