Search - King Arthur [UMD for PSP] on UMD for PSP


King Arthur [UMD for PSP]
King Arthur
UMD for PSP
Actors: Clive Owen, Stephen Dillane, Keira Knightley, Ioan Gruffudd, Mads Mikkelsen
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Genres: Action & Adventure, Military & War
R     2005     2hr 6min

Now, from the producer of PEARL HARBOR and the director of TRAINING DAY . . . experience the extended unrated director's cut of this hard-hitting action epic! Prepare for more thrills, more adventure, and more intensity as...  more »

     

Larger Image

Movie Details

Actors: Clive Owen, Stephen Dillane, Keira Knightley, Ioan Gruffudd, Mads Mikkelsen
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Creators: Bruce Moriarty, Chad Oman, James Flynn, Jerry Bruckheimer, Mike Stenson, Morgan O'Sullivan, David Franzoni
Genres: Action & Adventure, Military & War
Sub-Genres: Action & Adventure, Military & War
Studio: Touchstone / Disney
Format: UMD for PSP - Color - Subtitled
DVD Release Date: 06/21/2005
Original Release Date: 07/07/2004
Theatrical Release Date: 07/07/2004
Release Year: 2005
Run Time: 2hr 6min
Screens: Color
Number of Discs: 1
SwapaDVD Credits: 1
Total Copies: 0
Members Wishing: 0
Edition: Director's Cut
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Languages: English, Latin
See Also:

Similar Movies

Kingdom of Heaven/Crusaders
Director: Ridley Scott
   R   2006   2hr 24min
Excalibur
HD DVD
Director: John Boorman
   R   2006   2hr 20min
Reign of Fire
UMD for PSP
Director: Rob Bowman
   PG-13   2005   1hr 41min
Princess of Thieves
Director: Peter Hewitt
   NR   2005   1hr 28min
First Knight
   PG-13   1997   2hr 13min
   
Kingdom of Heaven
2-Disc Widescreen Edition
Director: Ridley Scott
   R   2005   2hr 24min
   
Robin Hood
Two-Disc Unrated Director's Cut
Director: Ridley Scott
   UR   2010   2hr 20min
Troy
Two-Disc Widescreen Edition
Director: Wolfgang Petersen
   R   2005   2hr 43min
   

Similarly Requested DVDs

Ella Enchanted
Full Screen Edition
Director: Tommy O'Haver
   PG   2004   1hr 36min
   
Music and Lyrics
Full Screen Edition
Director: Marc Lawrence
   PG-13   2007   1hr 36min
   
 

Movie Reviews

My Kind of King Arthur.... At Last!
Gormlaithe | Colorado, USA | 04/28/2006
(5 out of 5 stars)

"I have read the negative and positive reviews of this film, especially noting the numerous complaints about historical accuracy. But considering the era from which this story is created, and the various possibilities regarding exact time and place of events, (if they ever occurred at all), I think the film is a truly magnificent, thought-provoking piece about King Arthur.

Bringing in the aspect of the Sarmatians was long overdue in the Arthurian arena. Although various historians may argue the point, much evidence does point to the use of stirrups by about 8000 Sarmatian cavalry in the Roman army as early as 175 AD. With the commonly held belief that the stirrup was not introduced until many centuries later, I thought it a bold move for the movie makers to incorporate this into the film as well. It seemed to be one of the most commonly noted 'discrepancies' by reviewers, but I disagree - it is very accurate.

If you have watched only the PG13 version of this film, by all means, please watch not only the Director's Cut version, but take the time to also watch/listen to Antoine Fuqua's narrative over the film. His narration explains a lot, especially about how they had to change things drastically to make the mandated PG 13 rating. His explanation regarding his version of Lancelot and Guinevere is quite a statement as well.

The alternate ending was quite dark, or perhaps even depressing, in a way. I don't know which ending is more suitable, and actually would have liked to have seen perhaps a different ending altogether, just don't know what that would have been.

I thought the actors were incredible; the battle scenes (director cut) some of the only such scenes I've ever watched that let you identify the main characters' roles during the fighting; the photography was the best I have ever seen; the music illustrated and enhanced; and this movie left you wanting to see more when it was over.

There was no dwelling on use of special effects for blood and gore, or rediculous feats of super-power athletics, or campy remarks that would bring you immediately back to your own century. The horses were not constantly being tripped during battle scenes, either. All these were a welcome change from so many movies of today.

Above all, it passed the real test of a great movie - it left you with 'a feeling' after it was over.

In short, I loved it. Antoine Fuqua, you are a genius.
"
Interesting Interpretation
FitzFG | Upstate New York | 12/08/2004
(4 out of 5 stars)

"If you are looking for a strict retelling of the stereotypical King Arthur legend then this movie is not for you. If, however, you are open to seeing new interpretations of the tale then I would recommend watching this movie. This movie does a good job of combining the legend with history and a little bit of fantasy/epic-heroism. In doing this it becomes a movie that tells the story of the "real" Arthur and yet has enough elements of the legend to imply how the real story could have developed into the legend after years of retelling and exageration. One thing that I personally liked(others may disagree) is that they sidelined the love triangle between Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere. There were interactions that can be seen as the origins of the legend, but the love/betrayal plotline did not overwhelm the more engaging central plot.

This film only rates four stars because it is just a good film, not a great one. I would recommend renting it first to see if you like it before buying it."
Aenglaland
Eoin | UK | 04/07/2006
(4 out of 5 stars)

"The movie is pretty good BUT watch the directors cut only, however, historically and geographically it's a bit awry.
YES there was a Romano-British warlord called Artorius Castus, YES 4000 Sarmatian heavy cavalry were sent to northern Britannia around 180 AD from southern Russia, it was part of a peace deal between Marcus Aurelius and the Sarmatians. YES the sword religon was a Scythio-Sarmatian ritual of the sacred sword, blood, plunging it into the earth etc
However most of their desendents by the 450's AD (when the movie is set) when the romans left britain would have been native british, and half were thought to have left to fight with Constantine in Europe.
NO they wouldn't have worn armour as in the film. The Picts were ORIGINAL peoples of northern britain (Scotti were immigrants from Dal Ria in North Ireland). They may have worn blue (Woad) body paint as modern research has suggested it had antiseptic properties to protect against wounds, they did use composite bows and crossbows. The romans invited in the Saxons as mercenaries against the Irish, Scots, Welsh (no such term as Celt then! thats an 18th century invention) and other Saxon raiders. They rebelled when they weren't paid and took over southern britain, brought they're families over and the rest is history (evenually to become Aenglaland...England). One of the biggest mistakes in the film though is that all the romano-british v saxon fighting took place in southern britain, not around Hadrian's Wall, and the final battle of Baden Hill is thought to be in south-western england.
But if you're not too bothered by that it's not bad, particulary the less sanitised Directors Cut version with the blood restored!
If you're interested check out the book "Arthur the Dragon King by Howard Reid" for a good comprehensive historical account."
Pseudo-historical, but entertaining
R. L. T. Miskell | Norwood, MA | 10/26/2005
(2 out of 5 stars)

"As a grad student in medieval history, let me first say that this movie's announced intention seemed intriguing. Then I saw the film. My hopes for a decent, responsible historical revision were smashed by its crass attempt at appearing revolutionary, innovative, and important.

The majority opinion is that Arthur, if he existed at all, was likely a Romanized Briton who fought against the slowly rising tide of Angle, Saxon, and Jute immigrants (many of whom were actually hired as mercenaries by the resident Britons to defend against Picts, etc. He would more likely have lived toward the end of the fifth century, or the beginning of the sixth; the Roman legions evacuated around the beginning of the fifth century.

Regarding the choice of Sarmatia (against one far-off vassal of Rome was as good as another), it makes no sense that the Roman Army would send such a small contingent so far afield from their origin, especially considering their utility against the Parthians. It would have been logistically irresponsible. Plus, Sarmatians would have fallen under the control of Constantinople; the Eastern emperors would likely not have sent useful auxillaries to the Western fringe, to their own military detriment.

Most horrendously, the film makes a gross mockery of the Church. While some might enjoy this, it is almost completely inaccurate, historically. (1) The bishop is shown in a most disrespectful and inaccurate manner; clearly the director/producer wanted to take a hit at the Catholic clergy with this movie. (2) Also, the Church did not resort to forced conversions, at least in the manner demonstrated in the film. The Church had only a century before come around to accepting the justifiability of warfare and capital punishment when carried out by Christian rulers. Torture didn't enter into accepted ecclesiastical practice until several centuries later, and then only in extreme inquisitorial cases. Furthermore, the inquisitorial procedure, we know it, was only initiated in pursuit of heresy under Innocent III, who reigned from the end of the 1100's to early 1200's. (3) The armies of the Roman Empire in the West did not serve the pope. There were no such things as "papal armies" at this time. There were odd, rare occasions that popes would lead defensive measures in the vicinity of Rome itself, but the popes did not send out pontifical armies to squash resistance, either political or doctrinal. This is terribly anachronistic. (4) Just as the popes did not have armies to enforce their will throughout the western half of the Empire, nor did they have the authority to make liberal, nepotistic land grants throughout the breadth of the Empire, as the movie portrays. This would be a dangerous act for any pope to take, considering both the reigning emperors in Rome itself (last was deposed in 476, long after troops were pulled from Britain), and the reigning emperors in the East, who lasted until 1453. And to argue on the basis of the Donation of Constantine is also anachronistic, as it dates from the mid to late eighth century.

All in all, this movie's claim to historical accuracy is null and void.

It is at least enjoyable for the martial violence and occasionally cheesy effects.
"