In summary: King Arthur was a movie based on an idea with good potential (as long as you buy into its world view) and given a terrible script which made mishmash of all the potentially good details. The characters weren't charismatic, none of them had chemistry (and I mean in a friendship-buddy way as well as romantic, depending on circumstances), and they struggled with lousy dialog. The movie was shot largely documentary-style, and the battle scenes were somewhat abstracted as a consequence. There was some pretty scenery and everybody had photogenic teeth. The movie certainly had redeeming qualities, but I couldn't say it was especially good.

* One of the jobs credited in the credits was for "Greens Dressing".

* Although there's a line at the beginning of the movie about "news archaeological evidence" about Arthur having been recently discovered, never once does the movie claim to have actually acted on any of this information.

* Any Hollywood movie which mentions the Pelagian Controversy endears itself to me.


* I felt that this movie wanted to be about the American Revolutionary War and the fight for democracy, or something like that, but it was stuck being set in fifth century Britain and about an amorphous fight for "freedom", whatever that is.

* I'm sad to say I spotted what looked like a typography error in the credits - "Sound MIxer".

* There weren't enough tertiary characters among the Woads or the Saxons.

* At least they made it very easy to tell who the bad guys were - they were the ones raping and torturing.

* The script writers had a decidedly macabre sense of humor.

* At the end, Arthur says something about Britain being united under one cause. I have no clue what cause that is.

* I thought white wedding dresses were a product of the 19th century.

And so the Saxons were driven out of Britain (those who weren't already dead) in the fifth century forever more, never to return... or something like that.