Fun flick and worth more than it's given

Rating: 8/10 (20 July 2008)

This movie was a fun, lighthearted adventure flick with lots of spills and chills to keep your interest up. The good guys and bad guys were clearly delineated. It was fun to see Colin Firth as a tough guy instead of the stuffy, stumbling, mumbling pseudo-nobility that he usually plays. Ben Kingsley is always fun. The kid was cute, the woman was tough, and Kevin McKidd, aka Lucius Vorenus of "Rome," is as good a bad guy as he ever was as a good guy.
My husband picked it up out of curiosity; we had never heard of it before and so went into it without expectations. When it went off we both were grinning. "Fun movie," my husband said, and he was right. I'll watch it again, too. It was that much fun. Kind of a throwback to a 1940's movie--I could easily see Basil Rathbone in Kevin McKidd's part, Errol Flynn as Colin Firth's character, and Maureen O'Hara as the feisty woman warrior.
I'm surprised to see all the horrible reviews. I don't know why people are so hung up on historical accuracy. There probably was an Arthur, but everything that is "known" about him is a legend anyway, so what's wrong if there's another movie to talk about the "legend before the legend"? And since the Romans were in Britain until 500 AD or so, what's wrong with a Roman precursor to Arthur? I watch movies to be entertained, and occasionally enlightened. If I learn a new fact (I always verify anything a movie depicts as fact before repeating it anyway) then so much the better, but I watch documentaries and read history books for my historical accuracy. There's nothing wrong with a good old-fashioned Saturday afternoon adventure flick. I liked it and am glad others were also able to take it in the spirit in which it was intended.