Reader Recommends: King Arthur: Director's Cut (2004)

Today I decided to watch another recommended movie, once again from @Qu33n0f633k5. I had actually heard that King Arthur, while reviewed poorly when it was out in theaters, was a far better movie in it's Director's Cut version. The combination of recommendations spurred me on to seek it out, the Director's Cut version of course. What I've heard of the differences is that several scenes were added back in that build the characters better than in the theatrical version. I've never seen the original release, but on the other side of the jump, you can find my impressions of the Director's Cut.


The premise behind King Arthur is to work the character into what we know of our own history. Most of the stories about King Arthur are clearly fantasy, but many historians believe they are at least based on a real man. The film sets it up that the Roman Empire defeated the armies of the Sarmations to the east, and after the war, the only survivors were the elite members of their cavalry. The Romans were so impressed that they spared them and incorporated them into the military. Also, their sons and their son's sons would always be in the service of the Roman Empire guarding the lands of Briton far to the west. Arthur and his knights are these sons generations later. After 15 years of service, they are rewarded with their freedom from the Empire.

It is nearing the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, and the Saxons have amassed an army of thousands. Their leader, Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgard), marches them across Briton burning and killing everything and everyone they find, leaving none behind to seek revenge later. The Romans decide to abandon Briton and are recalling most troops back to Rome to hold what little left then can. Arthur (Clive Owen), who grew up in Briton, is left with his knights to defend this land which has become more than just a posting to them.

Arthur & his knights must go on one final mission to earn their freedom from the Roman Empire

After watching this, I'm curious to know what the movie was like before the Director's Cut, because I thought it was great. It's approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes, but some of that must be credits. My point is that it never felt like a long movie to me; I was always engrossed. I really liked the twist and merging ideas of Arthur being part of the Roman Military before he becomes the King of Britannia. Whether the events and people really were all in this time period, I just really liked the re-imagining of all the characters from the classic King Arthur stories. For example, Merlin and Guinevere (Keira Knightley) are native Britons, who paint themselves blue for battle, and fight against the Romans to take their homelands back. This of course means that at the start of the film, Arthur is often fighting against them since he works for the Romans.

The costumes and look of the characters was also great. Again, I just loved the combined look of the Roman armor with touches from their homeland Sarmation style. Arther is probably the one that looks most like a Roman Soldier, especially at the end, but I thought it was cool.

The Saxons... and Epic Beards!

Best of all was the ton of action that happens throughout the whole movie. There's plenty of fighting and killing, both on horseback and on foot. Lots of different types of weapons too. Bows, crossbows, swords, axes and some hand blades that I don't even know the name of. All the knights seem to specialize in a different type of weapon and it helped make each one stand out in the chaos of the fights. So even if tons of stuff was going on, you knew who it was because of the different weapons. I just wish they showed more of the kills. Most of the actual hits were off screen. I guess it was to save on the budget. There are a few good hits though.

As far as characters and acting goes, I thought it was good. There were plenty of scenes to build up a lot of the characters just enough, which would be hard to do because there are so many of them. You get a good sense of who is close to who and where the bonds lie. Even with the Saxons, you quickly get a good idea of how they think. Because of this fairly solid base, the acting of the various actors worked for me because I had a good idea who they were and it all felt true.

A new look for Guinevere, works for me

I would definitely recommend King Arthur: The Director's Cut to anyone who like these period action kind of movies. I don't think it'll blow your mind or anything like that. Lets not exaggerate. However, I did find it to be a fun movie and entertaining. And I think that's the most important thing a movie can do, entertain. If you're wondering where else I heard this version recommended, it was on Slashfilm, where they said it felt like an entirely different movie compared to the crappy film that came out in theaters. I'm surprised how vastly different the director's cut has made the opinions of this film, but I'm definitely glad I saw it. Great movie, well worth the watch in my eyes!