Melissa Anderson23 said:I find it quite interesting that out of everyone there, Lancelot was actually killed on the battlefield.
Lancelot was a Knight of the Round Table and Guinevere's lover (which led to Arthur being cheated on).
Or perhaps those Blue-haired savages somehow managed to possess those ballistae (if that's even the right word)?
I suppose the Romans taught them how to build such things...
Come on, let's not be overly critical; the movie isn't actually that bad, especially if AT&T is offering it as a free movie. 🙂
In any case, it's still better than 'Xena,' and the combat scenes aren't half bad if you can look past the total historical absurdities. As for the story about King Arthur, that's a whole different matter—I don't understand why they felt the need to tie the entire film to King Arthur in the first place. It seems like it was done purely for marketing purposes, likely to capitalize on another version of the Arthur legend, just told with a slightly "different" twist this time. The film would have been identical if it were just about some random Roman legionary and his "knights" (what kind of knights exist in the 6th century, anyway?) or some "heavy cavalry"... why package something like this under the guise of King Arthur, only to claim at the very beginning that the story is historically grounded? What kind of impression will that leave on kids watching it? That King Arthur was a Roman legionary? Honestly, people should just head to the library and pick up a book.
All in all, the film is riddled with illogical leaps, historical inaccuracies, forced interpersonal drama (what was the point of that relationship between Guinevere and Arthur? 😕), and overly sentimental, pathetic scenes (like six knights taking on 20,000 soldiers). Still, the highlight had to be that sniper-style shot taking out the traitor from the tree... not to mention using longbows about 800 years before Agincourt, or those armor-piercing crossbow bolts...
