Review of King Arthur (2004) by David Edelstein for Slate — 14 Jun 2007
King Arthur is profoundly stupid and inept, but it's an endless source of giggles once you realize that its historical revisionism has nothing to do with archeological discoveries and everything to do with the fact that no one at Disney would green-light an old-fashioned talky love triangle with a hero who dies and an adulterous heroine who ends up in a nunnery.
You can read the full review where it was originally posted online.
This review of King Arthur (2004) was written by David Edelstein and published by Slate on 14 Jun 2007.
King Arthur has generally received positive reviews.
Was this review helpful?
Yes
No
