King Arthur (2004) Critic Reviews

An engrossing, highly intelligent reimagining of the legend of Arthur. Read the full review

Not a bad movie, although it could have been better. It isn't flat-out silly like "Troy," its actors look at home as their characters, and director Antoine Fuqua curtails the use of computer effects in the battle scenes, which involve mostly real people.Read the full review

Impressively made and well acted by an exceedingly attractive cast, this dark tale of ceaseless conflict is adult entertainment and will likely disappoint viewers expecting a "Camelot"-like love triangle.Read the full review

The film boasts all the hallmarks of the '50s historic epic save the presence of Tony Curtis.Read the full review

By going back to its origins and dusting itself off, the King Arthur story has proved itself to have a very contemporary resonance. Read the full review

In a movie like this one, a little madness is its own Holy Grail.Read the full review

King Arthur does to this legend what "Troy" did to Homer, with one important difference: It's a better movie.Read the full review

For better or worse, but surely satisfying novelty needs, Jerry Bruckheimer's King Arthur is set much earlier than usual and against the crumbling Roman Empire, which may even (or not) be historically legitimate.Read the full review

Conceptually compelling, but the interest ends there, in part because the humans get squeezed to the margins in favor of pseudo-history and clashing battleaxes.Read the full review