Well, First, the positive. Overall good acting, and not bad as movie, could have got happily twice the stars. So, why did I not give more ? Some elements are correct, e.g. the "tabula" with wax and the stilus (yep, the stylus was not invented with tablet computers :-)), but form a film that at the start pretends to be a true accurate historical reconstruction... Well, another comment made a list of 7 points historically wrong (though making some reference that could itself be disputable, e.g. Picts are in general considered part of the vast Celtic family), in reality, the list can be much longer, but just two examples... The Sarmatians were known for their cavalry, but it was heavy cavalry more similar to the "knights" (though not with the same type of rigid armor) than to what shown in the movies. Also, the "vallum" (by the way, that is the origin of the word "wall" ), to be historically accurate, should have shown the ditches etc. (effectively, a "vallum" was more than just a wall). And while it is true that in ancient time having hostages and tributes including slaves was not unheard of, the mechanism shown in the movie about enlisting in the Roman army is completely wrong. Is Hollywood famous for its historical accuracy (thus is this film really such a bad exception) ? Definitively NOT, and many times it goes straight into "propaganda" - that why some movies use the non committal (lawyer approved ;-)) "inspired by true events" ("inspired"). Again, the problem is that it that pretense at the start to be "THE" historical reconstruction. To enjoy some time, and see a different reinterpretation on the "Arthurian cycle", it's one thing, but do NOT pretend after seeing this movie that you know the story of "true Arthur", or the story or situation of the Europe, the Roman empire, or England in that period, because you will not.
Loading, please wait
A demystified take on the tale of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.
Downloaded 161,730 times
April 30, 2019