King Arthur (with clive owen)

[Sir Nate]

I cant stand this movie.
Every time I watch or attempt to watch it I just go
Ugh.
change the channel.
I just find it so, shameful to the Arthurian legend.
I know it's supposed that what would have been Arthur in history would have been sortave roman and fought Saxons.
But Rome is Still Around. Ive heard that knights may have started around then, but they weren't called knights- they were similar.
If you guys like this move That's fine.
I can't Stand it.

P.s. Started reading The children of Hurin by Tolkien. On chapter 6, really enjoying it so far.

[Sir William]

Shameful to which Arthurian legend?  I thought the story more plausible than the one told in Excalibur, for instance.  By the 6th century, Rome was but a shadow of its former might (some have posited this being due to the spread of Christianity, stealing the martial spirit of the people of Rome) and had been pulling back from the more far-flung provinces for some time at the point referenced in the movie.  Granted, they took some liberty with the timing of some of the events but 5th century was about right for when that drill down occurred.  If Arthur was in fact a real person, chances are better that he lived during the Dark Ages- and that movie as well as written works by those who believe it so, as there's some indication that there was a brief period of light and prosperity during said Dark Ages and perhaps that is how the myth of the hero Arthur was born.

If you want to read a particularly well-written rendition of the Arthurian legend, check out Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles.

The Winter King ISBN 0-14-023186-2
 Enemy of God ISBN 0-14-023247-8
 Excalibur: A Novel of Arthur ISBN 0-312-18575-8

Unlike a lot of Arthurian stories, these are set in 6th or 7th century Britain, when the Romans are but a memory, and the native Britons and Saxons are at war.  Probably the best stories of Arthur I've read thus far, and I've read a lot of them.

[Sir James A]

What year is the movie from? Doesn't ring a bell. I'll check it out.

[Don Jorge]

I love Bernard Cornwell, especially his holy grail trilogy. I personally like that Arthur movie but I can see why it isn't well received by everyone. It is realistic and less fantastical. Merlin is a druid and not a wizard. Arthur and his round table don't really exist, except now there is a historical figure from which they might have sprouted from and inspired Malory.

[Sir William]

What year is the movie from? Doesn't ring a bell. I'll check it out.

2004; Clive Owen and Keira Knightley lead a pretty impressive cast; as Belemrys said, being set at the last days of the Roman Empire, Arthur and his fellow warriors are soldiers of Rome looking to retire after their proscribed 15 years of service.  Arthur's a half Roman, half Briton leading Sarmatian cavalry soldiers (his Knights as he refers to them; I suspect so that the audience would understand who they were).  A lot of armor enthusiasts such as ourselves poked fun at the mish-mash of weapons and armaments.  Considering it was supposed to be late 5th C Britannia, you'll see the ubiquitous Roman war gear, such as Arthur wears, but you'll also see Asian-themed armor (Tristan), Bors dresses like a Mongol, Gawaine looks like a Viking but overall, it's an action packed movie with some good battle sequences.

Expectations of reality should of course be left at the door, though.

[Sir Edward]

I thought it was OK as a movie in general, but didn't like it as an Arthurian story. They tried very hard to fit it into that particular time-period, while deviating from the ballads to do so.

In a way it's not possible to do what they were trying to do. Most of the surviving stories and ballads come from a time when they used contemporary concepts to describe events that had supposedly happened a long time before. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit into any particular point in history, because of this. So given the choice, I'd rather be true to the way the stories were written, rather than shove the characters into a different era and invent new stories for them.

[Sir William]

Depends on which stories you're referring to, Sir Edward.  If you mean de Troyes' works, then yes, it did not fit within that canon.  Nor, for Malory, I think.  However, all of these Arthurian legends most likely got their start from older Welsh tales; I knew more on this back when I was more interested in Arthur in general.  Not that I'm not anymore, just that my interests have moved on and I've only got so much room to keep stuff in my head.

Since they are just stories, the when of it can be of interest too, or rather, a speculative look at what might have been for a given period.  I loved Excalibur as a kid, because the knight in shining armor concept that I'd first read about in Bulfinch's mythology was firmly entrenched in this movie but I appreciated the 2004 movie because it gave me a different viewpoint on the myth of Arthur that spurred me to doing a little research on the validity of its claims.  Turns out they got a number of things wrong, but I still liked the idea and the effort.

Let's face it, we KNOW he did not exist in the 12th - 16th centuries, but what we don't know is if he ever did, and if he did, when?  At least, that's my take on the subject.

[Sir Nate]

Isn't the oldest King Arthur involved story sir gawain the green? Which was around before le morte de arthur

[Don Jorge]

La Morte de Arthur was actually an anthology edited by Malory. So really there were LOTS of Arthurian legends/stories before La Morte.

[Sir William]

I love Bernard Cornwell, especially his holy grail trilogy. I personally like that Arthur movie but I can see why it isn't well received by everyone. It is realistic and less fantastical. Merlin is a druid and not a wizard. Arthur and his round table don't really exist, except now there is a historical figure from which they might have sprouted from and inspired Malory.

There was a 4th to the Grailquest series, 1356.  Although I'll be the first to admit that I really wanted something more by the end of the original trilogy, this seemed sort of half-assed.  Great premise but was over entirely too quickly.  I guess he had to stop somewhere, right?

[Don Jorge]

Oh, I only own the first three.

[Sir William]

It only came out this year...I put a reminder on it when I first heard he was writing it.  I think he could've written another three books on Thomas' exploits and I would've read them all.  Have you read his recent work, Azincourt?  Naturally, about Henry V's great battle, but not just that, of course. 

His Warlord Chronicles (5th Century Britain, about Arthur) and the Saxon Tales (8th Century Britain, about Alfred the Great) are some of the best medieval fiction works I've read, hands down.  The Saxon series has 5 books to it, and I think there's another on the way or already here.  I've got most of his stuff on my Kindle.  What's funny is I'd read a few of the Sharpe's books in my early 20s, liked them, then promptly forgot them in the tumult that is life; I got reacquainted with Cornwell when my wife surprised me with the Grail Quest series.  I was re-hooked.