It's a good movie. I'm sure it will be nominated for a few Academy Awards (like sound effects & maybe score). But for me, I don't go see movies based on what critics say because that is their opinion. I want to see a movie because it looks interesting. Which is why I wanted to see King Arthur. I thought it looked good and I have, so far, loved all of Jerry Bruckheimer movies.
Let's put it this way, it's not Academy Award winning movie on the Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress level (IMPO, doesn't mean that in Feb 05 it might not get nominated), but it is GOOD entertainment.
The script is good. It has a few laughs.
[hijack] As for the "history" or "legend" factor. One thing people need to remember that Historians have found proof that their was an Arthur during the Dark Ages but this proof was "written" in the Middle Ages. As a person who has a BA History, I have to mention that the reason they have no record in the Dark Ages, was because there is pretty much LIMITED written records for the Dark Ages, that is why it is called the Dark Ages. Like I said there is "proof" that an Arthur existed but if he became king and if he had a round table with knights, we will never know. [end of History lesson hijack]
(If someone out there has more than just a BA History and has more collegiate knowledge on the Dark Ages, please feel free to correct me. I'm basing this off of all I learned in my History courses)
Threaded Mode