King Arthur: Director's Cut (Extended Unrated Version)

Product Details

Director : Antoine Fuqua
Actor : Valeria Cavalli, Charlie Creed-Miles, Pat Kinevane, Ivano Marescotti, Clive Owen
Format : AC-3, Director's Cut, Dolby, Dubbed, NTSC, Subtitled, THX, Widescreen
Aspect Ratio : 2.35:1
Binding : DVD
EAN : 9780788857553
Product Group : DVD
Release Date : 2004-12-21
Studio : Buena Vista Home Entertainment
UPC : 786936265262

ASIN : B0002YLCG0

Customers who bought this goods also bought.

Editorial Reviews

From 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

Customer Reviews

Un-rated director's cut...awesome (4.5/5) (2007-10-05)

i really enjoyed this movie from beginning to end.the movie basicallytells the story of King Arthur(Clive Owen) and his loyal knights ontheir quest for freedom around the year 400 AD.King Arthur and hisknights have been indentured to the Roman Empire for fifteenyears,carrying out missions for them.Now,the Romans have agreed that ifthey fulfill one more mission,they will be free.Ioan Gruffud(ReedRichards,Fantastic Four)plays Lancelot.Hugh Dancy(Black Hawk Down,BasicInstinct 2)plays Plays Galahad and Keira Knightley(both Pirates of theCaribbean movies and the upcoming 3rd)plays Guinevere.StellanSkarsgard(Bootstrap Bill,Pirates 2 and 3)also stars.the movie isdirected by Antoine Fuqua(Training Day,Tears of the Sun).this is onevery entertaining film with loads of action.not being much of a historybuff,i have no idea how historically accurate to the times it is,but idon't care.it is a very fast paced,fun film.if you are a historybuff,this movie might disappoint you,but if not,sit back and enjoy.4.5/5

great movie but... (2007-09-19)

If you enjoy historical movies set in the past this is a must see. There were excellent scenes added that were not in theatres...however...they also deleted some scenes which were strange. They were minor although noticeable because they exist on the regular dvd copy. Not for children! There are quite a few gory scenes (although not as bloody as 300).

somewhat entertaining but still make believe history (2006-08-01)

I enjoyed watching the movie the first time (with the knight vision trivia track turned on) as I enjoy watching ancient battle re-enactments and accompanying commentary. However, what I take issue with is this movie's implicit claim to follow historical evidence, that being of the late Roman Empire during Rome's withdrawl from Britain. The movie's claim that "Recently discovered archaeological evidence sheds light on his (Artorius Castus') true identity" is simple nonsense since even if there were (there are not any that I am aware of) an inscription identifying such an individual from the early 400's the connection with King Aurthur and associated legends would not necessarily follow. Moreover, the claim that Christianity came to England with Joseph of Arimathea in 63A.D is as about as credible as the contempory middle ages mythological stories about Arthur himself. The most troubling aspect of this movie is its anti-Catholicism/anti-monasticism (and I am most definitely not Roman Catholic). The movie claims that Pelagius was killed in Rome as a Heretic, but according to the Oxford Classical Dictionary (Pelagius 1131, 2003) we do not know when or how Pelagius died. However, what really gets me is the depiction of monks murdering non-converting pagans through a long and grusome process of imprisionment, starvation, and torture - they make Saddam look sociable. Cenobitic Western monasticism grew during and after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, not before (Monasticism, in The Encyclopedia of Religion vol 10, 1987). Consequently, the community of murdering monks is too early. Moreover, its location is highly suspect, but geography is not the strong point of this movie since Badon Hill is mostly likely located near Bath though Badon Hill's location could be linked to Bowden Hill in Scotland. Stonehenge where the marriage ceremony takes place is in the south of England. Moreover, there is no solid evidence of Catholics - monks or otherwise - trying to convert pagans in the manner depicted in the movie during the period which the movie purports to recreate. There are some more "facts" which I could dispute (e.g. military diplomas are not paper but metal for durability) which would not appreciably add to my critique. In conclusion I would ask that the movie's creators be more forthcoming with their biases such as in Mel Gibson's Braveheart, that the winners are the one's who record history not the losers, and that Braveheart is a creative retelling of events, implying that you can skip the known facts. Still I admit to having enjoyed watching the movie while trying to igore its anti-Catholic/anti-monastic bias, but after doing some research this movie falls well short of Alexander and Braveheart in my opinion.

Please, quit whining about loosing your fairytale (2005-11-18)

I have to admit that the scenario of the movie is a wee bit weak and that there are some anachronisms in time. But please! It's still the most likely representation of King Arthur that we've ever had in a movie yet. This movie is a historical INTERPRETATION, and that's exactly what history is, interpretation. We have no certainties so we interpret whatever clues we have and find the most likely source. And on this, the movie's done a pretty good job giving a good theory, though for the sake of Hollywood more was added to give it more appeal (but after all, it's not documentary, it's a movie, you need to invent at least some things...). As for those who complain on the dress of Guenevere, the only thing that's wrong is that there's too MUCH of it, not too little. In fact, most reports of native Britons in battle picture them naked or near-naked, depending on the weather presumably, so that if the weather was like in the movie, she should have been naked, but there goes PG-13! And there are also many characteristics of the Arthurian myth that have similarities in the ancient Sarmatian myths as well (sword in the stone, lady of the lake, etc...) so that the theory still holds on that point. In fact, King Arthur is one of the best history based blockbuster movie of 2005, and all the actors are really great for their parts (and the accents are great...).And if you're still not happy, buy "The First Knight" and have your fill of impossible fairytales!

A great movie. (2005-08-16)

This is a great movie, I have the director's cut, and its awesome.

Look for similar items by category

• Genres > Drama
• Genres > Action & Adventure
• Genres > Action & Adventure > By Theme

Related Link