[MysticCat]

I enjoyed it. Cinematically, I thought it was really good. The battle scenes were great, especially the scene on the frozen river. I didn't regret the money I shelled out at all.

Historically -- eh. I think that most historians agree that the Arthur legend started from two or three actual historical figures whose stories got blurred and jumbled together with a good dose of Christianized Celtic/British myth thrown in, and with some French romance legends being added later. The movie focused on the figure of Ambrosius Aurelius (who was named Arturius in this movie, and who, according to some medieval sources, was the brother of Uther Pendragon, Arthur's father) and on the battle of Baden Hill (where Roman commanders supposedly led British tribesmen to repel, at least for a while, the Saxon invasion, but which the movie somehow moved from near the Thames to Hadrian's Wall). But while they used some of these historical nuggets, they mixed them all up with parts of legend -- Lancelot, Gawain and all. Oh well. Movies is magic.

And I am impressed with any movie script that can work in the pelagian heresy, even if they were a bit predictable in making Pelagius out to be the voice of reason against the supposedly evil Roman pope.

The two things that distracted me throughout, historically speaking, was that they kept calling Arthur's men "knights" rather than "warriors" or "soldiers," when the concept of knighthood didn't develop until centuries later, and that the "knights" were sometimes seen wearing chain mail, which wasn't invented until centuries later. Oh well. Movies is still magic.