Product Description

King Arthur the Extended Unrated Director's Cut contains fourteen minutes of never-before-seen footage, including more intense battle sequences and the scenes "Rain and Snow" and "Saxons Surrounded." Bonus Features

• Alternate Ending "Badon Hill" With Optional Director Commentary
• Blood On The Land: Forging King Arthur
• Cast And Filmmaker Round Table
• Director Commentary
• "Knight Vision" Trivia Track
• Producer's Photo Gallery
• Konami's King Arthur Playable Xbox Demo

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #3185 in DVD
• Brand: KNIGHTLEY,KEIRA
• Released on: 2004-12-21
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
• Formats: AC-3, Closed-captioned, Color, Director's Cut, Dolby, Dubbed, DVD, Subtitled, THX, Widescreen, NTSC
• Original language: English, Latin
• Subtitled in: Spanish, French
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 126 minutes

Amazon.com
It's got a round table, some knights, and a noble warrior who rises to become King Arthur, but everything else about this revisionist legend is pure Hollywood. That's not such a bad thing if you enjoyed Rob Roy, Braveheart, Gladiator, and Troy, and there's some intriguing potential in presenting the "real" Arthur (played by Clive Owen) as a 5th-century soldier of Rome, assigned to defend Roman-imperial England against a hoard of invading Saxons (led by Stellan Skarsgård in hairy villain mode). As revamped history and "archaeological findings" would have us believe, Guinevere (Keira Knightley) is a warrior babe in face-paint and Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is a nonentity who fades into the woodwork. Never mind! Best to enjoy the harsh, gloomy atmosphere of Irish locations, the ruggedness of Owen and his hearty supporting cast, and the entertaining nonsense of a Jerry Bruckheimer production that strips battle-ready Guinevere down to leather-strap S&M gear while all the men sport full-body armor. Hail to the queen, indeed! --Jeff Shannon

DVD features
The 15 extra minutes of footage in the unrated extended cut of King Arthur mostly add more graphic violence such as severed limbs, spattering blood, and arrows through heads (instead of torsos in the theatrical version). It doesn't all seem necessary, but it probably is more realistic for depicting combat with sharp metal objects. There are also some new scenes, including a glimpse of the young Arthur and a conversation between Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) and Guinevere (Keira Knightley). The love scene is the same, but it's been moved just slightly to a more logical yet less satisfying spot in the film. Oddly, in his commentary track director Antoine Fuqua doesn't even break his various trains of thought to discuss these additions, other than to complain about how he had to edit his R-rated film to earn a PG-13 rating ("I wanted to slit my throat I was so depressed."). Fuqua is usually pretty interesting to listen to, partly because of his political viewpoints, and he draws parallels in his film with nation-building in Iraq and how minorities make up a disproportionate portion of the U.S. military. He also discusses his influences, provides more historical perspective (Knightley's leather battle outfit could actually be considered conservative), and heaps praise on his collaborators.

The making-of documentary and "round table" (ha ha) discussion among the principals (Fuqua, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, Clive Owen, and Keira Knightley, and others) are worth watching for their behind-the-scenes info and historical background, respectively. There's also a grimmer alternate ending, a sporadic subtitled trivia track (low point: "An ambush is a sudden attack made from a concealed position"), and a demo for the hack 'n' slash Xbox game. --David Horiuchi

From The New Yorker
There's not a lot of Camelot in David Franzoni's script of the Arthurian drama. Taking a more realistic approach, the screenwriter of "Gladiator" demythologizes the characters into medieval ruffians. It's a very bad idea. Arthur (Clive Owen) merely commands a group of fighting men, Merlin (Stephen Dillane) is a sorcery-free rebel, and Guinevere (Keira Knightley), in inexplicable Xena-wear, is a warrior princess. The film's plot revolves around the Knights of the Round Table on one final mission to rescue the godson of the pope. Don't ask. -Bruce Diones
Copyright © 2006 The New Yorker

Customer Reviews

My Kind of King Arthur.... At Last!
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.

Aenglaland
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.

Interesting Interpretation
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.