I agree with what Patrick said but I would like to add this: Since they did tout this movie as being about the historical Arthur, they oblige themselves to open up a history book at some point. I was dissapointed in this movie.

At least it's not excalibur :P

I think Excalibur was a far superior story too (surfing on the coat tails of another :D). Now I will grant that the armor and acting were rather cheesy but I didnt mind that so much since the story itself was good. Espescially having read Le Morte D'Artur and noting the Reganistic Fisher King aspect of the movie. At least Excalibur had interesting themes it explored, King Arthur just kind of wallowed around in... well something i cant really identify. ;)

Excalibur is a great film! It took the mythical story of Arthur as it was and didn't try to set in the real world. :D

In fact I thought the Gothic style armours used in that film were quite appropriate considering that Thomas Mallory, Author of "Le Morte D'Arthur" lived in the 15th century. :)

If you want a dud, what about "First Knight" with Sean Connery and Richard Gere? :wtf:

Since pretty much no one here likes how Hollywood has done King Arthur movies, what specific things would include if you were given the chance to make one? Details please...

Patrick,
Perhaps we could compromise a little on the scantily clad females?


Paul

What about the Fisher King? Has anyone seen that? Set in modern times, but like Excalibur seems removed from reality and is very mythical and also very Arthurian.

I thought it was ok. I've learned not to go to hollywood if I want to get a history lesson, I learned this long ago. What it lacked is character. The characters weren't the type that you cared for and had you crying your eyes out when they died(brave heart and lord of the rings did that to me) King arthur's sword looked wrong for some reason it looked like one of those made in pakistan swords that you can buy in the flea market.

I just want to go on record as noting that Kiera Knightly has horrible teeth, in a jagged almost cannibalistic sort of way.


. . . sorry. . . had to be said.

The greatest Arthur film ever made

Actually, the best *King* Arthur movie ever made, I mean ever, without exception, ever, beyond the pale of any other, is, of course....

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

"You can't exercise supreme executive authority simply because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at you!"

However, I must admit that I'm one of those that would like to see a decent Arthurian movie set in it's historical context (post-Roman/"Dark Age" Britain). This period of history is of interest to me, and I'd like to see it handled in a fairly authentic manner. Which King Arthur failed to do, miserably. It failed on several different levels, IMHO.

First Knight? Like Patrick said, an armored chick flick....
Excalibur is the definitive Arthurian film for the modern era. It is often times silly and over-the-top, but if you consider it fantasy (which it is), then that's okay.
Merlin was a fun miniseries, which did attempt to place the story in a semi-historical setting (no knights in shining armor) while retaining the Morte D'Arthur fantasy element. It actually worked...

I remember a British series based on the life of the "Young King Arthur" which was also an attempt to place the Arthurian story in a more historical context. No magic or knights, just a young man growing up in turbulent times. Don't remember much else about it, though... it's been a while...